Pregnant + suspended for fainting!

miss_independent

mikey72 wrote: »

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?

No, its a fairly new system called Direct Payments. The parents would be funded for so many hours for a personal assistant/ support worker, they then get to arrange the care for the daughter which the council pay for. From our families point of view (we get direct payments for my Gran), we phone the hours through to the council, money is put into the account and we pay the carer from this money. We have an accountant who keeps us right. TBH it is almost like being self-employed as carers can work for several people/agencies but at the same time we can ask a carer not to come back without consulting the council first. The parents of this woman have employer's responsibilities. It is confusing but if you are more interested direct.gov have alot of info and if googling Direct Payments may also shed more light.

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/CaringForSomeone/MoneyMatters/DG_10018517

On the North Lincs site, this;

"Users of the payments must manage their care and the funds, with help if necessary. If a Direct Payment user employs their own staff to act as 'personal assistants', they still have the tasks of recruiting suitable staff and ensuring they fulfil the legal requirements of responsible employers. There is a support service contacted by the council to assist people in these tasks."

lifesizedoll

I have been working with her since July and there has never been one problem. I think the set up is slightly different to yours miss_independent as her parents do not get the money themselves, and I got the job through the council. Thanks for your points it makes a lot of sense and I agree as I never thought in a million years I could be dismissed for fainting as I have always been very competent in my job.

miss_independent

lifesizedoll wrote: »

I have been working with her since July and there has never been one problem. I think the set up is slightly different to yours miss_independent as her parents do not get the money themselves, and I got the job through the council. Thanks for your points it makes a lot of sense and I agree as I never thought in a million years I could be dismissed for fainting as I have always been very competent in my job.

I'm sure you are a trustworthy, dedicated person and it is very sad you have been made to feel bad about something which was not your fault. This set up does seem to be unusual though! I don't see how you are supposed to know who your employer is . When you say you got the job through the council, hope you don't mind me asking, but do you mean you applied to an advert or was your name on a list of recommended carers? We have a direct payments account specifically for "buying extra care" which the council pay into but we cannot touch other than writing cheques to our carer, we ourselves were provided a list of recommended carers but chose to arrange "off-list" care - but even if we had got someone on the council list we still would have been the employers as that is how Direct Payments works. Its very complicated isn't it!

mikey72

miss_independent wrote: »

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.

What do any of your scenarios have to do with this situation.
If you were the only teacher supervising an outward bound canoe trip, not in a school surrounded by colleagues and other students maybe.

The op certainly isn't a parent in charge of her own child, or do you compare your teaching job to that.

Guidance for lone workers, quote
http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg73.pdf
"These responsibilities cannot be transferred to any other person"
Your parents may have a card system to cover this. Does the op have the backup of a professional excellent rated care home?

mikey72

To the op.
It still sounds like you work for the council, and the council are effectively an independent "agency" who contract you out to a different part of themselves. It is probably better to be employed by the council like this, as you will have completed 26 weeks ending by the 15th week before you're due. Then you should qualify for maternity pay. Do you pay tax and NI, or is it taken from your salary before you get the rest of it?
If you work for the council they should be able to "suspend" (in a good way) you, or find you other duties. Much harder if you are self employed, or working directly for the parents.

olly300

mikey72 wrote: »

What do any of your scenarios have to do with this situation.
If you were the only teacher supervising an outward bound canoe trip, not in a school surrounded by colleagues and other students maybe.

The op certainly isn't a parent in charge of her own child, or do you compare your teaching job to that.

Guidance for lone workers, quote
http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg73.pdf
"These responsibilities cannot be transferred to any other person"
Your parents may have a card system to cover this. Does the op have the backup of a professional excellent rated care home?

Your leaflet link doesn't explain why like zzzLazyDaisy stated you don't understand that Sex Discrimination due to pregnancy is illegal and that the employers how ever small have to do things as she stated.

There are no longer any exemptions in law for small employers and while a tribunal may recognise that a small employer doesn't have large funds to obtain legal advice on the law, as the role is paid for and organised by the council they would probably find themselves in difficulty.

Edited to say: The only thing the employer can do if after an assessment they find she can't work with the lady is suspend her on full pay due to Health and Safety reasons.

mikey72

olly300 wrote: »

Your leaflet link doesn't explain why like zzzLazyDaisy stated you don't understand that Sex Discrimination due to pregnancy is illegal and that the employers how ever small have to do things as she stated.

