Redundancy while on a fit note!

tomtontom

Have you looked at the EqAct definition of disability and do you feel that you fulfil it? Do you expect to be left with significant problems in the long term?

DaB0B

tomtontom wrote: »

Have you looked at the EqAct definition of disability and do you feel that you fulfil it? Do you expect to be left with significant problems in the long term?

I expect to make a full recovery and have no long term problems. It was basically multiple bone fractures. Majority of them have healed. Some of the fracture have metal plates to help. Two of the fractures did not heal (non-union) so i have had to go back into hospital for more surgery, metals plates and bone grafts. All progressing well now,it is just the nature of my injuries and the second visit to hospital is why it is taking so long.

Needs to be 12 months the effects of my impairment before i am protected under the equality act. Broken bones if healed with in 12 months do not count.

I will be at 12 months as of the 19th of April.

Interestingly it says this

''What about people who have recovered?
People who have had a physical or mental impairment within the definition are protected from discrimination even if they recover. So, if you are discriminated against because you used to have a disability, you could still be protected under the law.''


So i could be covered by the Equaility act next month?

tomtontom

DaB0B wrote: »

I expect to make a full recovery and have no long term problems. It was basically multiple bone fractures. Majority of them have healed. Some of the fracture have metal plates to help. Two of the fractures did not heal (non-union) so i have had to go back into hospital for more surgery, metals plates and bone grafts. All progressing well now,it is just the nature of my injuries and the second visit to hospital is why it is taking so long.

Needs to be 12 months the effects of my impairment before i am protected under the equality act. Broken bones if healed with in 12 months do not count.

I will be at 12 months as of the 19th of April.

Interestingly it says this

''What about people who have recovered?
People who have had a physical or mental impairment within the definition are protected from discrimination even if they recover. So, if you are discriminated against because you used to have a disability, you could still be protected under the law.''


So i could be covered by the Equaility act next month?

No, you are reading the law too literally. On the information given you have an injury (albeit a significant one), not a disability. A tribunal may disagree, but in general they will distinguish between an injury with a reasonable time to recover and a disability with a long term impact on your life.

I don't think the sick note is going to save you here, unless the employer decides to err on the side of caution (some will, it's cheaper than litigation). I would focus on the scoring matrix and ensuring that has been applied fairly.

DaB0B

tomtontom wrote: »

No, you are reading the law too literally. On the information given you have an injury (albeit a significant one), not a disability. A tribunal may disagree, but in general they will distinguish between an injury with a reasonable time to recover and a disability with a long term impact on your life.

I don't think the sick note is going to save you here, unless the employer decides to err on the side of caution (some will, it's cheaper than litigation). I would focus on the scoring matrix and ensuring that has been applied fairly.

Yes, we went through the scoring matrix at the meeting before i asked about my exclusion on the 1st redundancies. I have a lot of concern with some of the scores they applied to myself, so these are being looked into also. One example was they scored me on the second lowest sections for reporting. Giving me only 12 of each type of report. I raised the point , that why i was here in good health for that short 4 months, i had done 9 of that report, and 11 of the other kind. So i think it is safe to assume i would of done significantly more than 12 of each.

Most of what they had scored me was open to debate. I was of poor health and not performing my job for 8 months in 2015. So this could go on for a bit. They might even change there opinion, and decide they can not score me fairly. I am back next week, Thurs 31st. It will be interesting to see what they come out with.

Another example from the matrix, they have me as having delay on getting promoted. I said if i had been perfoming my dutys, i could very well of been promotred, so then i would have no delay. Promotion at my company is all self motivated, you are given compatancy sheets you have to fill in and get signed. So you are promoted at what ever pace you set yourself really, but the company sets a 12month min and 24 month max time period between promotions.

sangie595

DaB0B wrote: »

Absences is a fair criteria, but someones health is not. That is the law. Absence is not in my employers criteria.

Everyone is entitled to a fair selection process. They cant change the selection criteria to suit an individual. Everyone must be looked at in the same way.

