Threatened with redundancy if i go on long term sick...

Brayer

Hi i was looking for some help on something.

I am currenly signed off work due to illness and have just seen my occ.health adviser at work. She was very good but just as we were ending our meeting she said something that worried me. She said that at the moment my job was there waiting for me but if i were to be signed off long term then my work place would not support that. She would not clarify what that ment but to me it seemed like a threat.

Any ideas?

Sambucus_Nigra

It means that they would either find a way to make your role redundant or would seek to dismiss you on capability grounds.

saintjammyswine

And what better way to prove that the role is not required than for the business to carry on without you!

marybelle01

Brayer wrote: »

Hi i was looking for some help on something.

I am currenly signed off work due to illness and have just seen my occ.health adviser at work. She was very good but just as we were ending our meeting she said something that worried me. She said that at the moment my job was there waiting for me but if i were to be signed off long term then my work place would not support that. She would not clarify what that ment but to me it seemed like a threat.

Any ideas?

I doubt it was a threat, more like a fact. She didn't say you would be made redundant at all. She was warning you that your employer is not tolerant of long-term sick leave, and provided they act within the law there is no reason why an employer has to be. Some employers commonly use capability, others don't. She obviously knows that yours is one of the former. I'd take it as a friendly warning to you, and one which she would probably get into trouble for making if it got out. It really isn't her job to get involved in the employment processes of the company or to pass comment of any kind about them.

Uncertain

marybelle01 wrote: »

I'd take it as a friendly warning to you, and one which she would probably get into trouble for making if it got out. It really isn't her job to get involved in the employment processes of the company or to pass comment of any kind about them.

It could be just that but it is hard to tell from the OP.

However it could also be an OH "professional" (we are not told if she is a doctor, nurse or whatever) acting completely unprofessionally as a stooge for the employer.

A doctor's legal duty is to act in the best interest of the patient at all times, and not in the interest of their employer or whoever is paying the bill if that conflicts. If it can be shown that they have done otherwise they could be in serious trouble with the GMC.

Savvy_Sue

Have you had any advice about how soon you might be in a position to return to work?

How long have you worked there?

marybelle01

Uncertain wrote: »

It could be just that but it is hard to tell from the OP.

However it could also be an OH "professional" (we are not told if she is a doctor, nurse or whatever) acting completely unprofessionally as a stooge for the employer.

A doctor's legal duty is to act in the best interest of the patient at all times, and not in the interest of their employer or whoever is paying the bill if that conflicts. If it can be shown that they have done otherwise they could be in serious trouble with the GMC.

Yes it could be. But how does any of that change the OP's position? If the employer routinely and correctly uses capability processes in relation to long term sickness, then that is what they do. It actually doesn't matter why she said it (not that it could be proven she did). If it is a statement of fact, then that is surely the point?

Andy_L

Uncertain wrote: »

A doctor's legal duty is to act in the best interest of the patient at all times, and not in the interest of their employer or whoever is paying the bill if that conflicts. If it can be shown that they have done otherwise they could be in serious trouble with the GMC.

I'd of though telling their patient that the employer will, legally, dismiss them on capability grounds if they are on long-tem sick is in the best interests of the patient

ankspon

My experience with occupational health was so positive,they supported me through the whole process and they told the employer what i will and will not be doing.

Acc72

Uncertain wrote: »

However it could also be an OH "professional" (we are not told if she is a doctor, nurse or whatever) acting completely unprofessionally as a stooge for the employer.

A doctor's legal duty is to act in the best interest of the patient at all times, and not in the interest of their employer or whoever is paying the bill if that conflicts.

The above are my thoughts also.

The OP does not say what their illness is, but if it is (say) stress related, then these comments will hardly help with that.

The OH will give an opinion as to whether the OP is fit for work or not - if they are not fit for work then they should not be in work irrespective of the companies approach.

Uncertain

Andy_L wrote: »

I'd of though telling their patient that the employer will, legally, dismiss them on capability grounds if they are on long-tem sick is in the best interests of the patient

That is not the doctor's (or nurse's) function. They are not qualified to comment on whether such a dismissal would be legal or not.

In any case you are missing my point......

If it was a friendly "word to the wise" from a doctor who was putting their patient's interests first then fair enough (even if not entirely proper).

However, if the doctor is acting on behalf of the employer by putting pressure on a sick person to return to work then they are totally in breach of their professional duty of care and could be severely disciplined by the GMC if proved.