Possible Unfair Dismissal Advice Needed Please

lincroft1710

I don't think a person can become a "dependant" just because they are rushed into hospital.

InsideInsurance

jobbingmusician wrote: »

I would argue that his mother became his dependant at the time her appendix ruptured

If someone is a dependent or not doesnt change temporarily because of an acute illness.

I can understand that a person may well be concerned about their parent and want to be at their bedside but that in itself doesnt make them their dependent. We have nothing to say on the thread how many siblings the OP's friend has, if the mother has a partner, if their own parents/ op's grandparents are still around and functional etc

Undervalued

jobbingmusician wrote: »

I am not an employment expert, so please don't give too much weight to my comment because I happen to be the board guide.


However, I believe that it is possible your friend may have a case. I would argue that his mother became his dependant at the time her appendix ruptured, and so his dismissal was automatically unfair (especially since he was given no hearing, so the employer clearly failed to consider whether or not the mother WAS a dependant.) For this reason, I believe the dismissal is likely automatically to be unfair.


My belief is that it is certainly worth a consultation with a lawyer.

I'm sorry but I don't agree.

Had the OP's friend had to rush his mother to the hospital himself that might have been emergency dependant leave. However even that is debatable as it could hinge on whether she was usually in any way dependant on him.

However, as I understand it, she was being properly looked after in hospital. He asked for time off to sit at her bedside as he was very concerned but was refused. Despite this he took the time off anyway. Arguably gross misconduct I'm afraid.

wiogs

UnderPressure wrote: »

You might see it that way I do not, neither does the young lad in question or his family and friends, just because something is lawful does not make it morally the right thing to do.

I wanted to know the legal aspect, I now know thank you we could discuss the morality all week and get no further, I think one thing you think another, who is right? Well are either of us right? We have an opinion that is all, my opinion is the employer is an a***hole and I hope karma gives him a good kick at some stage, you do not agree that is your opinion you think because what he has done is lawful it is right, not always the case.

Since karma is nothing more than a load of old bunkum I suspect the employer cares not a jot.

lovinituk

UnderPressure wrote: »

You might see it that way I do not, neither does the young lad in question or his family and friends, just because something is lawful does not make it morally the right thing to do.

Perhaps one of these other friends or family could have sat with the mother and saved the son his job!

UnderPressure wrote: »

I wanted to know the legal aspect, I now know thank you we could discuss the morality all week and get no further, I think one thing you think another, who is right? Well are either of us right? We have an opinion that is all, my opinion is the employer is an a***hole and I hope karma gives him a good kick at some stage, you do not agree that is your opinion you think because what he has done is lawful it is right, not always the case.

Wasn't arguing over who was right or wrong, just stating my opinion, which is the son is not as innocent in all of this as he/you/they like to think he is. It sounds like the business and the son are better off without each other.

Poppie68

UnderPressure wrote: »

You might see it that way I do not, neither does the young lad in question or his family and friends, just because something is lawful does not make it morally the right thing to do.

I wanted to know the legal aspect, I now know thank you we could discuss the morality all week and get no further, I think one thing you think another, who is right? Well are either of us right? We have an opinion that is all, my opinion is the employer is an a***hole and I hope karma gives him a good kick at some stage, you do not agree that is your opinion you think because what he has done is lawful it is right, not always the case.

You could also argue your friend is an a***hole' for choosing to stick 2 fingers up to his employer when he was told he couldn't have the time off...maybe that's Karma...If you believe in that Karma tripe maybe the bad things you are wishing on someone (who hasn't done anything wrong) will bounce right back at ya...

Who's right or wrong is determined by the law and not an employees friend or anyone on a forum..you have a biased view which could very well differ if the person in question wasn't known by you...

wishus

Well, bless my employers who were nothing but concerned when I found out my mom had been rushed into hospital 60 miles away. They even gave someone else leave to get me home so I could make my way to her side. Unfortunately, she had already died.

My employers then bent their rules again as I took my bereavement leave and a few days more. They did look after their business, and I had my absence deducted from my annual leave, so they didn't miss out.

It's horrible for your friend that his employers acted as they did, but either they are terrible and this is just the tip of the iceberg of how they treat people, in which case this is - hopefully - a blessing in disguise for your friend and they can move on to something better, or there's another reason why they are coming down seemingly quite harshly for this leave of absence, i.e. he's had other AWOL days, if he already has a record of other issues... I doubt it, because any decent employer would not sack someone over the phone, even at the tail end of a structured disciplinary procedure. They would let him go to work, call him into the office and go through the reasons, allow him to clear his belongings, hand in any company property etc.

Tell your friend to take heart: his mum is okay, and he can find something better.

TBagpuss

A parent is one of the calss of people included in the definition of dependents, however, he relevant law also defines when you are 'entitled to be permitted' time off -

An employee is entitled to be permitted by his employer to take a reasonable amount of time off during the employee’s working hours in order to take action which is necessary—
(a)to provide assistance on an occasion when a dependant falls ill, gives birth or is injured or assaulted,
(b)to make arrangements for the provision of care for a dependant who is ill or injured,
(c)in consequence of the death of a dependant,
(d)because of the unexpected disruption or termination of arrangements for the care of a dependant, or
(e)to deal with an incident which involves a child of the employee and which occurs unexpectedly in a period during which an educational establishment which the child attends is responsible for him.

(bolding mine) So it is not enought to be bale to show that the person concerned was your dependent (I think, for what it is worth, that your friend's Mum probably would count, as the Act does not specify that the person must in fact be dependent on you, it simply lists parents as dependents) but ALSO that the leave is limited to taking necessary action.

I suspect therefore,m that while anyone could understnad why your friend wished to be present if his mum was potentially in danger, his presence was not actually necessary, as he had done the necessary part by getting her to hospital.

Given that the sacking took place over the hone and in the heat of the moment, from a purely practical point of view it may be worth while for your friend to try going in to see the employer to ask them to reconsider. (assuming he has not already found a new job, and if he would be prepared to return)

As others have said, he will in any event be entitled to pay in lieu of notice and for pay for any holiday which has been accrued but not taken.

jobbingmusician

Undervalued wrote: »

I'm sorry but I don't agree.

Had the OP's friend had to rush his mother to the hospital himself that might have been emergency dependant leave. However even that is debatable as it could hinge on whether she was usually in any way dependant on him.

However, as I understand it, she was being properly looked after in hospital. He asked for time off to sit at her bedside as he was very concerned but was refused. Despite this he took the time off anyway. Arguably gross misconduct I'm afraid.

Actually, I am moving on my belief that she is a dependant. My research, too, indicates that the norm is that dependants have to be resident with their carer. However, my main point remains. The chap was sacked for family reasons, and the employer made no investigations about whether the mother was, in fact, a dependant (at least as far as we know from these postings.) That would automatically make even a less than 2 year length of employment dismissal unfair.

FBaby

Your friend went about it the wrong way, that is more or less dictating his actions to his employer. What he should have done is go in regardless (unless he was told my the hospital to come immediately as mum was dying), and then discuss his concerns with his employer whilst there. Making an attempt to get someone else to cover him would have also shown some care towards the company. Most likely, with the right attitude, his boss would have allowed him to leave work at some point for him to be close to his mum and he would still have a job. Instead he took the decision not to come at all against his boss' recommendations and now he is left without a job and no recourse. A lesson to be learnt for future jobs.