Nobody's responsibility: the precarious position of disabled employees in the UK workplace

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/irj.12107
• Published date: 01 July 2015
• Author: Deborah Foster,Peter Scott
• Date: 01 July 2015

Nobody’s responsibility: the precarious

position of disabled employees in the

UK workplace

Deborah Foster and Peter Scott

ABSTRACT

Secondary analysis of a qualitative data set of perceived workplace ill treatment

suggests that human resource and occupational health professionals play too subor-

dinate, belated and haphazard a role, compared with ill-equipped line managers, in

the de-escalation and resolution of ill treatment experienced by disabled and ill

employees.

1 INTRODUCTION

Shortly after the UK Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA), Bruyere and James

(1997) examined how new disability law might influence organisational practices in

the UK, suggesting that new provisions were ‘likely to require employers to adopt a

more proactive and integrated approach to what in the United States has become

known as disability management’ (Bruyere and James, 1997: 5). This article refers to

subsequent data on ill treatment of employees experiencing disability and ill health in

the workplace, to examine why UK organisations appear to have failed to adopt the

proactive, multi-disciplinary team approach to workplace disability envisaged by

Bruyere and James (1997: 12–13) that would ‘logically’ be co-ordinated by human

resource (HR) departments. In doing so, it explores the experiences of disabled

employees, the consequences for them when organisations neglect responsibility in

this area and social policy makers’ attempts to fill the gap left by employers.

In 2011, around 30 per cent of the UK working age population reported a long-

standing illness or impairment (Jones and Wass, 2013: 983). Disabled people remain

significantly less likely to be employed than non-disabled people, although the gap has

narrowed since the early 2000s. Increases in flexible and non-manual work and, most

significantly, an overall growth in public sector employment between 1999 and 2009

are the main reasons (Dolton and Makepeace, 2010; Jones and Wass, 2013: 983–4).

The widespread presence of formal disability policies, which are subject to statutory

scrutiny, in the UK public sector (Adams and Oldfield, 2012; Hoque and Noon, 2004)

❒Deborah Foster is Reader in Employment Relations in Cardiff Business School, Cardiff University,

and Peter Scott is Senior Lecturer in Employment Relations, OS & HRM, Portsmouth Business School,

University of Portsmouth. Correspondence should be addressed to Deborah Foster, Cardiff Business

School, Cardiff University, Aberconway Building, Colum Drive, Cardiff CF10 3EU; email: fosterd1@cf.

ac.uk

Industrial Relations Journal 46:4, 328–343

ISSN 0019-8692

© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

may also indicate better employment prospects for disabled people. However, the

reversal of public sector employment growth was compounded by the austerity poli-

cies of the Coalition Government from 2010, rendering disabled people in employ-

ment particularly vulnerable (Leonard Cheshire Disability, 2011). Recessionary

influences in the UK public sector have resulted in incremental work intensification,

reduced job control, stricter absence procedures and ‘lean’ management practices

(Baumberg, 2014; Carter et al., 2013; Taylor et al., 2010).

A dominant focus on the employment levels of disabled people (Schur et al., 2009)

has recently been supplemented by important data highlighting disabled employees’

experiences of perceived ill treatment in the workplace. The UK Workplace Bullying

and Harassment in Britain (hereafter WBHB) project consisted of two phases: a

quantitative survey and qualitative interviews. In 2007–8 the initial phase, the British

Workplace Behaviour Survey (BWBS), asked current or recent UK employees

(n=3,979) about their experiences of different types of perceived ill treatment in the

workplace. Reported particularly in Fevre et al. (2008) and Fevre et al. (2011a; 2012:

30–102), BWBS reached four key conclusions of particular relevance to disabled

employees. First, disabled employees and those with long-term illnesses were more

likely to report negative experiences at work than other groups with ‘protected

characteristics’ (Fevre et al., 2008; 2013).1Second, the type of disability and negative

behaviour they experienced was important, with those identifying as having a psycho-

logical disability or illness most likely to report experiencing negative behaviour.

Third, reasons for negative behaviour are varied and complex. Finally, and perhaps

most significantly: ‘the relationship between disability and negative behaviour is

strong and pronounced, even holding constant other relevant demographic,

attitudinal and workplace characteristics’ (Fevre et al., 2008: 8).

Qualitative data from the second phase of the WBHB project deployed interviews

with 88 employees, 22 of whom self-reported long-term ill-health or a disability2,to

explore and contextualise employees’ perceived ill treatment in greater depth. Inter-

views were conducted in five large organisations across public, private and charitable

sectors willing to grant access to the original researchers: a hospital trust, a financial

services firm, a logistics organisation, a charity and an engineering company. Details

of how the main organisational cases were selected, and participants recruited within

each case, can be found in Fevre et al. (2012: 103–106). The qualitative results for the

ill or disabled sub-set remain relatively unexplored but can provide important insights

into the organisational mechanics of ill treatment in the workplace, its nature, causes

and effects, and how employers interact with disabled employees. The data set is

available for secondary analysis and provides a valuable opportunity to drill to

interrogate further the ‘how’ and ‘why’ questions on disabled employees engendered

by the quantitative BWBS data.

Debate will proceed by first examining the UK literature on disability and employ-

ment, with an emphasis on organisational level policies, practices and behaviour.

Qualitative data will then be presented from interviews with ill and disabled

employees in the second phase of the WBHB project around three themes derived

from our analysis. These are: employers’ perceived understanding of ill-health and

disability, as reflected in their policies and practices; difficulties negotiating adjust-

1This finding was unexpected, given that the project’s original focus was on ethnic minority employees.

2Interviewees were asked whether they suffered from a disability or long-term illness. It is likely that some

reporting only the latter had medical conditions that were, in fact, covered by the DDA, but may not have

been aware of this. We use both terms throughout this article.

329Disabled employees: nobody’s responsibility

© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd