dismissed on capability grounds: ill health

zzzLazyDaisy

Okay, in that case, if she is dismissed, come back to us. If we have the full facts, and there is nothing more to it, then this would be a clear unfair dismissal.

lili2008

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

Okay, in that case, if she is dismissed, come back to us. If we have the full facts, and there is nothing more to it, then this would be a clear unfair dismissal.

There isn't anything more to it apart from the usual office politics. She thinks they may have it in for her a bit due to citing stress at work as causing the condition but the condition itself is a medical one, not stress, and has now been controlled following a short absence to recover. As long as she keeps taking the pills there is no reason at all why she will not stay healthy. They can not point to someone performing their job fully and competently and say 'you are not fit to work' even if there has been a time when they have not been fit for work in the past, I would have thought, and what you are both saying seems to confirm this.

Thanks for the advice. Much appreciated. :beer:

SarEl

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

Okay, in that case, if she is dismissed, come back to us. If we have the full facts, and there is nothing more to it, then this would be a clear unfair dismissal.

Of course I would agree with zzzLazyDaisy - "if we have the full facts". Because details are always very important.

For example, I came a case just the other day, where the medical report appeared to suggest that the illness would return if the employer tried to discipline the member of staff, since the employee was arguing that the sole reason for their illness was related to a disciplinary outcome which they were not happy about. In such a case, this would clearly be problemmatic - an employer cannot be placed in a psoition where they cannot discipline members of staff; and where they have been told that such an action will bring about a recurrence of the problem, then this might well cross their duty of care.

People so often want an absolute answer that something is unfair and it is often not easy to give a specific and unqualified answer that something is clearly unfair, because we only have one side of the story. And part of the information.

McKneff

Hello SarEl

Nice to 'see' you again:j:j:j

SarEl

McKneff wrote: »

Hello SarEl

Nice to 'see' you again:j:j:j

Hi McKneff. Just was popping by to check on a thread that crossed forums from here, and this one caught my eye. Capability is always such a fraught topic that it's always interesting to hear what stance employers are taking on things.

zzzLazyDaisy

Thanks SarEl - that is exactly what I was seeking to indicate (perhaps I should have put 'if we have the full fact' in bold).

PS Good to see you, btw :-)

SarEl

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

Thanks SarEl - that is exactly what I was seeking to indicate (perhaps I should have put 'if we have the full fact' in bold).

PS Good to see you, btw :-)

Of course. I was just emphasising your point. Unfortunately, as we both know, what people think is fair and what the law says is fair are substantially different things; and the perspective of posters on sites such as this are often rather (understandably) subjective. No advice on sites like this replaces the need for proper legal assessment (which may not mean a lawyer - it could be a trades union), but I doubt whether putting "if we have the full facts" in 24pt, bold, animated letters will ever adequately get that point across! But sorry to hijack your responses - I just wanted the OP to realise that there is never anything "clear" about employment law, because people so often read what they want to read, and whilst I agree entirely with your assessment based on the facts presented, there is always another side to the story that we don't know about, or something the poster didn't think was relevant to mention.

lili2008

Thanks for your response too SarEl. I am not sure any of that is relevant here but I take the point.

ILW

Could a reoccurence of the condition put anybody in danger?

lili2008

Not in an obvious sense, no.