Sacked whilst pregnant - thoughts?

Nicki

Lara44 wrote: »

Is pregnancy related sickness really any different to other types of illness? Any carer can develop a condition whether male or female young or old. Anyone can have an accident or be injured in everyday life.

It is the parents who are ultimately responsible for their child's care, and not the carer. It seems harsh to suggest that OP's sister's sickness is her own fault. And even harsher to be sacked for that reason...

But anyone can also be sacked on capability grounds after an accident, or prolonged periods of illness.

The parents of the disabled child are not the parents of OP's sister. If she is not able to do the job she is employed to do, it is not their responsibility to look after her and make sure she can pay her bills. They do have to act within the law, but this does not prevent them from dispensing with her services if she is ill or injured for reasons other than the pregnancy.

The parents do have a responsibility to look after the child, but this does not mean that they have to provide this care personally 24 hours a day. In fact, the reason they are being given direct payments is because the state has assessed this child's care needs and decided it is not possible for the family to do it all themselves. Looking after a severely disabled child is not the same as looking after a baby, toddler or a non disabled child. It is more physically and emotionally demanding, and in some cases the child may need night time supervision as well as day time supervision.

amyloofoo

*Robin* wrote: »

This calculation is what most concerned me. Presumably the parents *need* care relief for the total hours they are employing OP's sister for, so being let down 15% of that time - probably with little notice - puts them in a terrible position which could actually be dangerous for their child if they are too exhausted to supervise properly.
If the carer cannot fulfil her role, then surely the parents have the right to replace her with someone who can do the job?

I'm not really contesting that, of course that little girl and her family deserve a carer who is able to be completely reliable. However it's more the way they've gone about things, i.e. sacking her without notice or discussion, that's raising my concerns for her. I understand that the parents have needs and rights, however surely DS is also entitled better treatment that summary dismissal considering that she has been a good employee with the exception of recent sickness absence which is beyond her control?

johnnyreggae

I can't comment on the rights or wrongs of either side but I read this and thought its little wonder smaller businesses are reluctant to take on new employees - the whole thing is an unacceptably complex nightmare

Nicki

amyloofoo wrote: »

I'm not really contesting that, of course that little girl and her family deserve a carer who is able to be completely reliable. However it's more the way they've gone about things, i.e. sacking her without notice or discussion, that's raising my concerns for her. I understand that the parents have needs and rights, however surely DS is also entitled better treatment that summary dismissal considering that she has been a good employee with the exception of recent sickness absence which is beyond her control?

It is hard to see though how a discussion would have changed things, other than to break the news to your sister more gently.

The child is severely ill and needs reliable and specialised care while the parents are at work. Your sister can either do this or she can't. If she is vomiting and distressing the child, how can the parents work round that, other than by taking a day off work themselves to care for the child? I imagine they are like most working parents and have only 20 odd days holiday each a year to use for these purposes, and that your sister also gets 20 days holiday, so already the bulk of both parents holiday leave has been used or accounted for in the first trimester of the pregnancy, leaving none for any r and r, which I am quite sure they need with a disabled child. Unpaid time off for dependents may not be affordable for them, and is only possible for a day or so at a time to arrange alternative cover, not to look after the child while your sister is off sick.

The pregnancy may not have been planned, the morning sickness may not be your sister's fault, but what does she think the parents could do to enable her to keep her job which they haven't done?

andygb

I know that this is going to sound a bit harsh, but can the person who is pregnant still perform the duties required of her?
Let us assume for one moment, that the pregnant woman enjoyed doing some extreme sports - martial arts, boxing, rugby, you get the idea, would she still expect to do these sports whilst she was pregnant?
The same applies to her job, she has made a choice to have a child, and that choice should involve some serious decision making with respect to her job.
Why should she expect a family to have to put up with a reduced level of responsibility on her part, because of a decision which she has made?

pmlindyloo

amyloofoo wrote: »

Hi everyone,

Thanks very much for all the advice. Thought I'd pop on and answer some of the questions / issues that have come up.

My sister is very sympathetic towards the parents and understands their position having been a large part of their life for the last year. She's very attached to the little girl and understood that her pregnancy and the girl's move to a boarding school would lead to changes in her working conditions / shifts - she has just been upset and surprised at being told she was sacked with no notice and without them trying to sit her down and work out a solution for everyone.

DS has been ill with severe morning sickness since quite early on in the pregnancy. This is not bad enough to leave her so dehydrated she needs to go to hospital (quite often it's just repeated dry heaving), but there have been occasions when she's gone into work but has been forced to leave as it distresses the little girl to see her being so unwell and this can lead to challenging behaviour.

I (and my sister) appreciate that 7 or so days off is a lot for a family who live in very difficult circumstances and are balancing the needs of a profoundly ill little girl with those of 2 working parents. DS was concerned about the impact of the pregnancy on the little girl when she became pregnant (which was a welcome but unplanned surprise) and informed the parents as soon as she had the pregnancy confirmed by her GP. Having done this, a risk assessment was completed and although the situation was by no means ideal, I don't really know what more DS could have done.

I think she suspected that they might ask her to leave following her disclosure of the pregnancy, but she's disappointed that they chose not to discuss their issues with her first. The way they have gone about things seems to be very cold and arbitrary considering that DS has cared for their daughter in their own home for the last year and has come to know and like the family very well.

They have known ever since she was employed that she's a newlywed who wanted her own family in the future. It certainly wasn't her plan to become pregnant so soon, but it can't have come as a massive surprise to the family - another reason why she's suprised they have been so unsympathetic.

