Pregnant + suspended for fainting!

SueC_2

I can appreciate the parents' concern for their daughter, but surely an element of reason needs to be applied? As it stands, this is an isolated incident of fainting - which is something anyone could fall victim to, regardless of age, gender, race, inside leg measurement or whether or not they are pregnant.

The OP has since been medically checked over, and declared fit by her GP, who was made aware of the circumstances and didn't feel it necessary to sign her off work. She is now also aware of the risk she is at when standing for prolonged periods in hot places, so presumably will either avoid these places or ask for a chair in future.

I can understand the parents wanting to monitor the situation, and that, if the fainting were to become a regular issue, there may in the future be the need for the OP to cease being left alone with their daughter.

I can also understand that, until their minds have been put at rest, they may prefer that the OP and their daughter weren't left absolutely on their own (eg. no isolated country walks). But I can honestly see no problem with continuing to go to a gym (where there is a legal requirement for a qualified first aider to be on hand), or indeed to any other public place where, in an emergency situation, there will be other people around to take control.

However, if there has previously been a good relationship between the OP and the parents and daughter, then the parents really need to keep be 'encouraged' to keep this in proportion and balance the strength of the relationship (and continuity of care for their daughter) against one unfortunate incident and/or the upheaval and upset that will be caused to their daughter if they insist on a new carer at this point.

I think they need to be advised to take a deep breath and step away from the Panic Button. But perhaps not in quite those words!

mikey72

SueC wrote: »

I can appreciate the parents' concern for their daughter, but surely an element of reason needs to be applied? As it stands, this is an isolated incident of fainting - which is something anyone could fall victim to, regardless of age, gender, race, inside leg measurement or whether or not they are pregnant.

The OP has since been medically checked over, and declared fit by her GP, who was made aware of the circumstances and didn't feel it necessary to sign her off work. She is now also aware of the risk she is at when standing for prolonged periods in hot places, so presumably will either avoid these places or ask for a chair in future.

I can understand the parents wanting to monitor the situation, and that, if the fainting were to become a regular issue, there may in the future be the need for the OP to cease being left alone with their daughter.

I can also understand that, until their minds have been put at rest, they may prefer that the OP and their daughter weren't left absolutely on their own (eg. no isolated country walks). But I can honestly see no problem with continuing to go to a gym (where there is a legal requirement for a qualified first aider to be on hand), or indeed to any other public place where, in an emergency situation, there will be other people around to take control.

However, if there has previously been a good relationship between the OP and the parents and daughter, then the parents really need to keep be 'encouraged' to keep this in proportion and balance the strength of the relationship (and continuity of care for their daughter) against one unfortunate incident and/or the upheaval and upset that will be caused to their daughter if they insist on a new carer at this point.

I think they need to be advised to take a deep breath and step away from the Panic Button. But perhaps not in quite those words!

They're going to need a new carer sooner or later anyway.

SueC_2

mikey72 wrote: »

They're going to need a new carer sooner or later anyway.

True enough (although I don't think maternity leave is obligatory), but I would have thought that, for the daughter's sake if nothing else, there would be better ways of handling it than having someone with whom she has an established relationship being spirited away overnight. That surely would be quite distressing for the very person they are trying to protect in all this.

unemployedJCP

I think the OP sadly doesn't have much of a case depending on how the contract is worded etc. If the contract has such a clause, they could lay off you if your job directly involves only that one client (i.e. not being a Support Worker in general, being assigned to a client) if the mother decides to no longer pay for the services.

I am confused whether you mean the mother uses the Council's HR and payroll services or whether you are employed by the Council and the mother pays for the services (which wouldnt make her your employer).

zzzLazyDaisy

I am not sure why you disagree with my suggestion (at point 5) that OP speak to the Equality Commission as it seems to me they are the best people to advise her.

lifesizedoll

unemployedJCP wrote: »

I am confused whether you mean the mother uses the Council's HR and payroll services or whether you are employed by the Council and the mother pays for the services (which wouldnt make her your employer).

