Dear ConcernedRelative,
I can really sympathise with your relative on this case. It really does sound as if the company concerned is scared of being sued, which is why they are intent on taking the somewhat drastic action.
It could well be worth pointing out to them that this action is actually more likely to be the cause of litigation - and it sounds that they are in breach of Health and Safety legislation for all their employees not just for those wearing contact lenses.
I wonder whether anyone else wears contacts? If so, there is a possible case of discrimination to answer on top of everything else.
I also wholeheartedly agree with Susan, you should certainly contact Action for Blind People, and probably also your local Citizens advice bureau or your local job centre's Access to Work people.
Best of luck for your relative, and please keep us all appraised of any progress.
KC and Employment
Moderators: Anne Klepacz, John Smith, Sweet
-
John Smith
- Moderator
- Posts: 1941
- Joined: Thu 08 Jan 2004 12:48 am
- Keratoconus: Yes, I have KC
- Vision: Graft(s) and spectacles
- Location: Sidcup, Kent
-
rosemary johnson
- Champion
- Posts: 1478
- Joined: Tue 19 Oct 2004 8:42 pm
- Keratoconus: Yes, I have KC
- Vision: Contact lenses
- Location: East London, UK
SOrry, folks, but I sympathise with the company here!
the main problem, it seem to me, is the letter from the doctor. This was rather unfortunate, shall we say, in talking about possible blindness if dust gets inthe eye, and generally "over the top" and quite likely to make a company worried.
A company that takes its H&S responsibilities seriously, anyway.
They do have a legal duty to carry out a risk assessment - for all their staff (and we do *not* know that they don't provide that noral, suitable protective clothing for all their staff) and a special one for anyone with particular medical conditions.
they have a letter from a doctor which talks about the person maybe being made blind if they get dust in their eye under ther contact lens.
They have said that they cannot guarantee this will never happen.
From what ConcernedRelative has said, this environment is a natural and normal part of the job, and cannot be engineered out of the job.
The evidence they have from the doctor is that continuing to work in the environment has potential terrible effects.
They have taken the obvious safety route.
They have an obligation to make "reasonable adjustments" - that doesn't mean changing the whole nature of their business.
A reasonable adjustment may be to redeploy a person who cannot - because according to evidence supplied by their doctor, it is too risky -
Say they might redeploy that person to another job, say in an office, where the environment is less risky.
If the person doesn't want to be redeployed, they can't force them.
If the person declines a redeployment, that person is surrendering their entitlement.
Note: a "trial period" would be reasonable - for both parties.
It strikes me the best - probably only - way out of this is to suggest getting more specialist medical advice - maybe from the eye hospital/clinic, or eventhe KC group (!!) - which could tone down the dramatic and worrying advice given by the GP.
Maybe there's a better type of goggles - or maybe instead of saying "you must never get dust in your eye" you could take the route of "if dust gets in an irritates, you muust wash it out, and remove and clean the contact lens immediately" - so add an eyewash and contact lens stuff to team's first aid kit to take on site.
In other words, revisit the risk assessment, and reduce the panic level.
This sounds like a very delicate piece of negotiation - basically, it's about getting them to accept that the original doctor's letter was OTT without saying explicitly the dr was out of line, and without leaving that letter as the only evidence in black and white.
Good luck with it.
I'll second the advice to get specialist advice - maybe a union rep, if there is one, but be careful! - I remember from my union rep days how some of my colleagues could be very antogonistic, and if you go into this one with a fighting attitude, I suspect you're more likely to see them digging ever harder into their preventative position an dwaving the dr's letter around ever more as justification. You need delicacy
A DEA (from the JOb Centre) may also be able to help.
Is there any chance of talking to the dr who wrote the letter and seeing if there is any scope for help from him/her??
Good luck! - an dkeep us posted.
Rosemary
the main problem, it seem to me, is the letter from the doctor. This was rather unfortunate, shall we say, in talking about possible blindness if dust gets inthe eye, and generally "over the top" and quite likely to make a company worried.
A company that takes its H&S responsibilities seriously, anyway.
They do have a legal duty to carry out a risk assessment - for all their staff (and we do *not* know that they don't provide that noral, suitable protective clothing for all their staff) and a special one for anyone with particular medical conditions.
they have a letter from a doctor which talks about the person maybe being made blind if they get dust in their eye under ther contact lens.