I dont think anyone replying to this thread is even reading what i write. Making claims and saying things i never once wrote. If you choose to reply at least read what i write. Not once have i mentioned a criteria with absence. Not one have i claim my employer can not make me redundant because of my ill health. If you read what i have written, it is my Employer is dancing around my illness, scared to take action against it, and even admitted i was at a disadvantage because of my ill health. This is things my employer is doing, not what i am claiming, or trying to make up lies about the law.

Gosh. Rude or what? You said it was discriminatory to select someone due to ill health. It is not. You said it was discriminatory to select someone based on performance. It is not. You choose to believe what somebody told you unofficially. That was incorrect. And if you can't be clearer about what you are actually saying, then people will read it as it appears. And with that I leave you to continue with your own unique reading of employment law. People don't try to help here just so you can insult them.

DaB0B

sangie595 wrote: »

Gosh. Rude or what? You said it was discriminatory to select someone due to ill health. It is not. You said it was discriminatory to select someone based on performance. It is not. You choose to believe what somebody told you unofficially. That was incorrect. And if you can't be clearer about what you are actually saying, then people will read it as it appears. And with that I leave you to continue with your own unique reading of employment law. People don't try to help here just so you can insult them.

Again not reading what i have said.

Selecting someone to make redundant based purely on the health of that person is discriminatory. This is not my make believe understadning of the law, or what someone else has told me. It is the law. It is in black and white for anyone to read, and if you had taken the time to look for yourself we wouldnt be having pointless comments like yours in this thread.

''
Myth I cannot be made redundant if I am pregnant, on maternity leave or off work due to an illness.
Reality Yes you can, provided the role has genuinely ceased to exist and you have not been selected because of your pregnancy, maternity or illness alone. Your employer still has to follow a proper process (including consultation) and you should also not have been disadvantaged by the redundancy selection criteria, otherwise you may have a claim for indirect sex or disability discrimination. There is no qualifying period of service for a discrimination claim. ''


''First, as with all redundancies, it is critical to determine that there is a legitimate reason for the redundancy. The employee's long-term illness or injury is not a valid reason for making a role redundant. ''

Please if you are going to comment, do not say i have said things that i have not. Please do not tell me i am wrong about the law. Please do not tell me i am being rude, i take puting words in people mouths then trying to make out they are wrong abouts the things you have imagined they said as being rude and un-called for.

I had links to websites i took that 2 quotes from, but unfortunalty i am not entitled to post links.


I would like to keep this thread clean and informative. If you think absence is a far criteria for my employer to dismiss me from my job, then please start your own thread. As i have already stated, and will repeat again. Attendance or absence is not on my employers selection criteria, and it never will be. The selection criteria was drafted and agreed upon weeks ago at the employee rep/managemnt meetings. This discussion is not about what is NOT on the selection criteria.

tomtontom

DaB0B wrote: »

Again not reading what i have said.

Selecting someone to make redundant based purely on the health of that person is discriminatory. This is not my make believe understadning of the law, or what someone else has told me. It is the law. It is in black and white for anyone to read, and if you had taken the time to look for yourself we wouldnt be having pointless comments like yours in this thread.

''
Myth I cannot be made redundant if I am pregnant, on maternity leave or off work due to an illness.
Reality Yes you can, provided the role has genuinely ceased to exist and you have not been selected because of your pregnancy, maternity or illness alone. Your employer still has to follow a proper process (including consultation) and you should also not have been disadvantaged by the redundancy selection criteria, otherwise you may have a claim for indirect sex or disability discrimination. There is no qualifying period of service for a discrimination claim. ''


''First, as with all redundancies, it is critical to determine that there is a legitimate reason for the redundancy. The employee's long-term illness or injury is not a valid reason for making a role redundant. ''

Please if you are going to comment, do not say i have said things that i have not. Please do not tell me i am wrong about the law. Please do not tell me i am being rude, i take puting words in people mouths then trying to make out they are wrong abouts the things you have imagined they said as being rude and un-called for.

I had links to websites i took that 2 quotes from, but unfortunalty i am not entitled to post links.


I would like to keep this thread clean and informative. If you think absence is a far criteria for my employer to dismiss me from my job, then please start your own thread. As i have already stated, and will repeat again. Attendance or absence is not on my employers selection criteria, and it never will be. The selection criteria was drafted and agreed upon weeks ago at the employee rep/managemnt meetings. This discussion is not about what is NOT on the selection criteria.

