desperate need in advice on redundancy/capability hearing

Takeaway_Addict

getmore4less wrote: »

As soon as the money is paid probably worth a claim for unfair/lawfull dismissal they are on very dodgy ground giving redundancy.

Technically maybe, morally...I very much doubt it

marybelle01

getmore4less wrote: »

As soon as the money is paid probably worth a claim for unfair/lawfull dismissal they are on very dodgy ground giving redundancy.

I think that is really crass advice. The employer didn't have to pay a penny. They could simply have dismissed on capability. The OP signed - they knew they didn't have to. Fair is fair - and what you are saying isn't fair.

getmore4less

marybelle01 wrote: »

I think that is really crass advice. The employer didn't have to pay a penny. They could simply have dismissed on capability. The OP signed - they knew they didn't have to. Fair is fair - and what you are saying isn't fair.

So think it is perfeclty acceptabe for an employer to stop paying say you are not capable follow no process and say heres a few hundred pounds now sod off.

If they waned to pay off without any comeback they should have done a proper comprimise agreement.

We will see if the payment include wages for July while suspended, looks like these are currently missing.

marybelle01

getmore4less wrote: »

So think it is perfeclty acceptabe for an employer to stop paying say you are not capable follow no process and say heres a few hundred pounds now sod off.

If they waned to pay off without any comeback they should have done a proper comprimise agreement.

We will see if the payment include wages for July while suspended, looks like these are currently missing.

But that isn't what the employer did, is it? The OP knew that if their OH was suspended then they had to be paid because they got that advice here. They also knew that the employer could go to capability - and the advice they got was to let it. All we know is that the employer said that the sickness absence rate, and the nature of the medical problem in relation to the work, made them incapable of doing the job. They didn't get the chance to have no process because the OP's other half agreed to take the money and leave rather than follow the advice given. Their perogative, but they did it in full possession of the facts and their rights.

getmore4less

Not what I am reading.

The employer is refusung to pay them and they need money so the were forced into signing to get a a P45 so they can start claiming JSA, or whatever they are entitled to they have not been paid for a month.

The employer took on the person fully informed they should play it by the book or do a proper CA.

marybelle01

getmore4less wrote: »

Not what I am reading.

The employer is refusung to pay them and they need money so the were forced into signing to get a a P45 so they can start claiming JSA, or whatever they are entitled to they have not been paid for a month.

The employer took on the person fully informed they should play it by the book or do a proper CA.

I am not seeing where it says that the employer refused to pay, but I am seeing where the OP assumed they wouldn't be paid, and where the OP actually didn't even ask the employer about pay. I am also not seeing anything that tells us the OP was entitled to be paid - because there is nothing at all here about their contractual conditions, so how do you know that they aren't on zero hours, or only get paid when they work?

It does not say anywhere that they haven't been paid for a month. Quite the contrary, it says that they were getting sick pay until they were signed fit which was "tuesday just gone" only two days ago - hardly a month since they were paid then?

You do not need a P45 to claim JSA or other benefits.

How has the employer not "played it by the book"? The employer explained that they had no alternative but to hold a capability hearing due to the level of sickness and insurance concerns about the injury and liability given the type of work. That's by the book, isn't it? And then they gave the employee the opportunity to have this treated as redundancy - in other words giving them money that they didn't need to give them - instead of being dismissed on capability grounds with nothing but notice. I fail to comprehend how treating the employee better than you need to do is wrong, or not playing it by the book - or in fact which book you are reading...

getmore4less

yep, read the month wrong forgot we are in aug.