They have said that they cannot guarantee this will never happen.
From what ConcernedRelative has said, this environment is a natural and normal part of the job, and cannot be engineered out of the job.
The evidence they have from the doctor is that continuing to work in the environment has potential terrible effects.
They have taken the obvious safety route.
They have an obligation to make "reasonable adjustments" - that doesn't mean changing the whole nature of their business.
A reasonable adjustment may be to redeploy a person who cannot - because according to evidence supplied by their doctor, it is too risky -
Say they might redeploy that person to another job, say in an office, where the environment is less risky.
If the person doesn't want to be redeployed, they can't force them.
If the person declines a redeployment, that person is surrendering their entitlement.
Note: a "trial period" would be reasonable - for both parties.
It strikes me the best - probably only - way out of this is to suggest getting more specialist medical advice - maybe from the eye hospital/clinic, or eventhe KC group (!!) - which could tone down the dramatic and worrying advice given by the GP.
Maybe there's a better type of goggles - or maybe instead of saying "you must never get dust in your eye" you could take the route of "if dust gets in an irritates, you muust wash it out, and remove and clean the contact lens immediately" - so add an eyewash and contact lens stuff to team's first aid kit to take on site.
In other words, revisit the risk assessment, and reduce the panic level.
This sounds like a very delicate piece of negotiation - basically, it's about getting them to accept that the original doctor's letter was OTT without saying explicitly the dr was out of line, and without leaving that letter as the only evidence in black and white.
Good luck with it.
I'll second the advice to get specialist advice - maybe a union rep, if there is one, but be careful! - I remember from my union rep days how some of my colleagues could be very antogonistic, and if you go into this one with a fighting attitude, I suspect you're more likely to see them digging ever harder into their preventative position an dwaving the dr's letter around ever more as justification. You need delicacy
A DEA (from the JOb Centre) may also be able to help.
Is there any chance of talking to the dr who wrote the letter and seeing if there is any scope for help from him/her??
Good luck! - an dkeep us posted.
Rosemary
-
ConcernedRelative
- Newbie
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Fri 18 Nov 2005 2:38 pm
Hi again,
I agree the employers have simply over reacted to the doctors letter.
You are right about seeking a comprimise, we are not looking to go in to this all guns blazing, I am looking for suggestions that this person can make to their employer as to ways around the situation. Things like goggles, eye wash, etc are all great suggestions.
We are also looking for ways the employer can be informed of the condition and potential problems and the ways they can be avoided/rectified on site at work. If they think the person is in control of the condition, they may reconsider.
I think the company will be willing to listen, i just wanted to get the right think to tell them clear, beforehand.
Examples of people who have worked around the problem are all very helpful, big thanks Gareth B
CR
I agree the employers have simply over reacted to the doctors letter.
You are right about seeking a comprimise, we are not looking to go in to this all guns blazing, I am looking for suggestions that this person can make to their employer as to ways around the situation. Things like goggles, eye wash, etc are all great suggestions.
We are also looking for ways the employer can be informed of the condition and potential problems and the ways they can be avoided/rectified on site at work. If they think the person is in control of the condition, they may reconsider.
I think the company will be willing to listen, i just wanted to get the right think to tell them clear, beforehand.
Examples of people who have worked around the problem are all very helpful, big thanks Gareth B
CR
-
Sweet
- Committee
- Posts: 2240
- Joined: Sun 10 Apr 2005 11:22 pm
- Keratoconus: Yes, I have KC
- Vision: Graft(s) and contact lenses
- Location: London / South Wales
Rosemary, i think your reply was really good and it was nice to see someone sticking up for the company here!
I did think that the doctors response was a little paranoid, but he may not understand the condition fully himself, or indeed be just as worried about malpractice charges or being sued! Also while he might have been a little off base stating a risk of blindness, he is identifying the real risk of corneal abrasions, risk of foreign bodies and indeed infection, which can equally cause enough damage themselves. (Not put here to worry anyone).
The main point though that i still see, is that everyone in this line of work SHOULD be wearing protective clothing and goggles if required, and that it is up to the individual to choose if they abide by this regardless of whether they wear lenses or not. Sometimes though a boss is well within their rights to state that protective clothing should be worn, as in the building trade. Builders cannot work on a site without a hard hat and boots.
