where will this end?

Mrs_J_3

OP I'm incredibly sorry and embarrased that instead of getting some practical advice you've recieved some very ill-informed snap judgements. It seems many people on this board have the time to pass judgement, but not the time to read the actual thread or to understand its content.

I have no practical advice, but wanted to let you know that not everyone on this board feels your wife should be sacked for making a stupid remark at the wrong time whilst under pressure.

jazzys

Thanks Mrs J, and everyone else who has contributed helpful posts.

The company have now realised the error in not paying her SSP although they are sticking to the decision not to pay her CSP, a clause does exist in the company handbook by the way saying that they don not have to pay CSP if they have reason to beleive the sickness is not genuine. ( even if her doctor says it is )
Does that mean that if they have witheld that CSP, they have to justify it and possibly seek a company doctors advice? Or can they just say nope, ya not getting it and that is final?

Jazzys

Uncertain

jazzys wrote: »

Thanks Mrs J, and everyone else who has contributed helpful posts.

The company have now realised the error in not paying her SSP although they are sticking to the decision not to pay her CSP, a clause does exist in the company handbook by the way saying that they don not have to pay CSP if they have reason to beleive the sickness is not genuine. ( even if her doctor says it is )
Does that mean that if they have witheld that CSP, they have to justify it and possibly seek a company doctors advice? Or can they just say nope, ya not getting it and that is final?

Jazzys

Sorry to hear that...

tigtag02 will no doubt be delighted and stick even more to his / her view that such clauses are universal and that the employer can do whatever they please!!

Unless you decide to challenge this then sadly no, they don't have to justify it. It is a bit like you deciding that a tradsman you used didn't do the job properly and refusing to pay him. He would have to take you to court if he feels you are acting unreasonably in refusing to pay.

From a practical point of view I asume we are talking about a couple of hundred pounds here?

Take some professional advice, at least ACAS and preferably a solicitor if you have free access by any route. Do make sure you tell them the whole story and don't leave out any bits that are not in your favour.

I'm sure they will advise you to (at least first) file a grievence using the supermarket's procedures. If this fails you have to consider it is worth the hassle of taking it to a tribunal.

For what it is worth I think you have a strong case if you feel it is worth the stress involved. Regardless of this (and I don't agree that this is right) a really determined individual will normally "win" a claim for a few hundred against a giant organisation. At the end of the day they will only devote so much time and money to fighting it.

In a way they can only lose as it will cost them money they won't get back. Although at some point they will make threats, costs can only be awarded against you at an ET if your case is judged to be without any merit. In other words you would have to do far more than just fail to win!

Again, take professional advice before going down this route, don't just rely on posts on this forum!

Depends on how you feel about flicking peas at an elephant really. Best of luck.

Zazen999

Uncertain wrote: »

Sorry to hear that...

tigtag02 will no doubt be delighted and stick even more to his / her view that such clauses are universal and that the employer can do whatever they please!!

Well, if a clause is in the contract saying that they don't have to pay if they don't believe it is genuine; and they don't believe it is genuine; then what else are they to do? I presume that's why they put it in the contract in the first place? To avoid paying out CSP to people who are 'swinging the lead' as they say.

Can I just ask what your background is; you seem fairly intent on winding the OP up that they can rail against this and that they have a strong case; whereas I have rarely seen a weaker one.

OP - You still haven't clarified exactly when she made the comment about her going to take the time off sick; as the case all hangs on this comment. You have implied that she gave them plenty of notice of the leave, but also that she said it when she was told that she couldn't have it, but then again that she was under stress implying that it was nearer the time of the 'sickness' so something is not adding up here.

And in response to Uncertain's comment about TigTag's location; I'd like to refer you to their username.

jazzys

I think originally she was told she could have the time off, but as things drew nearer and the management changed, so did the decision to let her have the time off.

She obviously became upset and stressed about the thought of not seeing her son as she hadn't seen him for a year, and i suppose in the heat of the battle she made the comment about taking the time off regardless. Although it has to be said she said it whilst in a state of distress and she really was at breaking point by then.

