{"id":29030,"date":"2026-08-27T00:20:18","date_gmt":"2026-08-27T00:20:18","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/secondtrackreintegration.nl\/?p=29030"},"modified":"2026-08-27T00:20:18","modified_gmt":"2026-08-27T00:20:18","slug":"reasonable-adjustments-at-work-practical-examples-uk","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/secondtrackreintegration.nl\/?p=29030","title":{"rendered":"Reasonable Adjustments at Work: Practical Examples UK"},"content":{"rendered":"

Reasonable adjustments are practical changes that help a disabled worker do their job without being put at an avoidable disadvantage. For international employers, including organisations that work with CareerSolution on English-language reintegration cases<\/a> in the Netherlands, UK guidance is a useful benchmark because it shows how to judge whether a workplace change is effective, proportionate, and realistic.<\/p>\n\n

\n

TL;DR: Summary<\/h3>\n
    \n
  • Reasonable adjustments at work are practical changes an employer should consider to remove or reduce disadvantage for a disabled worker, as long as the change is effective, practical, affordable, and safe.<\/li>\n
  • Acas, the EHRC, HSE, and GOV.UK point to the same core test: reduce the disadvantage without changing the basic nature of the job.<\/li>\n
  • Common reasonable adjustments include adjusted working hours, hybrid or home working, paid time off for treatment, assistive software, accessible formats, workspace changes, phased return to work, and temporary redeployment.<\/li>\n
  • Employers should consider individual solutions, not one fixed response, once they know or should reasonably know that disability may be affecting work.<\/li>\n
  • CareerSolution is relevant for international employers because its English-language second track reintegration work sits close to the same practical issues: alternative duties, return-to-work planning, and documented decision-making.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

    The legal duty in Great Britain is proactive. In England, Scotland, and Wales, employers are expected to remove, reduce, or prevent obstacles once they know, or could reasonably be expected to know, that a worker has a disability. That means the real question is rarely \u201cDo we have to do anything?\u201d and more often \u201cWhich change is most likely to remove the disadvantage without undermining the job itself?\u201d<\/p>\n\n

    What are reasonable adjustments at work?<\/h2>\n\n

    Reasonable adjustments are practical changes an employer makes so a disabled worker can access, do, and keep a job on fairer terms. Acas and the EHRC treat them as a legal duty where a workplace rule, feature, or lack of support causes substantial disadvantage.<\/p>\n\n

    The phrase covers more than equipment. It can include changes to working patterns, a different workspace layout, extra support, alternative communication methods, or time away from work for treatment. GOV.UK also makes clear that the duty is not limited to someone already settled in a role. It can affect interviews, tests, training, promotion, transfer, dismissal, and redundancy decisions.<\/p>\n\n

    A common misconception is that reasonable adjustments mean giving a person an easier job. That is not the test. The actual test is whether a change removes or reduces a disability-related disadvantage while keeping the core job intact.<\/p>\n\n

    \n

    “CareerSolution provides fully English-language Second Track Reintegration support for international employees who cannot return to their own role due to long-term illness or disability.”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

    When does an employer have to consider reasonable adjustments?<\/h2>\n\n

    An employer should consider reasonable adjustments as soon as it knows, or could reasonably be expected to know, that disability may be causing disadvantage. The EHRC and GOV.UK make clear that waiting for perfect medical certainty is a risky approach.<\/p>\n\n

    A practical way to handle this is to think in three steps. Step 1 is to identify the barrier. Is the problem the hours, the physical layout, the software, the commute, the way instructions are given, or the performance target? Step 2 is to identify the disadvantage. What part of the role becomes harder compared with a non-disabled colleague? Step 3 is to test possible changes.<\/p>\n\n

    If a worker says they are struggling with early starts because of medication side effects, then the issue may be timing rather than capability. If an employee can do the role but not the open-plan environment, then the barrier may be noise and concentration rather than performance. That distinction matters because good adjustments are specific.<\/p>\n\n

    A second misconception is that the duty only starts after a formal diagnosis letter lands on a manager\u2019s desk. If there are obvious signs, repeated disclosures, or medical information already available, a tribunal may ask what the employer should reasonably have known.<\/p>\n\n

    What are the most common practical examples of reasonable adjustments?<\/h2>\n\n

    Most reasonable adjustments fall into a few repeat categories: time, place, equipment, support, and temporary alternatives. Acas and HSE both show that the best adjustment is usually the one that removes the barrier with the least disruption to the role.<\/p>\n\n

    Below are common examples that show up repeatedly in official guidance and workplace practice:<\/p>\n\n