My dad is a plumber and central heating installer, so works in the same dusty areas as explained here. He has never worn lenses, but when he first started his job was required to wear the protective clothing and goggles for dusty work. Now he runs his own business so it is entirely his own choice if he continues to do so. But as with the use of soldering irons and welders it would be advisable to wear some eye protection, and most people would find it insane not to do so!
THIS is what i think the company here are missing out on, and is why most here are siding with the employee. Employers have to risk assess and provide a safe environment for their staff, and maybe they are being defensive as it has taken a simple thing, as in someone needing to wear contact lenses to raise this point.
Sweet X x X
I did think that the doctors response was a little paranoid, but he may not understand the condition fully himself, or indeed be just as worried about malpractice charges or being sued! Also while he might have been a little off base stating a risk of blindness, he is identifying the real risk of corneal abrasions, risk of foreign bodies and indeed infection, which can equally cause enough damage themselves. (Not put here to worry anyone).
The main point though that i still see, is that everyone in this line of work SHOULD be wearing protective clothing and goggles if required, and that it is up to the individual to choose if they abide by this regardless of whether they wear lenses or not. Sometimes though a boss is well within their rights to state that protective clothing should be worn, as in the building trade. Builders cannot work on a site without a hard hat and boots.
My dad is a plumber and central heating installer, so works in the same dusty areas as explained here. He has never worn lenses, but when he first started his job was required to wear the protective clothing and goggles for dusty work. Now he runs his own business so it is entirely his own choice if he continues to do so. But as with the use of soldering irons and welders it would be advisable to wear some eye protection, and most people would find it insane not to do so!
THIS is what i think the company here are missing out on, and is why most here are siding with the employee. Employers have to risk assess and provide a safe environment for their staff, and maybe they are being defensive as it has taken a simple thing, as in someone needing to wear contact lenses to raise this point.
Sweet X x X
Sweet X x X
-
ConcernedRelative
- Newbie
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Fri 18 Nov 2005 2:38 pm
I think it's a case of convincing the employer that the protective clothes already worn by workers are appropriate to protect in this case.
This is a large, well respected firm and I have no complaint concerning their current practices.
Just looking for tips on how to approach the management to explain this to them. I guess confirming the appropriateness of safety eyewear with the consultant is the best thing to do first. I have some data on the particles which are excluded by various inexpensive goggles I think is very convincing.
Thanks,
CR [/b]
This is a large, well respected firm and I have no complaint concerning their current practices.
Just looking for tips on how to approach the management to explain this to them. I guess confirming the appropriateness of safety eyewear with the consultant is the best thing to do first. I have some data on the particles which are excluded by various inexpensive goggles I think is very convincing.
Thanks,
CR [/b]
-
John Smith
- Moderator
- Posts: 1941
- Joined: Thu 08 Jan 2004 12:48 am
- Keratoconus: Yes, I have KC
- Vision: Graft(s) and spectacles
- Location: Sidcup, Kent
CR, you may find the KC Group's Employers' leaflet useful to help to educate the employer (and Rosemary and Claire, I do appreciate that the employer is indeed following the GP's advice - which I missed on first reading).
Have a word with Anne ( http://www.keratoconus-group.org.uk/aims2.html ) and I'm sure that she'll put a copy of the employers' leaflet in the post to you. It may not be completely relevant in this case, but it will certainly be a useful and educational opener to negotiations.
Have a word with Anne ( http://www.keratoconus-group.org.uk/aims2.html ) and I'm sure that she'll put a copy of the employers' leaflet in the post to you. It may not be completely relevant in this case, but it will certainly be a useful and educational opener to negotiations.
John
-
rosemary johnson
- Champion
- Posts: 1478
- Joined: Tue 19 Oct 2004 8:42 pm
- Keratoconus: Yes, I have KC
- Vision: Contact lenses
- Location: East London, UK
I think that getting data on what is (and isn't) excluded by the normal types of goggles is a good approach.
It could also help to get more specific data about the types of dust particle most likely to be problematic for a contact lens wearer.
