Disciplinary Help!!!

prosaver

go to, no win no fee lawers , and they will tell you if you got a case which you have 100 per cent
1 your husband didnt have a medical which he should of on his return and
2 its Illegal for the company to let him work them hours...
in other words they are liable (its the law check it out).

steve1980

What are you on about?

prosaver wrote: »

go to, no win no fee lawers , and they will tell you if you got a case which you have 100 per cent
1 your husband didnt have a medical which he should of on his return and
2 its Illegal for the company to let him work them hours...
in other words they are liable (its the law check it out).

steve1980 wrote: »

As he works for a security company he would have had to tick a box saying that he is willing to work over X amount of hours.

At the end of the day a new born baby is no excuse, nor is medication (as others have said, he should of read the leaflet that is enclosed with his anti d's) to fall asleep on the job.

I also work for a security company and I would be preparing myself for the dismissal. If he doesn't then he can think himself very lucky.

There are loads of security jobs available if that what he wants to be doing.

SarEl

Oh for goodness sake - the advice on this thread is getting "bl**dy" ridiculous. There is no right in law - whether in the contract or not - for unpaid suspension. You are arguing over angels not dancing on a pinhead.

The only issue here is the falling asleep on duty and I agree with the OP - it is gross misconduct in that he should not have done so, so unfortunately, given that he seems not to have declared this as a possible issue relating to long term use of a drug (which was relevant ti his job), then it is largely up to his employers to decide whether this is mitiigation or not. Not a comfortable position to be in, but that is the simple fact.

KPR11

stephbond89 wrote: »

As I said, he was never made aware the medication could make him drowsy

The leaflet accompanying the medication would have drowsiness listed a side effect, legally required to warn patients that they don't use machinery and/or drive as the medication may cause drowsiness!

paddedjohn

AS A SECURITY GUARD THE OP'S HUSBAND IS EXEMPT FROM THE 11 HOUR REST BETWEEN SHIFTS REGS
Exceptions to the regulations

Your working week is not covered by the Working Time Regulations if you work in the following areas:

• jobs where you can choose freely how long you will work (such as a managing executive)
• the armed forces, emergency services and police are excluded in some circumstances
• domestic servants in private houses

The rights to breaks apply differently to you if:

• you have to travel a long distance from your home to get to work
• you constantly work in different places making it difficult to work to a set pattern
• you are doing security or surveillance-based work
• you are working in an industry with busy peak periods, like agriculture, retail or tourism
• there is an emergency or risk of an accident
• the job needs round-the-clock staffing (such as hospital work)
• you are employed in the rail industry and you work on board trains or your activities are irregular or linked to seeing that trains run on time

In these cases, instead of getting normal breaks, you are entitled to 'compensatory rest'. This is rest taken later, ideally during the same or following working day. The principle is that everyone gets a minimum 90 hours rest a week on average. This is the total of your entitlement to daily and weekly rest periods, although some rest may come slightly later than normal.

KiKi

Fiddlestick wrote: »

I think what you mean is that the employer cannot terminate the employee *without notice* whenever they like, nor can they terminate for reasons that would be discriminatory (i.e. the employee is black, jewish, pregnant, or is a black pregnant jew )

No, that wasn't what I meant.

An employer is perfectly entitled to tell an employee that their services are no longer required and serve them with their notice as laid down in their contract.

They're really not, you know! An employer may not terminate an employee's contract for any reason they like once the employee has been there for more than 12 months. There are only a few reasons that an employer may fairly terminate a contract and 'because their services are no longer required' isn't one of them.

KiKi

Uncertain

KiKi wrote: »

There are only a few reasons that an employer may fairly terminate a contract and 'because their services are no longer required' isn't one of them.

KiKi

Yes it is actually!

It is called redundancy!

Providing the redundancy is genuine and proper procedure followed then it is a fair reason for dismissal. If employed over two years then there is an entitlement to redundancy payment.

Anyway, that is not the issue here and I totally agree with SarEl a few posts above. The standard of advice in this thread is terrible and not helping the poster one little bit.

SarEl sums the whole matter up perfectly in two short paragraphs!

jed1_2

stephbond89 wrote: »

we have also just had a new baby, his doctor did actually say that it is his pills which have started to cause the drowsiness due to the other things happening in his life, a new baby, long working hours etc.

I dont expect work to know the side affects of his pills at all of course, BUT- if a potential employee says they are on anti depressants, surely they should seek advice about whether someone with depression should be working 15 hour night shifts, and my question really is whether or not he can be fired BECAUSE of his medication.

As I said, he was never made aware the medication could make him drowsy- and now he does, he is taking action to change this medication. But my question really is considering he declared his medication to his employers- can they now 3 years down the line fire him because of an effect of his medication and mental illness?

You keep saying he did not know the antidepressants may make him drowsy but i cannot see how you can use that as a defence because it would say on the label on the front of the packet that they may make you drowsy, it will also be on the patient info leaflet inside the box, unless this has been an unknown side effect to the manufacturer that has only ever happened to your husband - and that's pretty unlikely.

Read the leaflet. I bet it does say somewhere they may make you drowsy.

jed1_2

KPR11 wrote: »

The leaflet accompanying the medication would have drowsiness listed a side effect, legally required to warn patients that they don't use machinery and/or drive as the medication may cause drowsiness!

I'm glad someone said it. lol

liney

It has been established that your DH does not have to legally have 11 hours between shifts.

Next question to be answer: Is he on a zero hour contract as I suggested, or is the suspension without pay unlawful?