Lack of knowledge on ‘reasonable adjustments’ affects significant minority of disabled workers, says study

A lack of knowledge about reasonable adjustments – among both employers and employees – is causing problems for a “significant minority” of disabled workers, a government study has concluded.

The study found that both employers and employees continue to be uncertain about when the duty to make a reasonable adjustment applies and what the employer needs to do to meet that duty.

It found that, on average, only about a third of disabled employees receive all the adjustments they request.

It concludes that the factor that plays the biggest part in causing problems with the process is a lack of knowledge about which adjustments are “reasonable”.

The report, which applies to England, Scotland and Wales, defines a reasonable adjustment as a change an employer makes – according to its duties under the Equality Act – to “remove any substantial disadvantage faced by an employee due to a mental and/or physical impairment”.

This could mean allowing that employee to work flexible hours, installing handrails in long corridors, or providing speech-to-text software.

The report concludes that policy reform by the government – informed by discussions with disabled employees – should target improving guidance on reasonable adjustments, because “disputes arise mainly from misunderstandings about what the duty requires”.

The review of how effectively disabled employees can access reasonable adjustments was commissioned from the UK government’s Policy Insights Unit (PIU) by the Disability Unit, which is now part of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.

It was submitted as part of the government’s response to a report by the Commons work and pensions committee on employment support for disabled people.

The government said in the response that it believed the best approach on reasonable adjustments was to improve understanding of the duties under the Equality Act 2010, “to ensure employees and employers are aware of their rights and responsibilities”.

And it said the PIU research would “inform this government’s next steps in relation to reasonable adjustment policy”, although it did not “currently intend to implement a legal requirement for employers to provide information to all employees on the rights of disabled people at work”, as recommended by the committee.

But it said the Department for Work and Pensions was “engaging with employers to help them better understand their obligations and how to support disabled people in the workplace”.

The PIU report found that few employers have clear workplace processes for managing requests for reasonable adjustments.

Delays in securing Access to Work funding can also mean employers are unable to provide adjustments, says the report, even when they wish to support disabled employees.

Research commissioned by the Disability Unit from the University of York – which surveyed more than 2,700 disabled workers – found nearly a quarter (23 per cent) had waited over a month for a decision on their request for a reasonable adjustment, while one in 10 (9.8 per cent) waited over three months.

One in seven (14 per cent) experienced “significant” delays in implementing their adjustments.

The university also found that more than half (53 per cent) of disabled employees expressed concerns about “potential negative consequences” at work if they requested reasonable adjustments.

One disabled employee told the university’s researchers: “Reasonable adjustments, by their very nature, are reasonable – they shouldn’t take long and an employee’s health, wellbeing and their ability to thrive at work is depending on these adjustments.

“It’s not special treatment; it’s giving those who struggle in certain ways due to a disability the opportunity to thrive as much as someone without it.”

As part of the review, the Policy Insights Unit also examined 66 employment tribunal judgments in cases which alleged there had been a failure to make a reasonable adjustment.

It found that nearly one in five (18 per cent) involved an alleged delay in implementing a reasonable adjustment.

It also found that more than two-thirds (68 per cent) involved cases where the employer and employee had different views of what was “reasonable” for an employer to provide.

The review also included a survey of 24 conciliators working with the workplace rights organisation Acas, with four in five (79 per cent) conciliators reporting that most or nearly all disability discrimination claims they dealt with included a reasonable adjustment element.

The same proportion (79 per cent) said they had seen an increase in reasonable adjustment-related cases.