There are no longer any exemptions in law for small employers and while a tribunal may recognise that a small employer doesn't have large funds to obtain legal advice on the law, as the role is paid for and organised by the council they would probably find themselves in difficulty.

Edited to say: The only thing the employer can do if after an assessment they find she can't work with the lady is suspend her on full pay due to Health and Safety reasons.

Last post on the subject.
The issue is fainting, not pregnency.
Either the op can do the job, so they carry on.
Or she can't. She's a lone worker, and has to comply to HSE regulations.
Self employed option, it's down to her to comply, but as she is a contractor then no one is obliged to use her, the contract can be switched to any supplier at any time for any reason.
Working directly for the parents, if they can't comply, they may as well make her redundant, if they can by suspending on full pay, they have to pay the op anyway, either way the daughter can't go out.
Working for the council, they can assess it, and depending on their decision, the op has the options above.
All this is also swayed by the fact she has a vulnerable person with her, who she is paid to supervise constantly, so their care has to be assessed as well. If they are at risk, the employer, whoever it is, is probably liable as well.

miss_independent

mikey72 wrote: »

What do any of your scenarios have to do with this situation.
If you were the only teacher supervising an outward bound canoe trip, not in a school surrounded by colleagues and other students maybe.

The op certainly isn't a parent in charge of her own child, or do you compare your teaching job to that.

Guidance for lone workers, quote
http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg73.pdf
"These responsibilities cannot be transferred to any other person"
Your parents may have a card system to cover this. Does the op have the backup of a professional excellent rated care home?

I never said the responsibilities were transferrable , as the document says the responsibility lies with the employer to assess the possible risks of a lone worker. Risk assessment does not = sack someone who faints. Otherwise no one would ever employ me lol! And I do often work alone on a one to one basis (educational needs specialist) but as you say never totally alone, as in there is someone in a room nearby. However, the scenario in question took place in a gym where, by law there will be a first aider on site at all times. The gym isn't in a completely isolated place with no one around. OP hasn't said as of yet whether there are times when she is completely alone with the lady she cares for - i.e lady may live in a rural farm house. At any rate, going back to risk assessment - the employer should assess the risk and has a duty of care to the OP also to ensure that steps are taken to continue employing OP whilst safeguarding their daughter. I didn't make this clear when I stated that the emergency card was an example of one way to ensure the daughter receives attention immediately in the event of an emergency - the CEC has nothing to do with my parent's business, that is something I would expect the parents to have in place themselves as parents, carers and employers ( although the latter is currently in dispute!) - their social worker would have made them aware of the CEC, as would their local carers service and perhaps GP, Community Nurse etc. They should look at where fainting would pose a risk to their daughter and figure out ways around this - i.e sitting in a hot gym as opposed to standing, do they have a panic button in the home for if OP and daughter are alone? If they indeed are employers, they could find themselves in a sticky situation if they use the current situation as a basis of terminating employment. They have a responsibility not only to their (adult) child but also to their employee - if they are the employer, which if they are receiving direct payments they almost certainly will be. If not, I have no doubt the council will be more cautious before suspending or possibly dismissing someone who fainted ... once... In that event, they the council) may work as mediators to, as I say, carry out a risk assessment and then take the necessary steps to safeguard their daughter.

The scenarios I posed were to illustrate the absurdity of the situation - this is the kind of scenario which could crop up at anytime, with any employee or with a parent like themselves. How could anyone be completely 100% assured that an employee would never faint? As a teacher, of course I know I am not working with my own children, but we do act in loco parentis at the times the parent is absent. We have a duty to safeguard the children we work with. I believe when the OP was with the lady in question she was acting in a similar capacity - she was responsible for the safety of the lady she was caring for at that time. When a parent is looking after their child are they not responsible for them ? The point remains, anyone can faint whilst caring for this lady, so what do you do, employ a robot?

At any rate I believe my comments have been somewhat helpful to the OP, as I'm sure have yours. I do believe my comments were viable, it may be that we will just have to agree to disagree :beer:.

adouglasmhor

The issue is pregnancy - which caused the fainting. Your argument has been tried before and failed then.
If she goes back to work and just avoids the situation which made her faint, which she did not know would happen in the first place, it will be fine, this may include sitting down while her charge is in the gym. The parents have overreacted possibly understandably and are making a hash of things. They also transgressed by claiming the OP should have told them she was expecting - it's none of there business at this stage.

adouglasmhor

BTW I am a 20 stone weightlifting martial artist and I fainted once in work, never have before and never again so far. It was the day after my flu jag.