NHS casual contract - pregnant and sacked

piglet25

I have - or rather did have employment at my local hospital on their nurse bank, which is basically an in house agency on an as and when needed basis. I was off on maternity leave untill feb this year and then was suffering with a bad back so couldn't go to work. I fell pregnant again in May and have problems relating to this which mean I can't lift people, which is 90% of the job, knowing that I would be a hindrence to the staff I was supposed to be helping, and thinking of myself and my bump I did not ring for any shifts. They were informed of my pregnancy by myself delivering a letter to them, on the basis that my emails get ignored. I recieved no contact at all untill August when I recieved a letter from them asking if I wished to stay in their employment. I emailed and telephoned, saying yes so they booked me in for training approx 6 weeks later. I informed them via them that I would be unable to attend that day and asked them to rebook it, I haven't heard anything from them untill this morning when I got a letter saying as I didn't attend the training I am to be removed from their register of employees - sacked.
Is this legal? I am 23 weeks pregnant and I am wondering if its worth writing to them and the chief exec to ask for a reconsideration as I fully intended, and told them of the fact, to return after my confinement.
Any help?

teabelly

You can't do 90% of the job. What use are you to them? Pregnancy is not an accidental occurrence and so you'll be on maternity yet again in a few months. Then you can't make the training day but won't put yourself out and expect them to change it for you. I'm not surprised they don't want you. Whether any of its legal is another matter.

getmore4less

If this is an NHS bank(not 3 party agency)
If this was a Zero hours contract then I think you need to follow this up.
If not what sort of contract was it and the following might not apply.

Allthough they(zero hours) come with no real employment protections(they just stop giving you work) they do have one key advantage over other types of temporary contracts.

The advanatge of having a zero hours contract is that you are establishing continuity of service so that if in the future you do get an hours based contract you should immediately have service for employment protections, maternity, redundancy etc.


So the key is under what circumstances can a person on a zero hours contract be dismissed, again I think the normal employment protections apply.

What is in the contract about being able to work, retraining after absences, minimum hours in a year etc,
registered nurses for example have to do a minimum each year to keep registration

piglet25

teabelly wrote: »

You can't do 90% of the job. What use are you to them? Pregnancy is not an accidental occurrence and so you'll be on maternity yet again in a few months. Then you can't make the training day but won't put yourself out and expect them to change it for you. I'm not surprised they don't want you. Whether any of its legal is another matter.

I could have gone to a ward where they are short staffed and refused to lift ect but as that is the main core of my job I felt it would not be fair on the staff. I could not make the training due to bleeding, not because I couldn't be bothered.


Its a zero hours contract with no minimum hours per year. I was never given a copy and found that out when I was on maternity last time. I asked for the training to be rebooked and they ignored my request, and never acknowledged my letter re my pregnancy and associated health problems. I know they don't have any obligation to provide me with work when I request it but I feel they have acted in an underhand manner with me and I am sure they should have had a meeting with me to discuss the issue, not just sent out a letter. I have been with them for seven years.
Is it worth a letter to the top?

getmore4less

I have been with them for seven years.
Is it worth a letter to the top?

I think some dialog needs to happen this could be a mismanaged dismissal and unfare termination of the contract.

7 years continuity of service is usefull to maintain for the future even if you cannot work much now and want to maintain the flexability

I think they should have given you 7 weeks notice with 7 years service so thats one issue.


Edit: Just thought

don't you accrue some maternity rights from the work actualy done.

I know some(all?) NHS tend to roll up holiday for zero hours so make sure you have been getting that when you were working.

System

Am I being thick? If the OP is not doing any work what would 7 weeks notice achieve? Just an extra 7 weeks on the banks books while no work was being done; it changes nothing.

getmore4less

!!!!!! wrote: »

Am I being thick? If the OP is not doing any work what would 7 weeks notice achieve? Just an extra 7 weeks on the banks books while no work was being done; it changes nothing.

The point is that it is an indicator they have failed to terminate the contract correctly.

With 7 years service I don't think you can just terminate a contract like this.
The job cannot be redundant unless they close the bank so they need some other valid reason.

bluenoseam

The problem as they see it is that you're unfit to work within the NHS and because of your current situation it's highly likely that you will not be able to come back to work on a reliable schedule for some considerable time. I know it sucks but ultimately you've been off on Maternity leave, when it came time to return to work you were unable to complete a task essential to the job (which you openly admit to yourself) then fell pregnant again 3 months later - while none of that in itself is a "sackable" offense, it is however a vast chunk of time in which you aren't physically capable of doing the job whereby other people have to cover you.

I don't think they can just sack you (union/legal advice been sought?) but i think they should have attempted to use you in areas where you can do the job. The letter you sent - are you sure they recieved it?

Uncertain

teabelly wrote: »

You can't do 90% of the job. What use are you to them? Pregnancy is not an accidental occurrence and so you'll be on maternity yet again in a few months. Then you can't make the training day but won't put yourself out and expect them to change it for you. I'm not surprised they don't want you. Whether any of its legal is another matter.

Well at least you added the final sentence to this tirade!

I thought this forum was intended to help people make the best of their situation within the law, not a soapbox from which to shout your opinions!

LondonDiva

They don't have to redeploy you anywhere as a nurse as you were not up to the role you were down on their books for. You then didn't go on their books as an admin worker for instance and were not used for those roles.

Employment rights on the bank tend to be reliant on immediate continuity of service - in this instance, you had not worked for at least a year, let alone the few number of weeks taken into account prior to them taking you off their books.

Bear in mind that the bank is an agency better perks, but an agency all the same.

esmerelda98

It is frequently the case that to remain on a nursing bank nurses must work at least one shift in a given period, usually 6 months. Quite apart from the fact that nurses, even 'untrained' ones need to keep their skills up to date, it is good admin to periodically remove those who do not appear to be interested in continuing to work on the bank.

You may find that your contract states that the hospital only employs you for the duration of your shifts there, and that between shifts they do not employ you. This presumably means you do not build up the same employment rights as 'permanent' staff.