Guys As part of lifes rich tapestry as a health and Safety co ordinator i am coming across more and more issues that Im not sure are exactly directly related to health and safety. Initially I requested some information regarding epilepsy in the workplace and how as an employer we could make reasonable adjustments. I had a very good response form a forum user (apologies but his name has slipped my memory) and adopted a car plan idea. I am still awaiting definitive written information confirming whether the type of epilepsy is photosensitive or not. If it is I have informed the powers that be that this is , with the best will in the world beyond my remit and would need to get in an occupational health specialist to provide further advice and should needs be produce specific risk assessment. Since this I have now discoverd that we have a person returning to work who has just had a triple heart by-pass and I am unsure about another person who has another known condition "OCD". tHE PERSON With "OCD" has recently just returned to work on a part time basis afetr a period of sick abscence. Realistically I am thinking that the suggested increase of days from three days a week to five days a week over three weeks is in part ok but I am not convinced that a specific risk assesment for this person is or would be suitable and sufficient.. Similarly as a duty to the employee I am not convinced that similar control measures are adequate for the person with ocd. I appreciate this is a bit of a long winded way of asking a simple question but what are forim members experience if any of dealing with similar. Are these medical conditions more of an HR issue or more to do with Occupational health? As with all posts thanks in advance to any who reply L

Lojikglos Your question 'Are these medical conditions more of an HR issue or more to do with Occupational health?' is complex; but is it really the most appropriate question to ask? For several reasons a. it is 'the employer' who has statutory responsibility for the employees to whom you refer and any division of responsbility is not one that concerns a court (it's not unusual for HR Managers to find themselves at a loss if cross-examined in court and realising that neither their training nor policies equip them for sometimes elementary questioning about H & S laws and regs) b. any boundary between 'HR' and 'Occupational health' is a matter of governance and exericse of power and authority within a company c. the traditions of education and training of 'HR' and 'Occupational health' in the British Isles differ greatly, especially in relation to two aspects of your question: understanding of The Equality Act 2010 (in relation to the personal characteristic of disability) and scientific knowhow necessary to evaluate risks of physical and psychological illness. d. organisations differ greatly in terms of their capability to manage risks arising from the conditions of epilepsy, obsessive-compulsive disorder and post-surgery recuperation. In addition to measures to 'control' the risk areas you've outlined, your employer has a statutory responsibility to carry out feasible and reasonable adjustments in respect of the disabilities. The challenges can be tricky because while safety/health take legal precedence, penalities for breaching The Equality Act may well be much higher. So, the critical question you need to address may be stated as: how to enable managers to fulfil their statutory responsibilities under health safety and equality laws?

I am with Bob on this - you will need to invovle others in how the "cases" are managed. Taking the OCD as an example, how OCD is being expressed in the individual is important - in fact it is probably true to say that the majority of us display some OCD characteristics most of the time without any adjustment required to our work. Definately get HR and Occ Health involved.

Ron's observation 'Your mention of OCD gives me pause for thought on the whole "reasonable adjustments" issue, and I wonder if perhaps the scales sometimes tip too far in the wrong direction. Sometimes there's just not much the employer can do and I do find myself thinking back only a few decades, when such issues would have been viewed slightly differently! illustrates precisely how times have changed A 'reasonable adjustment' includes psychological assessment of the extent to which the condition poses hazards to others as well as the individual. Well-validated instruments such as the Hogan Development Survey are available for this purpose; qualified users can be found through the Psychological Testing Centre of the British Psychological Society. Not to make use of them is a simple way of remaining 'back only a few decades', long before disability discrimination became part of an employer's statutory responsibility.

Ron Ron Legally and otherwise, suspicions about people with psychiatric difficulties are at best dangerous. Unless you have reliable information about the individual concerned, you actually have nothing other than fantasy on which to base your assertions about 'the reality for the OCD employee (as you choose to label him or her) of a SME in this sort of situation will be starkly different'. Especially if the employee labelled with 'OCD' is responsible for behaviour and safety of others, a valid professional assessment of his condition is in the interest of employer and employee and not a matter for suspicion. Whatever the individual's status, competent and appropriate psychological assessment, with relevant coaching and/of counselling, is not only far more appropriate and cost-effective than suspicion but legally compliant.

Logikglos Would agree with the advice to handle this by partnering with HR and OH Strategy would then be very dependent on the way the OCD presents - you could also check info from http://www.ocduk.org/