1. "Disabled" can have more than 1 definition. But the key one here is that it is both "substantial" and "long term" (normally over 1 year in duration). What genius claimed this person was not disabled when there was already clear evidence that both substantial and already over 1 year?
2. This employee was clearly struggling with their mental health. Realised they were unable to work the contracted hours, and asked for them to be reduced. What level of numpty says no? It is clearly of benefit to employer as well as employee.
The Management was not looking at what was best for the employee or the employer. Just their own agenda. It this was a private employer, heads would roll. Whereas the bottomless money pit that is NHS Funding will pay instead...
Comments
1. "Disabled" can have more than 1 definition. But the key one here is that it is both "substantial" and "long term" (normally over 1 year in duration). What genius claimed this person was not disabled when there was already clear evidence that both substantial and already over 1 year?
2. This employee was clearly struggling with their mental health. Realised they were unable to work the contracted hours, and asked for them to be reduced. What level of numpty says no? It is clearly of benefit to employer as well as employee.
The Management was not looking at what was best for the employee or the employer. Just their own agenda. It this was a private employer, heads would roll. Whereas the bottomless money pit that is NHS Funding will pay instead...