can my employer sack me for what they say high level of absent

hawk30

You don't always need 1 or 2 year's service (depending on when you started) as some reasons for dismissal are automatically unfair and that includes dismissal because of exercising the statutory right to time off for dependants.

Things like whether the time off was reasonable would be an issue (taking a whole day might not be) but the OP might want to seek specialist advice on this issue.

Takeaway_Addict

tylerbob wrote: »

Thanks for your advise.

I was made aware that you can bring an unfair dismissal claim even if you have not been employeed for 12 months under certain circumstances. Acas advise emergancy circumstances can not be used against an employee.

If you can prove they dismissed you for this then you may have a case but knowing it and proving it are completely different.

Might be worth going to a solicitor but you may find out that the company suddenly start claiming your work just wasn't good enough or something similar...

pmlindyloo

It is possible that this might be one of the automatic grounds for unfair dismissal but it wil depend of exactly why these days were taken off.

You can certainly try to claim unfair dismissal but you need to ask yourself what you want to achieve. eg. Do you want your job back?

Certainly go to an solicitor who specialises in Employment issues (see if you can get a free first appointment) or try a large CAB who might have an employment specialist and see what they say.

OllysMum_2

Three instances totalling 12 days over a 10 month period is excessive, and unless there are exceptional circumstances, would trigger the disciplinary process in most organisations.

Emergency leave is there for emergencies. 6 days is a lot for emergency leave - it's usually only one or two days.

Add to this that you're under the 12 months service, there isn't anything you can do other than request a reference. I can't see there's any value in pursuing this and obtaining legal advice.

PS ACAS used to be a great source of advice. There were real experts who had direct dial phone numbers. Now it's a call centre with poorly trained call handlers. I would check everything they tell you.

Jules2012

Surely they still need to follow a disciplinary process even if tylerbob doesn't have full employer rights?

Takeaway_Addict

Jules2012 wrote: »

Surely they still need to follow a disciplinary process even if tylerbob doesn't have full employer rights?

No they don't if he hasn't worked there for one year (if employed before Apr 6th 2012 I believe) and two years after Apr 6th providing that the dismissal is not due to a protected characteristic etc which is what the OP maybe able to prove but as has been said many times....go see an employment solicitor

YORKSHIRELASS

Jules2012 wrote: »

Surely they still need to follow a disciplinary process even if tylerbob doesn't have full employer rights?

This is true. The employer should have made the employee aware that their level of absence was causing concern and given the employee a chance to improve. This should have been properly documented and the employee should have had the chance to respond to any complaints against them. However, in my experience bringing any sort of unfair dismissal claim in these kind of circumstances is very difficult. If you have been employed for less than 2 years under the new rules the employer can do pretty much what they like unless there is any suggestion of race or sex discrimination.

My advice would be to put it down to experience and move on sadly.

LittleVoice

YORKSHIRELASS wrote: »

This is true. The employer should have made the employee aware that their level of absence was causing concern and given the employee a chance to improve. This should have been properly documented and the employee should have had the chance to respond to any complaints against them. However, in my experience bringing any sort of unfair dismissal claim in these kind of circumstances is very difficult. If you have been employed for less than 2 years under the new rules the employer can do pretty much what they like unless there is any suggestion of race or sex discrimination.

My advice would be to put it down to experience and move on sadly.

"Should" is not the same as "lawfully must".
Unless the employee has been unfairly dismissed on one of the automatically unfair grounds, with less than a year's employment (or two if started on or after 6 April 2012), there is no unfair dismissal case to be brought.

YORKSHIRELASS

LittleVoice wrote: »

"Should" is not the same as "lawfully must".
Unless the employee has been unfairly dismissed on one of the automatically unfair grounds, with less than a year's employment (or two if started on or after 6 April 2012), there is no unfair dismissal case to be brought.

Yes thats what I was saying, but you put it better than me. At the end of the day how the employer dealt with the dismissal is irrelevant unless you can make a claim. Many employees do not understand the two year rule though.

zzzLazyDaisy

The two year rule does not apply if you were seeking to rely on a statutory right. If you took reasonable time off for dealing with an emergency involving a dependent, that is a statutory right. If you were dismissed for this, then you could make a claim for unfair dismissal even though you did not meet the normal two year rule. I suspect that is what the ACAS call centre person was referring to. But they are just reading from a computer screen with no understanding of the law, and so they do not know enough to ask the right questions to get the relevant facts (and that is not their job). They can only answer straight questions of the sort that you could find out the answer to yourself with a quick google. Anything more complicated and they (and therefore you) are likely to be sunk. That's government funding cutbacks for you.

BUT getting of my soap box - to fall within that exception, you would have to show that you met the requirements for emergency leave for dependants, and you would have to show that the emergency was unforeseen (so, say, recovering from a scheduled operation would not count) and that you only took enough time to make alternative arrangements - it is not so that you can look after the person yourself. 6 days is excessive in that situation.

See here for more information

https://www.gov.uk/time-off-for-dependants/your-rights

Even allowing a day for the emergency cover, and discounting the day's annual leave (which was presumably booked and authorised before you took it off?) that still leaves two working weeks absence in ten months. That is excessive.