(My personal experience is that it is larger, sharp plintery type particles that irritate more - and the goggles would be more likely to keep those out that the very fine types of dust the employers may be more worried about. But this may vary between individuals.)
One main point to bear in mind is that problems with dust under the contacts will affect *all* lens wearers. The difference with a KC person is they can't take the lenses out and switch to glasses.
Because we're so stuck without the lenses. the temptation is to try to blink the dust out, and grin and bear a bit of itching as long as possible, and that can make matters worse.
SO maybe one approach would be to take a "management strategy" where the person and his supervisor are aware than if anything gets in his eye, he must stop work, take out and clean lens, bathe eye, and replace lens, possibly after a rest.
Everyone will then need to monitor this situation, to see how often this occurs, whether it is a serious problem in fact - does it happen at all/often/rarely, it the remove, clean and replace stratgy working, and does it affect productivity too much?
I suspect it may turn out to be something that happens occasionally, but really isn't too much of a problem day to day.
(I've got pieces of wood-splintery dust in my eyes, from mucking out horses bedded down on wood shavings, and they hurt madly. So I took to wearing safety specs in the stable - and found it was really a pretty minor problem compared to my lungs being allergic to horses.(
Your main problem, though, is going to be that they have that doctor's letter in black and white and the most concrete evidence they have. Can you get the doctor on side, and working out some way round this? You will need some form of specialist medical evidence to counteract the rather unfortunate letter, at the end of the day.
Rosemary
It could also help to get more specific data about the types of dust particle most likely to be problematic for a contact lens wearer.
(My personal experience is that it is larger, sharp plintery type particles that irritate more - and the goggles would be more likely to keep those out that the very fine types of dust the employers may be more worried about. But this may vary between individuals.)
One main point to bear in mind is that problems with dust under the contacts will affect *all* lens wearers. The difference with a KC person is they can't take the lenses out and switch to glasses.
Because we're so stuck without the lenses. the temptation is to try to blink the dust out, and grin and bear a bit of itching as long as possible, and that can make matters worse.
SO maybe one approach would be to take a "management strategy" where the person and his supervisor are aware than if anything gets in his eye, he must stop work, take out and clean lens, bathe eye, and replace lens, possibly after a rest.
Everyone will then need to monitor this situation, to see how often this occurs, whether it is a serious problem in fact - does it happen at all/often/rarely, it the remove, clean and replace stratgy working, and does it affect productivity too much?
I suspect it may turn out to be something that happens occasionally, but really isn't too much of a problem day to day.
(I've got pieces of wood-splintery dust in my eyes, from mucking out horses bedded down on wood shavings, and they hurt madly. So I took to wearing safety specs in the stable - and found it was really a pretty minor problem compared to my lungs being allergic to horses.(
Your main problem, though, is going to be that they have that doctor's letter in black and white and the most concrete evidence they have. Can you get the doctor on side, and working out some way round this? You will need some form of specialist medical evidence to counteract the rather unfortunate letter, at the end of the day.
Rosemary
-
ConcernedRelative
- Newbie
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Fri 18 Nov 2005 2:38 pm
Indeed Rosemary,
I will encourage the person to go back to the doctor with goggle specifications, a couple of scientific papers I found on the sizes of particles generated by dust or sawing various woods etc, personal testimony of people who regularly work around this problem, and a plan for dealing with what i'm sure will be occasional events of dust in the eye (eye bath etc)
The person worked in this job with KC for 2 years without the lens and for 3 or 4 months with it and hasn't had a single incident of dust in the eyes (with normal issue goggles on).
I think it is definitely the doctor we need to convince, he will then hopefully convince the employers,
Thanks,
CR
I will encourage the person to go back to the doctor with goggle specifications, a couple of scientific papers I found on the sizes of particles generated by dust or sawing various woods etc, personal testimony of people who regularly work around this problem, and a plan for dealing with what i'm sure will be occasional events of dust in the eye (eye bath etc)
The person worked in this job with KC for 2 years without the lens and for 3 or 4 months with it and hasn't had a single incident of dust in the eyes (with normal issue goggles on).