DS is going to the jobcentre today to see how they can help and she's going to see CAB early next week so hopefully she'll be feeling more positive soon. As I've previously said, she likes and sympathises with the family and has no desire to cause any problems for them so I don't think she'll be taking them to tribunal, even if she's told that she would be able to. I think she's more disappointed and wanting to know where to go from here in terms of looking for more employment / who will pay maternity leave, etc rather than seeking to punish the family in any way.

I am just picking up on this point - sacked with no notice.

This would be a case of wrongful dismissal if this was the case and how long she has been there is not a factor.

This is all quite complicated. Did your sister have a contract? Are you sure she was an employee and not self employed?

Your sister being pregnant confuses the issue in a way because it is possible that she was sacked because of this or because of her sickness and days off.

Whatever the reason her employers (if that is what they are) should have followed a set of procedures before dismissing her.

It is good that she is going to CAB who will be able to explore all the different issues.

With dismissal it is expected that the person should negotiate, if they can, with the employer. I am sure CAB will advise her about this.

Have a read of this:

http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/england/work_e/work_work_comes_to_an_end_e/dismissal.htm

Quite a good overview of the issues.

*Robin*

amyloofoo wrote: »

I'm not really contesting that, of course that little girl and her family deserve a carer who is able to be completely reliable. However it's more the way they've gone about things, i.e. sacking her without notice or discussion, that's raising my concerns for her. I understand that the parents have needs and rights, however surely DS is also entitled better treatment that summary dismissal considering that she has been a good employee with the exception of recent sickness absence which is beyond her control?

Well, maybe something along the lines of "Look, this cannot go on" has been said when your sister 'phoned in sick for the xth time?
Maybe the parents are now simply so close to the end of their tether that they're not thinking straight, and just need a carer who can be trusted to turn up, arranged as soon as possible?

Apologies if I appear less than sympathetic, OP - in fact I have every sympathy with your sister, having spent around half of my successful pregnancies in hospital due to 'pregnancy related illness'.
But, having had just seven hours sleep in the past week myself due to caring for my terminally ill husband, I can also see what a nightmare it must be for the parents.

I know nothing about the legalities of the situation, but am about to employ a private carer as I cannot keep on taking those truckers' 'stay awake' pills indefinitely, so am very interested in considering all sides of this problem - so that my solution does not become a similar problem to that faced by OP's sister and the child's parents.

amyloofoo

Nicki wrote: »

It is hard to see though how a discussion would have changed things, other than to break the news to your sister more gently.

The child is severely ill and needs reliable and specialised care while the parents are at work. Your sister can either do this or she can't. If she is vomiting and distressing the child, how can the parents work round that, other than by taking a day off work themselves to care for the child? I imagine they are like most working parents and have only 20 odd days holiday each a year to use for these purposes, and that your sister also gets 20 days holiday, so already the bulk of both parents holiday leave has been used or accounted for in the first trimester of the pregnancy, leaving none for any r and r, which I am quite sure they need with a disabled child. Unpaid time off for dependents may not be affordable for them, and is only possible for a day or so at a time to arrange alternative cover, not to look after the child while your sister is off sick.

The pregnancy may not have been planned, the morning sickness may not be your sister's fault, but what does she think the parents could do to enable her to keep her job which they haven't done?

I think it's really how the news was broken to her that's a major issue. There are other issues such as holiday pay, final wages, getting a reference, etc but I think they are secondary to her turning up as normal to work and then being told that they were 'letting her go' and being sent back home whilst very distressed. I think she understood (and we as a family certainly warned her) that it would be likely that the family would need to find another carer now she's pregnant; but she never expected to be thrust into that situation with no warning and no empathy for her position. She's been more than sympathetic to the parent's needs in the past, i.e. changing her hours, working extra shifts, staying late on an impromptu basis, etc and I think she expected that they would have appreciated this enough to at least observe the pleasantries.

The parents have been put in an absolutely horrible position as a result of DS becoming pregnant and they deserve every sympathy for that - I'm sure the difficulties in communication are probably due to them being at the end of their tether due to lack of sleep, exhaustion, etc. I really hope I'm not coming across as unsympathetic to their needs; DS was employed to make their lives easier and their daughter's life better and that should override DS' needs, I fully understand that. It's just hard to receive a call from DS when she's lost the job she loves through no real fault of her own and now finds herself pregnant and unemployed

Nicki

amyloofoo wrote: »

I think it's really how the news was broken to her that's a major issue. There are other issues such as holiday pay, final wages, getting a reference, etc but I think they are secondary to her turning up as normal to work and then being told that they were 'letting her go' and being sent back home whilst very distressed.

Yes, all of that is unacceptable, and she does need to sort it out. Perhaps as someone said, the local authority could help mediate.

As a minimum, she is entitled to:

1 accrued holiday pay
2 paid notice
3 payment for hours worked, including payment for the day she showed up for work and was told to leave

And although she is not entitled to this, she should also push for a written reference in agreed terms.

tooldle

Phone the acas helpline. Your sister may need to wait in a queue, but it will be worth it.
The rules on dismissal due to pregnancy are clear.
Whilst your sister may not wish to cause distress or problems for the family, it is clear that they have not showed the same consideration.
If this family are indeed employers (and this is not an agency arrangement), they should be aware of their own responsibilities towards their employee.
I've been to tribunal, and I echo what others have said in terms of the toll on an individual. That said, no employment lawyer worth their salt will advise the employer to proceed with a case, if they are clearly in breach of contract.
I would suggest moving this thread to the employment board, where there are posters with the appropriate expertise to provide useful advice.