disciplinary help please - SUSPENDED!!!

mum2one

to me it sounds like their looking for an excuse to get rid of your g/f.

the text message - that takes me back as that was one of the reasons I cited on my employment form, the text was sent to me, it was allowed to be cited as the person that sent the text was on shift, therefore it was company business, outside work its personal and a civil matter.

It sounds like the company may not have done the 1st meeting correctly, again that would need to be clarified and checked, regardless of whether your g/f contract would be terminated say by illness, - thats shes unable to do the job, you wouldn't have a claim for unfair dismassal, but for breach of rights.

I spent 3 yrs fighting my ex employer for unfair constructive dismissal,x

jdturk

Misshomme wrote: »

Yes she can be dismissed for long term sickness and if her illness stops her from returning to work, but companies are supposed to find alternative routes first like easing her back in to the job or if it's the job itself causing stress, finding something else within the company that might be better for them. I think it would be harder to sack this lady due to stress/depression than it would be for a supposed misconduct. At the moment I don't think this lady would have been on sick long enough to be dismissed and they might not see stress/depression as something that would keep her from coming back to work at some point.

The OP has alluded to other periods of sickness so it could be a more than one long term sickness to dismiss her on

jdturk

mum2one wrote: »

I spent 3 yrs fighting my ex employer for unfair constructive dismissal,x

Did you win and was it worth the stress?

Misshomme

jdturk wrote: »

The OP has alluded to other periods of sickness so it could be a more than one long term sickness to dismiss her on

Then I'm afraid it's not looking good for the OP girlfriend. They could very well raise this issue in addition to the text message. I still see something very wrong with the way the company has handled this to say it was an out of work text. The girl claiming to be bullied might have said something the OP gf isn't aware of. I still wonder if they are making a bigger deal of the text to get around sacking this lady for her sickness record.

jdturk

Misshomme wrote: »

Then I'm afraid it's not looking good for the OP girlfriend. They could very well raise this issue in addition to the text message. I still see something very wrong with the way the company has handled this to say it was an out of work text. The girl claiming to be bullied might have said something the OP gf isn't aware of. I still wonder if they are making a bigger deal of the text to get around sacking this lady for her sickness record.

I agree I think they are making a hash of getting rid of someone, if there is a bad sick record then it is fairly easy to go through the process of sacking someone for capability reasons

Emmzi

I wouldn't call end on this until g/f has seen occupational health. She doesn't seem to have yet.

Uncertain

jdturk wrote: »

I agree I think they are making a hash of getting rid of someone, if there is a bad sick record then it is fairly easy to go through the process of sacking someone for capability reasons

It depends how you define "bad sick record" and, to some extent, how the company has treated other capability issues in the past.

My own experience has been that employers are far more reluctant to dismiss for this reason than some of the regular posters on this forum would have you believe. But then, I've not worked everywhere - but nor have they!

Sometime the coffee cup mentality applies (Caution - contents may be hot!!) and firms are terrified of the possibility of a work related injury claim, probably out of all proportion to the real risk.

As I've said before on here, we can debate the finer points of employment law until we are blue in the face.

However there are other employers, particularly highly commercial small businesses and professional practices that take the view "We will employ who we like, sack who we don't like and if all else fails pay up". In the real business terms the vast majority of ET awards are petty cash - a few months salary. It is the exceptions to these that tend to grab the headlines but that does not make them the norm.

In a way this makes this situation almost impossible to judge anonymously from behind a computer screen. I do just wish that some of the very regular posters would accept that their personal experience may not apply to every situation. One size does not fit all.

dickydonkin

Emmzi wrote: »

It may mean they dismiss for ill health not bullying. Right now there is an opportunity to address the bullying charge. There may not be an opportunity to contest an ill health dismissal.

It is possible that both situations are intertwined and could likely be used as a defence of the allegations of bullying.

As it now transpires that the OP's girlfriend has been suffering from stress and depression for some time, it could be likely that the condition(s) she was suffering from were a contributory factor to the actions she made relating to the incident she is being disciplined for.

Her condition would also likely be covered under the DDA which may require the employer to be careful in how the matter is handled.

I am not implying for one minute that because someone is suffering from an ailment gives them 'carte blanche' to do what they please and get away with it, what I am suggesting is that the condition could have possibly been related to the alleged actions of the OP's GF.

Originally Posted by Horace
Misshomme - the employer can dismiss someone because they are sick on grounds of incapability regardless of how many doctors notes have been provided especially if the person has been on long term sick leave and there is little chance of them returning...

With a caveat that they do so at their own risk.

I worked with a colleague who was insulin dependant and had been for all of his life. He was also on the waiting list for a kidney transplant.

He eventually got his new kidney and a pancreas which for the first time in his life allowed him to throw away the insulin.

Obviously, over the span of his working life, he had lost a considerable amount of work through his conditions and rehab from the transplants.

The employer did attempt to get rid of him because of this - it did not work. He appealed against his decision, he employed lawyers to fight his cause and the employer backed down.

As Uncertain has alluded to in an earlier post, it is rare for employers to dismiss for such reasons, however, I suspect some will try.

"We will employ who we like, sack who we don't like and if all else fails pay up".

Sadly, the above is the mindset of many companies.

jdturk

Uncertain wrote: »

In a way this makes this situation almost impossible to judge anonymously from behind a computer screen. I do just wish that some of the very regular posters would accept that their personal experience may not apply to every situation. One size does not fit all.

I'm not sure if that was a slight on me but I'm guessing it was and I don't disagree but life is all about experiences and if someone posts on a forum then they will get views of the experience of the other posters....whether rightly or wrongly

jdturk

dpassmore wrote: »

With a caveat that they do so at their own risk.

I worked with a colleague who was insulin dependant and had been for all of his life. He was also on the waiting list for a kidney transplant.

You can do it with minimal risk, as I have said before you can pay a HR company to guide you through the processes and other HR related matters and they will pay all costs if it goes to tribunal however the company has to pay the fine if there is one.

Its akin to being part of a union but for an employer, it means they do things in the proper route and I would guess have a much higher success rate when it goes to tribunal and if the do lose then they only pay the fine which will be minimal (its unlikely to be high because the HR company would not get involved if things were not done correctly)