No the parents do not pay, the woman I support just gets the funding from the council, and her parents just ring my hours through to the council and then the council pay me.

Oh yes looked at that equality commissions website, think I will ring them tommorow.

mikey72

Sounds more and more like you are a worker, or employed by the council. Having said that if the woman the council supply you to doesn't want you, the council can't make her take you. More an offer of alternative work, or suspension on pay if none is available or suitable, and the woman forgoes the carer for her daughter until you have completed your maternity and are available again.
How long have you worked for the council?

Savvy_Sue

mikey72 wrote: »

and you're not qualified to diagnose why the op fainted.

I didn't try to. A doctor has said that there doesn't seem to be a problem, but that standing for a prolonged period in a hot environment may (and in this case did) lead to fainting, especially when you're pregnant.

mikey72 wrote: »

The op, the council, and the family need to sit round and sort it out, or all need legal advice.

We agree about something ...

miss_independent

I'm shocked that people think it is OK for someone to be suspended for fainting regardless of whether they are pregnant or not .

I'm a teacher with a heart condition part of which is that I am prone to fainting. In seven years of teaching, I have never fainted whilst at work (touch wood) but I have stated that I have this condition to occupational health when applying for jobs and never been turned down for a job due to this, never told I was "a risk" as a teacher and often I am working without another adult in the classroom with me. Anyone can faint, male or female, young or old at anytime. People prone to vasovagal episodes (fainting spells) work in many fields such as the care sector the OP works in - the only professions totally unsuitable would be those such as pilots, armed forces, some machine operatives etc where you could actually kill someone through fainting.

My parents run an CSCI excellent rated care business in the private sector for adults much like the lady the OP cares for and there is nothing in their legislation ( and believe me there is ALOT of legislation!) which says they have to suspend/sack staff who faint/break their leg/have a heart attack/ get run down by a wayward car whilst on a one to one or somehow get indisposed. These are rare, emergency situations and unlikely to happen, and what my parents do have (as required by law) is a detailed business continuity plan for such events. I.e, all service users have id cards and are briefed in what do to if something happens to a carer - a mobile emergency number for at least two people who would be able to attend/arrange help immediately is included on this ID card and, although many of the service users have extremely complex mental health needs, in the case in question they would have the capacity be to remove the emergency card from their wallet and hand it to the nearest member of gym staff. Someone who has the capacity to use gym equipment, even with supervision, would have the ability to hand an emergency card over. As a part time carer myself for my 91 year old grandmother, all three of us (mum, auntie myself) carry the Carer's Emergency Card which explains, we care for someone and what to do/who to contact in an emergency. A family using direct payments, I'm sure would know their entitlements as carers themselves (when OP is not caring for the lady) and the CEC was one of the first things we were told we should have as a priority.

Let me pose a scenario. A mother with a two year old child faints for the first time in her life whilst at the playground with said toddler. She is also 10 weeks pregnant so this could be a factor in the fainting. Does that mean the two year old should be put into foster care/ never allowed to be left alone with the mother until her second child is born because she is "a risk" to her child? What about a parent/teacher/doctor with diabetes who could go into a coma? An epileptic? Where would this ever end?

TBH, to me, OP it definitely sounds like it is your pregnancy they have a problem with. Perhaps they were just waiting for an excuse to get rid of you. So sorry you have to go through this at a time when added stress is the last thing you need. Best wishes for the rest of your pregnancy.

Savvy_Sue

miss_independent wrote: »

TBH, to me, OP it definitely sounds like it is your pregnancy they have a problem with. Perhaps they were just waiting for an excuse to get rid of you. So sorry you have to go through this at a time when added stress is the last thing you need. Best wishes for the rest of your pregnancy.

I wondered that too. How long have you been working with this lady, OP?