Hi Pattt

Interesting to say the least!

OK then - it's difficult to provide objective answers to your question without actually knowing what it is that an Agency provided Superviser might be supervising!

There is a presumption that you notified the Agency of the nature of the job and included any relevant physical activities/requirements that they should consider in selecting an appropriate person to send. If not, it has become your problem; if you did, then the Agency should pay for any delays relating to the person provided.

You ask where you stand legally - well, it depends on a number of things; so I'll keep it simple [like me].

You should do a specific RA regarding this Superviser and their known, foreseeable activities that considers whether they can legitimately be acceptably safe on-site to fulfill their role with your current controls. If the answer is "No"; you should then consider what, if any, "Reasonable Adjustments" can be made [under the Equality Act] and whether they are genuinely "not reasonably achievable".

If you decide that there are no "Reasonable Adjustments" that can be made you should not proceed with that Superviser.

Whether the job proceeds or not should be the very bottom of your list of considerations as to place the Superviser and/or the team at unnecessary risk could cause the costs from getting it wrong to exceed the costs of waiting for a fitter Superviser.

Frank Hallett

No mention of any Occ Health input to the decision making, so I presume you have no access to any such professional advice.

There's now tons of evidence that keeping people who are not fully fit at work (by means of the reasonable adjustments Frank describes) is good for both them and all other parties, in terms of longer-term health and employability. If you have no access to Occ Health professionals, then perhaps a discussion with the supervisor's GP about what he CAN do would help? e.g. as in a Fit Note - but presumably not enough time has been lost so far for an official one to be required?