Employers and Time off for Hospital Apointments

DCFC79

How would the OP get to the appointment then if the employer wouldnt let her go and pulling isnt a good idea. I took a days holiday when i went last year for my appointment as didnt have much choice as i could have been there for ages

System

SarEl wrote: »

Rather simplistic. There is a difference between a disciplinary and a dismissal (the major one being that you can't take a disciplinary to a tribunal). Having a hospital appointment is not the same thing as "being sick" - and she has already told them that she has a hospital appointment. They therefore do not have to "prove" anything - no employer has to prove anything other than reaosnable belief. She asked for the time off, they refused, she went off sick, ergo "reasonable belief" that she went off sick to attend the appointment. For which they do not have to dismiss - they could issue a warning - even a final warning. The the first time she is late for work....fair dismissal. I cannot in any way, shape or form, disagree that her employer is a royal ***** (fill in your own expletive). But given this knowledge, does anyone here think that they would not do exactly what I have just described?

I knew I should have put the smiley!

SarEl

!!!!!! wrote: »

I knew I should have put the smiley!

Ah - I thought you meant it! Unfortunately, as has been observed on threads here before, the law and "common sense" (whatever that is) don't accord. It wouldn't be the first time I have heard people say that they thought a hospital appointment was "sickness"

SarEl

DCFC79 wrote: »

How would the OP get to the appointment then if the employer wouldnt let her go and pulling isnt a good idea. I took a days holiday when i went last year for my appointment as didnt have much choice as i could have been there for ages

Don't get me wrong - I do not agree with what her employer has said. The problem is that the employer is within the law to say this. So the answer has to be to get the hospital appointment for a time when she is not working (I believe she said she was on shifts so this may not be impossible) or to take leave but giving more notice (as far as I can see there was only a working days notice given - which may have been enough in law, but it is short notice and an employer might be able to reaosnably argue that they cannot re-arrange shifts or cover in that space of time).

Boa21

This may or may not be helpful. But if this is your first appointment at the hospital for this condition, no way should you have had to wait 4 months. I make that 16 weeks and the maximum waiting times should be 13 weeks. Complain to the hospital, this is not acceptable - even with the new Government's total lack of interest in NHS waiting times.

BTW, I agree with the previous posts about your health being important and that your employer is a total bar steward!

Hope it goes well for you

Indie_Kid

Boa21 wrote: »

This may or may not be helpful. But if this is your first appointment at the hospital for this condition, no way should you have had to wait 4 months. I make that 16 weeks and the maximum waiting times should be 13 weeks. Complain to the hospital, this is not acceptable - even with the new Government's total lack of interest in NHS waiting times.

BTW, I agree with the previous posts about your health being important and that your employer is a total bar steward!

Hope it goes well for you

It's 18 weeks.

Zazen999

Did you ask your employer what their procedure is for hospital appointments; and for taking leave to attend?

Why can't anyone take leave on a Monday; is this written into your contract? Does ANYONE ever take leave on a Monday?

Boa21

sh1305 wrote: »

It's 18 weeks.

Not strictly true, its 13 weeks for a 1st outpatients appointment, although in fairness this isn't being reported any longer. Its 18 weeks from referral to first definitive treatment. If you don't get the appoint for 16 weeks they don't have long to give you the first treatment (unless they do something in the clinic at the appointment.)

SarEl

Angelic wrote: »

I wish the right to hospital appointments could be protected in law...not sure how it would work though.

It'd be quite simple. Lots of employers already do it. On production of a confirmed appointment in writing, employees are guaranteed unpaid time off to attend appointments. Employers are allowed discretion to amend this to paid time off within contractual arrangements. It wouldn't even be necessary to enshrine this in law - it could be appended to statutory guidance, which gives it the "force of law" in relation to tribunals. Just like the guidance on disciplinaries - it isn't law, and there is some leeway, but effectively an employer ignores it at their peril. The requirement for written appointments is easy to fulfil for employees, and employers would be reassured that people were not skiving off and claiming the appointment lasted all day if they had the provision for unpaid leave. It wouldn't solve every single issue - but it would solve most of them.

Savvy_Sue

Whatever you decide to do about the appointment, I would most definitely raise a grievance about this: it doesn't sound as if there is any reason to refuse as the OP has made several quite reasonable suggestions about how to cover the shift, including a swap which presumably the other party was happy to do!

And it would be worth checking your contract: I used to work for a housing association who followed local authority conditions fairly closely, and hospital appointments were granted without having to take leave or work the time up or take sick leave. What sort of employer is this, apart from an unreasonable one?