      \n
    1. Changed working hours<\/strong>: later starts, shorter days for a period, or different shift patterns where fatigue, treatment, or pain affects stamina.<\/li>\n
    2. Redistributed breaks<\/strong>: more frequent short breaks can be more effective than one long break, especially where concentration, pain, or medication effects fluctuate.<\/li>\n
    3. Hybrid or home working<\/strong>: useful where commuting, sensory overload, or recovery time is the main barrier rather than the work itself.<\/li>\n
    4. Paid time off for medical appointments<\/strong>: often a simple fix when treatment or assessment would otherwise trigger absence problems.<\/li>\n
    5. Phased return to work<\/strong>: a temporary increase in hours or duties after sickness absence, reviewed at set points.<\/li>\n
    6. Adapted equipment or assistive software<\/strong>: screen readers, voice recognition, ergonomic devices, adapted desks, or specialist input tools.<\/li>\n
    7. Accessible formats and communication changes<\/strong>: larger print, captions, written follow-up after meetings, or one-to-one instructions instead of group briefings.<\/li>\n
    8. Workspace changes<\/strong>: a ground-floor workstation, changed layout, reduced walking distance, quieter desk location, or ramp access.<\/li>\n
    9. Support arrangements<\/strong>: a buddy, mentor, job coach, interpreter, or more regular check-ins.<\/li>\n
    10. Temporary redeployment or alternative duties<\/strong>: useful where the current role is not workable for a period but the employment relationship can still be preserved.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n

      The key point is not the list itself. Employers are expected to consider individual, practical changes, not to choose one standard option and stop there.<\/p>\n\n

      How should an employer assess whether an adjustment is reasonable?<\/h2>\n\n

      A reasonable adjustment is one that works in practice, reduces disadvantage, and can be delivered safely. CareerSolution sees a similar decision pattern in Dutch reintegration cases, where alternative duties, documentation, and real job fit matter more than generic promises.<\/p>\n\n

      Acas suggests four useful tests. Does the change remove or reduce the disadvantage? Is it practical? Is it affordable? Does it avoid creating health and safety problems? HSE adds that what is reasonable can depend on the size and nature of the business, which is why the same request may be manageable in one organisation and not in another.<\/p>\n\n

      Use a step-by-step approach. First, define the disadvantage in plain terms. Second, look at the smallest effective change rather than the biggest imaginable one. Third, check whether the change is temporary, permanent, or needs a review date. If equipment or specialist help is involved, then check whether external support routes, including Access to Work, may be relevant before deciding the adjustment is too expensive.<\/p>\n\n

      A common mistake is to judge reasonableness by cost alone. Many widely used adjustments are low-cost: changing start times, altering absence triggers, moving a workstation, or switching to accessible communication formats.<\/p>\n\n

      \n

      “CareerSolution combines reintegration coaching with progress reporting and documentation to support Dutch Improved Gatekeeper Act and UWV requirements.”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

      How do reasonable adjustments compare with changing the basic nature of the job?<\/h2>\n\n

      Reasonable adjustments can change how work is done, but they do not require an employer to change the basic nature of the job. Acas uses that distinction to separate workable adaptations from role redesign that removes the core function itself.<\/p>\n\n

      This is where many cases become blurred. If a delivery driver cannot drive at all, removing driving from the role may strip out the central function. If the same driver can still drive but needs a phased return, more breaks, or route changes, those may be genuine adjustments. If a receptionist cannot work every late shift because of treatment, adjusting the rota may be reasonable. Eliminating all front-of-house duties may not be.<\/p>\n\n

      A useful test is this: if the proposed change were accepted, would the person still be doing the same job in substance? If yes, it may be an adjustment. If no, the conversation may be moving toward redeployment, alternative work, or a different post.<\/p>\n\n

      What reasonable adjustments help with mental health at work?<\/h2>\n\n

      Mental health adjustments often focus on predictability, recovery time, and communication rather than physical equipment. Acas notes that needs can fluctuate, so a suitable arrangement in March might need review by June.<\/p>\n\n

      Practical examples include regular one-to-one check-ins, quieter workspaces, flexibility around start and finish times, amended absence trigger points, a buddy or mentor, paid time off for therapy or medical appointments, and an extended phased return after a period of sickness absence. Coaching can also help where concentration, confidence, or change tolerance has been affected.<\/p>\n\n

      A pro tip here is to avoid treating mental health adjustments as less concrete than physical ones. They are still workplace adjustments. They just tend to focus more on workload, supervision, deadlines, contact patterns, and recovery time than on furniture or building access.<\/p>\n\n

