need help on my work

TrickyWicky

Hmm in that case your not being recognised for your efforts. Maybe you've taken on too much for too little credit. Try taking on smaller jobs but more of them which will (in theory) get you more credit. Be warned though, a lot of companies prefer to recruit someone whos already got so called experience (even though they'll have to train them etc) while others prefer to promote from within. No idea why, sometimes you can give them years of non stop effort and get nowhere and other places will almost hand it to you on a plate and you might not realise it. I've done that.. worked in a couple of places that pretty much wanted to promote me the moment I joined.. I was too stupid to realise what was going on and shot myself in the foot.

I guess overall if its not working for you in your current job you might want to consider looking elsewhere for a job but you need to do some thinking.

Annisele

Well, the good news is that as you've worked there for more than a year you have some protection against unfair dismissal. The bad news is that that doesn't necessarily prevent your employer from disciplining / dismissing you.

Some employers would take tampering with sick notes very seriously indeed. Others wouldn't be all that fussed in these circumstances. You're more likely than we are to know which camp your employer falls into.

Is the meeting just about the inconsistencies? Is it possible the employer is also wanting to discuss how a phased return might work in practice?

rubytob

Annisele,

Thanks for your reply.
They are a pretty by the book firm and the letter was really formal. So I doubt they want to discuss a phased return as the letter officially states discrepancy in sick line. I guess I'll look forward to the sack.
Either way it doesnt seem like there's much I can do about it.
Again thank you for taking the time to respond it is much appreciated, I just hope I can keep myself together on Thursday and not shake as I am terrified

rubytob

TrickyWicky,

I think you are right - this has given me the realisation that I needed, the firm isn't for me. I guess I'll have trouble finding another job with a big dismissal on my cv but everything happens for a reason.
I will concentrate on getting better and worry about the whole employment situation then. I take your point on the whole promotion culture and if I ever get an interview after this, I will try to suss it out.
Thank you for your help, it is very kind of you to have taken the time to respond.

TrickyWicky

IF you honestly think they're going to sack you and if you can survive without the pay, resign before they sack you. At that point it doesn't look bad to another employer. Granted your reference may still be a bit screwy but its better than being sacked.

I've walked from plenty of jobs.. sure, I regret it but sometimes its better that way.

Annisele

If you do consider a pre-emptive resignation, please take advice before you do so.

A reference that says "resigned whilst under investigation for allegedly falsifying documents" essentially says "we think this person is a liar and a thief". Even if you do think your employer is 100% guaranteed to sack you, there may be some mileage in trying to negotiate an agreed reference.

Are you in a union?

fannyadams

I'm fairly sure you'd need to be seen by occupational health first before you return to work even on phased return.
have a look at this
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/RedundancyAndLeavingYourJob/Dismissal/DG_10026692
to see if this helps

I really hope it all gets sorted out for you for the best.
xx

SarEl

It appears to me that the OP is getting just a bit ahead of herself, and with the best will in the world the advice is helping her to do so. And everything is getting jumbled uip into one big mess when the chances are that is a two small ones.

So - let's start with the sickness and the "disciplinary". We are not 100% clear what the disciplinary is for or even if it is a disciplinary - it may be nothing more than an investigatory meeting. If the firm is, as the OP says "by the book" then it ought to be the latter rather than the former because:
(a) "inconsistencies" is not the same thing as wrongdoing - to have a disciplinary the employer needs to believe that some misconduct has occurred, and
(b) if it is a disciplinary meeting then the OP has the right to be accompanied by a work colleague or trades union rep, and to know the specific allegation and see the evidence: I do not know from the post whether the former has been offered, but the debate tends to indicate that the OP hasn't a clue what the allegation is or what the evidence is.

