Dismissal for absence

Nicki

Did anyone see her "faint"? If she fitted rather than fainted (she probably wouldn't know herself which), and the employer fired her because they suspected epilepsy, she may have a way round the 2 year rule - discrimination on the ground of epilepsy/suspected epilepsy being a pretty clear example of disability discrimination unless she is for example a bus driver!

She may not even have epilepsy. Apparently one in four people will suffer a fit at least once in their life, which could be triggered by something really random (or so I was told by the A and E doctor when my daughter had her first one - though she did then turn out to have epilepsy)

xoid

wow, it is very disturbing that many employers can get away with this under 2 years rule.

*shakes head* The law needs changing.

specialboy

xoid wrote: »

wow, it is very disturbing that many employers can get away with this under 2 years rule.

*shakes head* The law needs changing.

Why....the employer needs protecting too

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

xoid wrote: »

wow, it is very disturbing that many employers can get away with this under 2 years rule.

*shakes head* The law needs changing.

It's not something that "many employers can get away with". it's a law brought in by a government that was voted in by the people of England, and which is absolutely in line with the avowed aims and intentions of that government. Therefore one has to assume that the people of England want this law. I don't want it, but that's democracy for you.

Mersey_2

ScorpiondeRooftrouser wrote: »

It's not something that "many employers can get away with". it's a law brought in by a government that was voted in by the people of England, and which is absolutely in line with the avowed aims and intentions of that government. Therefore one has to assume that the people of England want this law. I don't want it, but that's democracy for you.

Untrue to assume that in this instance.


It - the doubling of the qualifying period and the charging for Tribunal claims - wasn't in the Conservative Party manifesto.


From memory, Grayling changed it by means of a Statutory Instrument so even MPs didn't get to vote on the matter. This explains why 3 Tory MPs said they opposed the change in the recent General Election.

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

Mersey wrote: »

Untrue to assume that in this instance.


It - the doubling of the qualifying period and the charging for Tribunal claims - wasn't in the Conservative Party manifesto.


From memory, Grayling changed it by means of a Statutory Instrument so even MPs didn't get to vote on the matter. This explains why 3 Tory MPs said they opposed the change in the recent General Election.

Manifesto or not, nobody who voted Tory can be surprised they introduced it. It absolutely aligns with their basic raison d'etre; putting the needs of business and the wealthy ahead of those of the worker. That's what the Tories are for. Voting Tory and then saying you were surprised at them eroding worker's protections would be naive at best.