date: 21 December 2004 embargo: 00:01 hrs Wednesday 5 January 2005

Attention: Industrial correspondents, news and planning desks, equality media

More must be done to tackle dyslexia in the workplace, says the TUC

Dyslexia, often known as the ‘hidden disability’, affects up to 2.9 million workers in the UK with many employers not doing enough to tackle the condition at work, says a new report released today (Wednesday) by the TUC.

The ‘Dyslexia in the workplace’ report warns that managers who do not appreciate the link between dyslexia and common performance problems can often judge dyslexic employees unfairly. It also reveals that many people with dyslexia are unaware of their condition and are likely to be anxious, frustrated and suffer from low self-esteem at work.

The TUC report is aimed at informing union reps, employees and their bosses how to tackle the difficulties of dyslexia. The report highlights the most common problems that dyslexics suffer at work which include the following:

· following written or spoken instructions

· dealing with maps, charts and tables

· writing memos, letters and reports

· giving presentations

· scheduling work and meetings and keeping track of appointments.

The TUC report offers advice on how working practices can be changed to maximise the potential of employees with dyslexia. While dyslexic people may have problems with certain aspects of their work, they are likely to have strengths in other areas and amending working practices can ensure that both the employee and the company benefit.

‘Dyslexia in the workplace’ warns that a one size fits all approach will not work and employers must appreciate the full range of difficulties dyslexic workers encounter, provide relevant training and modify documents or instructions to make them easier to read or understand.

Commenting on the report, TUC General Secretary Brendan Barber said:

'Almost three million workers suffer from dyslexia and many may be suffering in silence or unaware of their problem. The Disability Discrimination Act has gone some way towards breaking down certain taboos around disability at work and has helped many workers get the help and support they need. However many others have perfected the art of masking their problems, which can cause them unnecessary stress and lead to poor productivity.

'Workers with dyslexia need to know that the law is on their side and that there is support available to them. This new report equips union reps with the information they need to make sure that bosses are fulfilling their legal duties. However, it is not just about trying to catch bosses out and the report will help employers take any necessary steps to make their workplaces more tolerant and flexible.'

‘Dyslexia in the workplace’ contains a number of case studies:

Francis: Managers ignored the fact that perceived problems with his performance were directly attributable to dyslexia. The Company initially treated his clerical, spelling and filing errors, as a disciplinary/capacity issue, and even when Francis was identified as dyslexic, chose to ignore the advice and dismiss him for incapacity.

Anne: Anne worked in the finance section of a multinational company and was managed by an experienced and highly task oriented supervisor. Her work was frequently criticised by her supervisor as was her attitude and timekeeping. Disciplinary proceedings were underway, before her assessment, and it had been suggested that she was ‘slow’. In fact her IQ, like that of many people with dyslexia, was significantly higher than her written work would have suggested - and as in all the cases summarised here, was above average.

Paul: Paul was a trainee train driver for a major national railway company. Following an assessment that showed him to be dyslexic, the company agreed to consider reasonable adjustments and engaged a specialist trainer for advice. The trainer drew up a programme that included specialist tuition, assistance to understand his learning style and revisions to the driver certification process. Despite initial misgivings from some managers, Paul succeeded in passing the rigorous operational and health and safety requirements of the post first time, and is now a successful main-line train driver.

The report also lists a number of cases in which workers with dyslexia have sought the protection of the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) in court action against their employer:

Holmes vs Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council (December 1988)

Holmes, who had dyslexia, worked for the council as a residential social worker and complained of less favourable treatment. His employers felt that although Holmes had dyslexia, he was not disabled within the meaning of the Act, as there was no evidence that his difficulties were hindering his competence at work. However, the tribunal held that it would be wrong to consider normal day-to-day activities only in the context of his job. Many ordinary, day-to-day tasks such as shopping, banking and reading simple instructions require literacy skills and, since Holmes had a difficulty with tasks that were more than trivial, he was disabled for the purposes of the Act.

Korotana vs Kurt Geiger Ltd ( October 1999)

Korotana was a salesman in a shoe shop and he often forgot the shoe size or colour requested by customers. He would therefore make reminder notes to counteract his poor memory. He had no difficulty understanding speech or written communication. The tribunal considered that Korotana’s difficulties were no more than might be experienced by many people and that he was able to employ an adequate strategy for dealing with them. He was therefore not considered as disabled for the purposes of the Act.

Cook vs Thorne House Services for Autism February 1999

Cook was employed as a residential social worker. Her written work was always good but this was due at least in part to the fact that she was very conscientious and often took work home. The tribunal, in finding that she was disabled, took account of the fact that her coping mechanisms were likely to break down under stress, and that her employers had failed to take account of the fact that she was conscientious and took extra time and care over her work.

Redding v Profile Microfilming (Kent) Ltd (24.3.98)

Redding’s job involved sorting information records into sequence and her employers became aware that she made an unacceptably high number of errors. The tribunal found that, although Redding’s dyslexia did amount to an impairment she did not experience any day-to-day problems other than in her job, where spelling was a particular problem. She was not therefore entitled to the protection of the Act and the employer was not bound to consider the issue of reasonable adjustments.

NOTES TO EDITORS:

- An embargoed copy of the Dyslexia in the workplace report can be found on the TUC’s press extranet: a service exclusive to journalists wanting to access pre-embargo releases and reports from the TUC. Visit www.tuc.org.uk/pressextranet

- All TUC press releases can be found at www.tuc.org.uk

- A series of TUC rights leaflets are available on our website and from the know your rights line 0870 600 4 882. Lines are open every day from 9am-9pm. Calls are charged at the national rate.

The TUC press office will be closed from Christmas Eve to Monday 3 January 2005. We’ll all be back in the office on Tuesday 4 January 2005. Over the holiday, the press officers on duty are:

-Christmas Eve to Monday 27 December, Nigel Stanley 07699 755102

-Tuesday 28 December to Thursday 3O December, Dan Ashley 07880 504846

-Friday 31 December to Monday 3 January, Liz Chinchen 07778 158175.

Contacts:

Media enquiries : Dan Ashley T: 020 7467 1372; M: 07880 504 846; E: dashley@tuc.org.uk

Press release (1,300 words) issued 5 Jan 2005