As i mentioned earlier though, she knew she was in serious need of time off due to stress and she asked if she could have the time of as holiday rather than go on the sick so that she didn't lose the first 3 days pay, something she fealt she couldn't afford.

Apparently it is all getting sorted out tonight, although i won't be holding my breath and fully expect her to ring me tomorrow telling me there is a further delay.

J

Uncertain

Zazen999 wrote: »

Well, if a clause is in the contract saying that they don't have to pay if they don't believe it is genuine; and they don't believe it is genuine; then what else are they to do? I presume that's why they put it in the contract in the first place? To avoid paying out CSP to people who are 'swinging the lead' as they say.

Can I just ask what your background is; you seem fairly intent on winding the OP up that they can rail against this and that they have a strong case; whereas I have rarely seen a weaker one.

OP - You still haven't clarified exactly when she made the comment about her going to take the time off sick; as the case all hangs on this comment. You have implied that she gave them plenty of notice of the leave, but also that she said it when she was told that she couldn't have it, but then again that she was under stress implying that it was nearer the time of the 'sickness' so something is not adding up here.

And in response to Uncertain's comment about TigTag's location; I'd like to refer you to their username.

Perhaps we should call a truce on user names / locations !!!!

Sorry, but it remains my opinion that there is a good case to be made here.

However if your refer to my last post you will see that, far from "winding the OP up", I have urged them to....

1) consider if it is worth the stress / hassle and, if so.....

2) seek proper professional advice and not rely on you, tigtag2, me or anybody else who post anonymously on this type of forum.

I am not going to give personal details and I do not expect you, tigtag2 or anybody else to. Let's not get into an unverifiable argument of "I'm more qualified than you" or "My Daddy is bigger than yours".

There are a number of reasons why I felt able to make a detailed contribution to this thread. Again these will remain strictly confidential.

I think this has now probably run its course.

I hope the OP is able to reach whatever is the best conclusion for his partner.


Uncertain (but maybe not about this!!!!!)

jazzys

I'm sorry you guys can't seem to agree on the finer points, unfortunately it seems the ex wife and her employer can't either.

She was told it would be sorted tonight and even went in on her night off to hear the outcome of the disciplinary. Guess what, its not sorted!

They now say that she didn't tell her boss at the time that she had an illness caused by stress. Why thats relevant or indeed any of his business i don't know. (i'm sure someone will tell me ;-) )

Anyway guys, it drags on, i have suggested she gets an appointment at the citizens advice bureau. Or even an initial interview with a solicitor.


they appear to me to be just dragging it on and on and therefore making her health suffer even more.

Over to you

J

jdturk

jazzys wrote: »

I'm sorry you guys can't seem to agree on the finer points, unfortunately it seems the ex wife and her employer can't either.

She was told it would be sorted tonight and even went in on her night off to hear the outcome of the disciplinary. Guess what, its not sorted!

They now say that she didn't tell her boss at the time that she had an illness caused by stress. Why thats relevant or indeed any of his business i don't know. (i'm sure someone will tell me ;-) )

Anyway guys, it drags on, i have suggested she gets an appointment at the citizens advice bureau. Or even an initial interview with a solicitor.


they appear to me to be just dragging it on and on and therefore making her health suffer even more.

Over to you

J

They have to be thorough and if this takes time its unfortunate, you wouldn't think it would be appropiate if they had done it quickly as you'd see this is hap hazardly

jazzys

jdturk wrote: »

They have to be thorough and if this takes time its unfortunate, you wouldn't think it would be appropiate if they had done it quickly as you'd see this is hap hazardly

I agree, but hell there's not even much to investigate. Its already had 4 managers deal with it and its still not put to bed. Its becoming farcical

J

jazzys

Spoke to an employment law solicitor today and he reckons there's no way she will get the bullet.

He sez if she does, come back and we'll take them all the way.
Nice to know

J