So OP, you need to clarify these matters with your employer - is this a disciplinary meeting; if yes, what is the specific allegation and where is the evidence to allow you to prepare a proper defence? If this is an investigatory meeting only, then they just want to ask about the "inconsistencies", and if that is the case, then you just tell them the truth. Volunteer nothing about what your mother did unless they actually ask about that specific issue; and even then, if you can carry it off I would be tempted to say nothing - your doctor signed you off, your mother posted in the fit note, and that is that, you don't know anything else, have they spoken to the doctor who issued it? If absolutely necessary that would enable you to latterly "find out" that mum helpfully ticked the box in confusion when she posted it a sort of "You told me this in the meeting and when I was talking to my mum she said to me... and she is willing to provide a statement that this was her".

It is highly unlikely to be the case that you would be dismissed for whatever this is, so I would get that out of your head right now because it isn't helping you (and thinking this won't help you even if it is the case!). If this is a disciplinary meeting (and I am still not sure it is) then the letter must state that you could be dismissed for this if found guilty - again, if they are "by the book" they certainly wouldn't have forgotten this. And it is also highly unlikely, verging on impossible, that a tribunal would find such a dismissal fair (providing you have told us the whole story of course).

It is also entirely possible that this is nothing more than a sickness review to clarify what is happening so that the employer can help you to return to work - some employers do use their disciplinary process for sickness absence purposes, and whilst it may not be exactly great practice, it has the birtue of being honest because the two are indistinguishable when it comes to results.

Second - OP you say that the firm isn't for you. It was a week ago! That was when you were putting a lot into developing a career there and hoping for promotion. I would suggest that you have let your fear and your illness get in the way of sense. Reading your own version of events, it seems to me that in relation to the supervision, there is scope here for misunderstanding. You have said that you asked if you "would ever be promoted for the extra work you had done". Maybe that isn't what you meant to say, but it is what you said - and most employers would respond with "that isn't how things are done". Because it isn't. Taking on extra work, showing that you have the capacity to take on greater responsibilities, is certainly a method of impressing an employer that you have promotion potential, but there actually needs to be a job to be promoted to, and generally you have to apply for it. So if your supervisor heard this message in the same way that you put it here - "I've done all this extra work and I deserve a promotion" - then it may not be altogther surprising that things deteriorated.

And what does " a very frank supervision" mean? Does it mean that you got into an argument about this? Because again, this won't have helped - but it may be recoverable.

If there is the prospect that this conversation was "out of hand" and open to misinterpretation, then the answer is simple. When you do go back to work you take your supervisior to one side and you tell her that with hindsight you believe that you may have expressed yourself poorly, no doubt due to the illness that you subsequently discovered you have which must have been affecting you, and you say you are sorry if you said anything to upset her because you would never have done so if you hadn't been ill. You tell her that you enjoy your job and the challeneges that it has posed and you would very much still like to progress within the company, you hope that what happened hasn't blown your chances, and you would appreciate any advice or guidance that she can give to help you get back on track.

It doesn't really matter who is right and wrong in this - few people can ignore an apology and few can resist a little flattering about being asked for advice. And it is entirely possible that this is exactly what happened - even sudden onset seizures generally don't develop overnight, but the early warnings are often missed, so your own attitude and expression may well have been off kilter.

But I see no purpose in working yourself into a panic about all of this, and I certainly see no reason to fall on your sword and resign over something which is probably very easy to fix. Looking for a new job isn't easy right now for anyone, and your personal health doesn't need any more stress - and to be honest, won't help you either. Your sickness record is now not good and you are almost certainly going to have to explain it - and disability protections or not, this is the real world and it won't help you. You have a job, and it is a job that you seemed to have been relatively happy at and relatively good at - don't throw it away because of a few bad weeks and a rush to judgement. If you are determined that this employer isn't for you, then use then to get back to work and look for other jobs whilst you do so.

rubytob

Sarei,

Thank you for your response, it has been a great help. Maybe I was flying off the handle and I feel much calmer now.
I am going to follow your advice on volunteering the minimum. The letter specifically states inconsitencies in sickline so I imagine it is the ticked box they are talking about. I am also going to try and ascertain more info on this whole thing, it was just such a shock.
Thanks again for your response I have found it invaluable :T

rubytob

pps it says inconsistency not inconsitiencies