where will this end?

euronorris

jazzys wrote: »

She knew she was ill and reaching breaking point (regardless of us coming back) and had asked if she could have the time off as holidays rather than go on the sick, so that she didn't lose the first 3 days wages like she would if she'd gone on the sick. Money is tight in her house and 3 days wages is a lot to her.

Jaffa - did you not read this part?

Zazen999

jazzys wrote: »

She accepts that she did the wrong thing by telling her manager that if she didn't get the time off she'd be on the sick and therefore off anyway.

Euro, did you not read this bit?

You can't just decide not to be on the sick for 3 days to avoid losing 3 days pay; the three days starts from the start of sickness, them's the rules.

clarkey3262

Uncertain wrote: »

As I said before, there are a handful of ignorant posters on this forum who love jumping on anything that is stress / mental health related. I just hope they never find themselves ill in this way (or perhaps that is what they deserve)!

OK, in an ideal world the lady should not have made the remark (or threat if you must) that she did. However, anybody who has seriously suffered in this way will know what can happen in these type of situations.

Particularly if she has a documented medical history in this area this is going nowhere.

Most doctors do not like having their professional opinion challenged, particularly by some jumped up clerk who calls themselves a "human resources professional".

Bold section - I would never wish mental illness on anyone at any point, even my worst enemy.

As for other people who seem to think mental illness is just some made up notion let me tell you it is not, there is nothing worse than being trapped with feelings of guilt, anxiety and extremely self esteem amongst many others.

OP I have nothing other than that to add but hope the situation is resolved quickly and to everyones satisfaction.

Chris

euronorris

Zazen999 wrote: »

Euro, did you not read this bit?

You can't just decide not to be on the sick for 3 days to avoid losing 3 days pay; the three days starts from the start of sickness, them's the rules.

Yes I did, but the quote you refer to is before the OP offered a further explanation.

If I had been signed off sick by the Doctor, particularly if I had already had quite a bit of time off sick that year (which, I understand is the case), I would also ask my employer if they were willing to be flexible and let me take it as holiday instead. If they said no, it would not change the fact that I was still ill and would therefore still be off. The only thing that would change is the clasification of the absence.

Pete111

I'm afraid if she worked at my company she would be facing a disiplinary meeting also.

You cannot threaten to go on the sick if you don't get the holidays you request and then, when these are refused, expect the company not to find it fishy when you are signed off sick over this period.

Remember, a disciplinary hearing is not a sanction in itself but part of an investigation into suspected misconduct. In my opinion the employer quite rightly wished to investigate this situation formally and would be remiss to let this go without any action.

Whether or not the employee was genuinely ill and has a Dr's note (and these are given out like sweeties by certain GP's BTW), we are talking about the balance of probability here and I think any normal person would have a degree of suspicion given the initial conversation. Though this was apparently not witnessed by others and the manager may be placing his word against the employees they are placed in a position of trust in a company for a reason. HR would not need a witness to the conversation to act here. Too many posters on here seem to think that employee disputes are overseen by the CPS....

Similarly, a Drs note is not a magic 'get out of jail' free card in the same way that being on Maternity does not make you immune from redundancy. It does mean that the company has to be partiularly careful in how they handle the situation, but holding a disciplinary meeting is in my view a reasonable step given the initial 'threat' and subsequent actions by the OP's ex (whether genuinely ill or not)

What remains to be seen is the outcome. Personally I think dismissal would be harsh however.

Apolonation

Sure you can hold disciplinary's until the cows come home. My point was without a witness or a confession of the fact that the conversation took place. The company can not legally dismiss the employee.

Pete111

Apolonation wrote: »

Sure you can hold disciplinary's until the cows come home. My point was without a witness or a confession of the fact that the conversation took place. The company can not legally dismiss the employee.

I think you'll find they can

The only question is whether they would win at the subsequent tribunal.

P

pitkin2020

Wheter the Op's misses was ill or not is actually irrelevant, she basically told her employee let me have the time off or I will take it off sick. If she had broken her leg she still would have got investigated because of the threat of going sick if she didn't get what she wanted.
She has basically taken unauthorised leave, the doctors note will not save her from being dismissed if they think thats the best course of action to take.

pitkin2020

Apolonation wrote: »

Sure you can hold disciplinary's until the cows come home. My point was without a witness or a confession of the fact that the conversation took place. The company can not legally dismiss the employee.

Any company can dismiss anyone they like for what ever reason they like. Obviously the company knows they could be facing a tribunal if the employee feels they have been unfairly dismissed and it could cost them a small fortune of it is found they did indeed dismiss someone unfairly.

There also a lot of other reasons employers can dismiss someone, and in the OP's case if she isn't careful she could be dismissed under the capability at work act.

Pete111

pitkin2020 wrote: »

Any company can dismiss anyone they like for what ever reason they like. Obviously the company knows they could be facing a tribunal if the employee feels they have been unfairly dismissed and it could cost them a small fortune of it is found they did indeed dismiss someone unfairly.

There also a lot of other reasons employers can dismiss someone, and in the OP's case if she isn't careful she could be dismissed under the capability at work act.

Very true.

As I mentioned, a lot of posters seem to think that employment law is enforced and ruled on like criminal law. Many employers are happy to bend/break employment law principles as they know only a tribunal can decide for sure and often things do not get that far. In addition, tribunals place an awful lot of stock in what is or isn't reasonable / likely rather than the absolute letter of legislation.

This is precisely why the op'S ex is in a spot of bother.

Also although ACAS are usually fairly good (though not in this case, sounds like the rep was very green indeed), they do not represent the voice of certainty - their opinion is only that I'm afraid.