Bournemouth University says it wants to be a “top employer.” It says it values wellbeing, inclusion, and dignity at work. But behind the glossy slogans and expensive branding videos, a very different reality is playing out: disabled staff—some of whom became disabled because of what they’ve been subjected to at work—are being denied the basic accommodations they need to survive in their roles.

We’re hearing from members who are distressed, isolated, experiencing workload stress leading to new disabilities, and—most alarmingly—self-harming. And a common pattern is emerging: the university is routinely denying or delaying reasonable adjustments, even when these are clearly supported by Occupational Health, GP letters, or internal risk assessments.

Let’s be clear: this is not just bad practice. It’s unlawful.

---

Reasonable Adjustments Are a Legal Duty—Not an Optional Extra

Under the Equality Act 2010, employers have a statutory duty to make reasonable adjustments for disabled workers. That duty kicks in when:

• The employer knows (or could reasonably be expected to know) that a worker is disabled;
• A “provision, criterion or practice” (e.g. working patterns, locations, tasks) puts the disabled person at a substantial disadvantage;
• There are steps the employer could take to avoid that disadvantage.

When those conditions are met, the employer is legally required to make the adjustment unless they can show it’s not reasonable. This isn’t about preferences or negotiation—it’s about removing discriminatory barriers. The duty is anticipatory, ongoing, and non-delegable.

Occupational Health recommendations are not “just advisory” in the sense of being optional. They are expert evidence, commissioned by the employer, which help establish what is reasonable. An employer can only disregard them if they have clear, well-evidenced grounds. And no, “we don’t like it” or “we’re too busy” doesn’t count.

---

“We Considered It and Decided Not To”: That’s Not Good Enough

We’ve seen cases where the university says it has “considered” OH advice and then ignores it, often without recording any rationale. That’s not lawful compliance—that’s obfuscation.

The EHRC Statutory Code of Practice is clear:

“Employers are required to take reasonable steps to… [a]void the substantial disadvantage where a provision, criterion or practice applied by or on behalf of the employer puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage.” (para 6.5) “If an employer does not comply with the duty to make reasonable adjustments they will be committing an act of unlawful discrimination” (para 6.31)

Employers must engage in a meaningful process, consult with the employee, provide written reasons for refusals, and actively seek alternative solutions. None of that is optional.

---

Workplace Trauma Is a Disability Issue

In several of the most serious cases we’ve seen, the disability in question was caused by the university’s failure to prevent bullying, overwork, or harassment. Then, when that disability surfaces, the university distances itself—refusing adjustments, casting doubt on the evidence, or even suggesting performance management. It’s a cycle of harm and blame.

This is not just a matter of compliance—it’s a matter of institutional duty of care. Employers are required under health and safety law to take reasonable steps to protect the mental and physical wellbeing of their workers. When they fail, they don’t get to walk away from the consequences.

---

“Six Weeks Should Be Enough”: Phased Returns Are Not One-Size-Fits-All

Another troubling pattern we’ve seen is the university applying arbitrary limits to phased returns from sick leave—often pushing for them to be wrapped up in four to six weeks, regardless of individual need or medical advice.

Let’s be clear again: there is no legal maximum duration for a phased return. If the staff member has a disability, a phased return is often a reasonable adjustment under the Equality Act 2010. The law requires that the adjustment be tailored to the individual, not cut short to suit a manager’s preferences.

Pushing someone to return before they’re ready isn’t just bad management—it risks relapse, creates liability, and violates the university’s duty of care under health and safety law. Worse still, it sends a clear message to staff: “You’re welcome back—on our terms, not yours.”

---

If BU Wants to Be a Top Employer, It Needs to Start Acting Like One

Disability inclusion isn’t about writing vision statements. It’s about how you treat people—especially when they’re struggling. Right now, the university is failing on every front:

• Delaying or denying essential adjustments
• Ignoring medical recommendations
• Letting preventable harms compound until people break
• Driving staff out rather than supporting them

We know there are good people working hard behind the scenes to support staff. But they are being undermined by a culture of denial, risk-aversion, and reputation management.

If BU wants to be a “top employer,” it needs to show leadership. That means recognising where it has failed, making amends, and putting a stop to the quiet erosion of disabled staff rights.

Because right now, the message is clear: you’re welcome here—until you get ill.

Going Forward…

BU UCU will be developing a guide, according to the laws and codes of practice around disability rights, around how to request, implement, and ensure the employer is doing its duty by you. Watch this space.

In the meantime, illegimiti non carborundum, and make good trouble.

In Solidarity,

BU UCU