I think it is definitely the doctor we need to convince, he will then hopefully convince the employers,
Thanks,
CR
-
Susan Mason
- Forum Stalwart
- Posts: 414
- Joined: Sat 24 Jan 2004 11:27 pm
- Keratoconus: Yes, I have KC
- Vision: Contact lenses
- Location: Bolton Lancashire
If this employer is a small company they may have different procedures to a larger company (well I expect that is obvious everyone is now saying).
With a larger company I would expect they will have a process for assessing a member of staff themselves, paying for a private medical report etc rather than just relying on a GP sicknote or letter.
Maybe worth seeing the consultant and seeing if he/she is willing to respond to the company, which you may well find he/she will only do if officially requested to do so by the company with the employees permission.
best of luck
Susan
With a larger company I would expect they will have a process for assessing a member of staff themselves, paying for a private medical report etc rather than just relying on a GP sicknote or letter.
Maybe worth seeing the consultant and seeing if he/she is willing to respond to the company, which you may well find he/she will only do if officially requested to do so by the company with the employees permission.
best of luck
Susan
-
GarethB
- Ambassador
- Posts: 4916
- Joined: Sat 21 Aug 2004 3:31 pm
- Keratoconus: Yes, I have KC
- Vision: Graft(s) and contact lenses
- Location: Warwickshire
I too have a letetr from my specialist saying dust behind the lens could lead to blindness. Mine also mentioned solvents that I work with. However without adequate eye protection the chemicals and poders I work with would have much the same effect on someone without lenses.
It appears that the employers would like to guarentee an air tight seal around the eyes to prevent any dust penetration. This can be done not only to achieve eye protection, but also respiratory protection using a full face mask. These have built in visors and the dust removal part built in. For these to work correctly, an air tight seal hast to be achieved to gain an ISO standard.
The type of mask in question is shown at;
http://www.northsafety.com/euo/en/bs_de ... ml?DID=891
I find with these types of masks an air tight seal is easily achieved around the whole face provided the wearer does not have facial hair. There is also sufficient airflow inside the mask from when the weare exhales that the eyes do not dry out, this is my experience.
From the information provided thus far, this type of face mask would meet the employers requirments, medical requirments and the patient.
You can feel silly wearing this type of equipment, but if it means I keep the job I love and secure the quality of my health it is money well spent.
I know what helped me when I returned to work and my employers put it in writting too; For every problem I or they for saw, I went away and suggested at least one possible solution. As long as I could counter all their arguments they felt I took the situation serously enough that I would always be ensuring my sight and health would be suitibly protected.
The dustyest enviroment I have ever worked was at the pit face when I worked for British Coal as was and this sort of protection meant I never had any problems with dust and contact lenses. I was not the only one in the mines to be wearing contact lenses.
Keep the discussion going and we will see what extra help we can come up with it. Any help we provide the relative must also be of help to the emplyer to to ensure they are protected from any litigation.
Regards
Gareth
It appears that the employers would like to guarentee an air tight seal around the eyes to prevent any dust penetration. This can be done not only to achieve eye protection, but also respiratory protection using a full face mask. These have built in visors and the dust removal part built in. For these to work correctly, an air tight seal hast to be achieved to gain an ISO standard.
The type of mask in question is shown at;
http://www.northsafety.com/euo/en/bs_de ... ml?DID=891
I find with these types of masks an air tight seal is easily achieved around the whole face provided the wearer does not have facial hair. There is also sufficient airflow inside the mask from when the weare exhales that the eyes do not dry out, this is my experience.
From the information provided thus far, this type of face mask would meet the employers requirments, medical requirments and the patient.
You can feel silly wearing this type of equipment, but if it means I keep the job I love and secure the quality of my health it is money well spent.
I know what helped me when I returned to work and my employers put it in writting too; For every problem I or they for saw, I went away and suggested at least one possible solution. As long as I could counter all their arguments they felt I took the situation serously enough that I would always be ensuring my sight and health would be suitibly protected.
The dustyest enviroment I have ever worked was at the pit face when I worked for British Coal as was and this sort of protection meant I never had any problems with dust and contact lenses. I was not the only one in the mines to be wearing contact lenses.
Keep the discussion going and we will see what extra help we can come up with it. Any help we provide the relative must also be of help to the emplyer to to ensure they are protected from any litigation.
Regards
Gareth
Gareth
Return to “General Discussion Forum”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 68 guests