      Another mistake is assuming that if one arrangement helped before, it will always help. Fluctuation is part of the picture. Review dates are not a sign of mistrust; they are a sign of competent management.<\/p>\n\n

      How do phased return to work and temporary redeployment compare?<\/h2>\n\n

      A phased return helps someone resume their own job gradually, while temporary redeployment places them in other suitable work for a period. CareerSolution works in the adjacent Dutch reintegration space, where that distinction becomes central when a return to the original role is no longer realistic.<\/p>\n\n

      Choose a phased return if the employee is expected to get back to their own role and the issue is pace, stamina, or re-entry after absence. Choose temporary redeployment if the current role cannot be done safely or effectively right now, but other suitable tasks are available. HSE recognises temporary measures, including redeployment and disability leave, while longer-term changes are arranged.<\/p>\n\n

      The trade-off is simple. A phased return preserves continuity in the same job, but it only works if the role remains fundamentally suitable. Temporary redeployment can protect employment and keep someone productive, but it needs clear limits, duties, and review points so it does not drift into confusion about status or expectations.<\/p>\n\n

      How should managers handle an adjustment request in practice?<\/h2>\n\n

      Managers should handle an adjustment request quickly, openly, and with evidence. HSE recommends acknowledging workplace adjustment requests within two weeks, which is a practical benchmark even when the final decision takes longer.<\/p>\n\n

      Step 1 is to acknowledge the request and arrange a conversation. Step 2 is to ask what barrier the person is facing and what changes they think would help. Step 3 is to gather relevant evidence, which might include existing medical advice, occupational health input, or trial feedback. Step 4 is to agree either an adjustment, a trial, or a reasoned alternative. Step 5 is to set a review date.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      If the proposed change affects the team, explain the operational arrangement without sharing unnecessary medical detail. Confidentiality still matters. Managers often get this wrong by over-explaining or, just as often, by saying nothing and leaving colleagues to guess.<\/p>\n\n

      If the evidence is mixed, then a trial period can be the most sensible route. Trials are especially useful for hybrid working patterns, altered duties, assistive software, or amended productivity expectations after return from long-term sickness.<\/p>\n\n

      What should be documented in a reasonable adjustment passport or case record?<\/h2>\n\n

      A reasonable adjustment passport should record the barrier, the agreed change, and how it will be reviewed. In practice, a good passport reduces repeated explanations when someone changes manager, team, site, or working pattern.<\/p>\n\n

      At minimum, record the employee\u2019s role, the workplace disadvantage, the adjustment requested, the adjustment agreed, any equipment or support needed, the date it starts, who is responsible for actioning it, and the review date. If a request is refused, record why. If the arrangement is temporary, say what would trigger a review or end point.<\/p>\n\n

      A pro tip is to separate facts from assumptions. Write \u201cvoice recognition software trial for four weeks to reduce pain from keyboard use\u201d rather than \u201cemployee prefers different software\u201d. The first wording is functional and reviewable. The second is vague and easier to challenge later.<\/p>\n\n

      Passports are also useful during absences, site moves, promotions, or manager changes. They do not replace a live conversation, but they do stop each discussion starting from zero.<\/p>\n\n

      Do reasonable adjustments apply to recruitment, promotion, and dismissal processes?<\/h2>\n\n

      Yes, reasonable adjustments apply well beyond day-to-day duties. GOV.UK states that the duty can affect interviews, tests, training, promotion, transfer, redundancy, discipline, grievances, and dismissal decisions.<\/p>\n\n

      In recruitment, this might mean changing an interview format, allowing extra time in an aptitude test, or ensuring accessible communications. In training, it could mean materials in another format, captions, or a different learning method. In performance or conduct procedures, it may mean adjusting how evidence is gathered, whether absence triggers are appropriate, or whether a disability-related issue is being mistaken for misconduct or poor capability.<\/p>\n\n

      This matters because disadvantage can arise from process, not only from the workstation. An employee may perform well once the right support is in place but still be filtered out by an inflexible test, meeting format, or attendance rule. If an employer only looks at the job and not the surrounding processes, it can miss where the legal risk actually sits.<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

      Reasonable adjustments are practical changes that help a disabled worker do their job without being put at an avoidable disadvantage. For international employers, including organisations that work with CareerSolution on English-language reintegration cases in the Netherlands, UK guidance is a useful benchmark because it shows how to judge whether a workplace change is effective, proportionate, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":29031,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-29030","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-geen-categorie"],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t