Your quotes assume you are covered by the EqAct. It has already been explained that your situation is unlikely to grant you this protection.

DaB0B

sangie595 wrote: »

Gosh. Rude or what? You said it was discriminatory to select someone due to ill health. It is not. You said it was discriminatory to select someone based on performance. It is not. You choose to believe what somebody told you unofficially. That was incorrect. And if you can't be clearer about what you are actually saying, then people will read it as it appears. And with that I leave you to continue with your own unique reading of employment law. People don't try to help here just so you can insult them.

And if you would please take the time to actually read what i have wrote. You use the word ''Unoffically'' in reference to my earlier use of it. If you take the time to read the context of how it was used, will just go to prove what i say about you not reading or understanding to be true.

I was informed ''Un-offically'' that i was excluded from the 1st round of redundancies. This is not fictional, or imaginary. This is a FACT. This is my life, i am living and i am at risk of loosing my job. I am not making up a fictional story here, or believe tall tales from some gossiping forum troll.

So please read what i have said.

sangie595

DaB0B wrote: »

Again not reading what i have said.

Selecting someone to make redundant based purely on the health of that person is discriminatory. This is not my make believe understadning of the law, or what someone else has told me. It is the law. It is in black and white for anyone to read, and if you had taken the time to look for yourself we wouldnt be having pointless comments like yours in this thread.

''
Myth I cannot be made redundant if I am pregnant, on maternity leave or off work due to an illness.
Reality Yes you can, provided the role has genuinely ceased to exist and you have not been selected because of your pregnancy, maternity or illness alone. Your employer still has to follow a proper process (including consultation) and you should also not have been disadvantaged by the redundancy selection criteria, otherwise you may have a claim for indirect sex or disability discrimination. There is no qualifying period of service for a discrimination claim. ''


''First, as with all redundancies, it is critical to determine that there is a legitimate reason for the redundancy. The employee's long-term illness or injury is not a valid reason for making a role redundant. ''

Please if you are going to comment, do not say i have said things that i have not. Please do not tell me i am wrong about the law. Please do not tell me i am being rude, i take puting words in people mouths then trying to make out they are wrong abouts the things you have imagined they said as being rude and un-called for.

I had links to websites i took that 2 quotes from, but unfortunalty i am not entitled to post links.


I would like to keep this thread clean and informative. If you think absence is a far criteria for my employer to dismiss me from my job, then please start your own thread. As i have already stated, and will repeat again. Attendance or absence is not on my employers selection criteria, and it never will be. The selection criteria was drafted and agreed upon weeks ago at the employee rep/managemnt meetings. This discussion is not about what is NOT on the selection criteria.

It is in fact you that is bringing up your illness and absence - as a reason for why you think the criteria cannot be scored fairly. Hence your title to the thread. Therefore your attendance and illness are entirely relevant, whether criteria or not. Which you would know if you actually worked with employment law on a daily basis as I do. If you cannot see the relevance then that is because you are fixed on a particular view which does not reflect how things actually work. Links or not, there is a lot of incorrect and misinterpret information on the internet. One of which is that you cannot be dismissed due to illness. Illness is not the same thing as disability, and only disability is covered under the Equality Act. There are no protections at all in regard to illness. Whether your situation counts as a disability is not clear, but you can be, and people are, dismissed for illness. Regularly.

sangie595

DaB0B wrote: »

And if you would please take the time to actually read what i have wrote. You use the word ''Unoffically'' in reference to my earlier use of it. If you take the time to read the context of how it was used, will just go to prove what i say about you not reading or understanding to be true.

I was informed ''Un-offically'' that i was excluded from the 1st round of redundancies. This is not fictional, or imaginary. This is a FACT. This is my life, i am living and i am at risk of loosing my job. I am not making up a fictional story here, or believe tall tales from some gossiping forum troll.

So please read what i have said.

So we are now gossiping forum trolls? One wonders why you are even here if that is your attitude. For your information I know perfectly well that you are at risk of losing your job, just like the members that I represent are at risk of losing their jobs. They therefore do not need to rely on gossiping forum trolls. If you want someone to confirm what I have said, get a lawyer. That way you don't have to rely on advice that you clearly do not want.