Can I challenge a previous employers dismissal?

Phteven_2

Long story short;

My bestie was on long term sick leave with a previous employer a couple of years ago. For quite some time, almost a year. They eventually reached the end of their internal long term sickness procedures and following the results of an occupational health assessment that they arranged, they said they couldn't implement the recommendations given by the doctor so they had no alternative but to terminate his employment.

Skip forward to today; he's just had a job offer withdrawn from a very well known employer in the same sector; insurance because his history includes "being dismissed from a job in the insurance services sector" and there's nothing they can do because of heavy regulation around employment in the sector.

Now, he's had to tread carefully around this a couple of times since it happened and in the past employers have been accepting with the explanation of why the dismissal occurred. He's bizarrely just recently finished a position working as a temp in the same sector through an agency, getting that work wasn't an issue with what happened a couple of years ago.

This is the first time I've actually he's had an offer withdrawn and I'm stumped as to what to do to help him for a change! I've no idea with a situation like this.

Can he challenge his former employer to not class him as being dismissed? It feels entirely unfair given that it wasn't due to something like gross misconduct or other negative reasons. If anything it was their problem because they wouldn't implement occupational health recommendations, now he's the one paying the price.

Any advice would be gratefully received and thought about

undaunted

My first thought was also that he wasn't really dismissed as we would normally think of it though that may not be a technically correct interpretation.


It's unlikely that you could in any way challenge the "dismissal" two years after it occurred but I would question the nothing they can do statement. What legislation specifically are they saying prevents his employment? Perhaps he could approach the FCA and ask whether they are able to confirm that there is no barr here to his employment / being considered a fit & proper person to hold such a position?

Undervalued

Phteven wrote: »

Long story short;


Can he challenge his former employer to not class him as being dismissed? It feels entirely unfair given that it wasn't due to something like gross misconduct or other negative reasons. If anything it was their problem because they wouldn't implement occupational health recommendations, now he's the one paying the price.

Any advice would be gratefully received and thought about

But technically he was dismissed.

Unless his illness amounted to a disability (for employment law purposes) then his former employer was under no obligation to follow any recommendations from OH. Even if he did have a "disability" that only obliges the employer to make "reasonable adjustments". Legally, although more is generally expected of a large company, reasonable adjustments don't go anything like as far as most people fondly imagine.

Any reference has to be true and not deliberately misleading. From what you say the reference was true but there might just possibly be an argument that it was misleading. This would not be an easy matter to pursue and he would need specialised legal advice.

Even if his previous employer was persuaded (or forced) to clarify any future reference extensive sick leave may still put a potential employer off.

Not easy I'm afraid.

FBaby

He was dismissed, for reasons of inability to carry out duties required for the job due to illness.

That of course is very different to dismissed due to gross misconduct.

Did he actually discussed his long term sickness with her new employer and explained why he had been ill and why this is not a concern any longer? Saying that, never heard of their excuse for withdrawing the offer. Has he spoken to them today?

Phteven_2

His ailments would constitute a disability. He was left with an arthritic hip that will need replacing (he's only just turned 38) and he has a degenerative spine condition that will only get worse as he gets older. The adjustments recommended by the OH doctor were reasonable and only constituted a change of duties that would allow him to split time between standing and sitting. He worked for a very large insurance company, of the biggest names we have in the UK. They stated that they couldn't find that kind of back office work for him to do so they had no other option but to terminate his employment.

On the call today yes he had to challenge the employer as the person he spoke to said it was a "mutual decision" to which he categorically stated it was not. That's when she came out with the bit about "there's nothing we can do because you were dismissed and the legislation in the industry prevents us from taking you on."

I guess he could get back in touch and at least ask them for specifics to see if will stand in his way for getting another job in the industry but it won't get him his offer reinstated. In the meantime he's emailed his former employer to ask them what information they released in the reference they provided.

TBagpuss

I think he needs to identify the specific regulation or piece of legislation they are referencing and see what it actually says.
Is it the old or the potential new employer who is quoting it.

If it is the new, then he may be able to speak to the old one to see whether they can provide a letter which says something to the effect of "X was dismissed due to becoming unable to carry out his role, as a result of ill health, the dismissal was not a dismissal following a disciplinary procedure (and if you can find the relevant regulation, to include something along the lines of "this was not dismissal as defined by regualtion xxx of xxxxx")

He may need to contact his regulatory body for clarification as to whether the previous dismissal, in the specific circumstances, would create any regulatory issues.

Malthusian

Many office jobs are spent virtually 100% sitting at the computer. They probably didn't hire him for the same reason as the first insurance employer let him go - they couldn't find a job that would give him the necessary time out of a chair.

"There's nothing we can do because you were dismissed and the legislation in the industry prevents us from taking you on" sounds like something made up on the hoof by someone who was afraid of falling foul of the Disability Discrimination Act. Your post suggests that he's not had any trouble finding other employers that were able to accomodate his disability, or with the previous reference, so personally I would forget it and move on, unless it happens a second time.

sangie595

Malthusian wrote: »

Many office jobs are spent virtually 100% sitting at the computer. They probably didn't hire him for the same reason as the first insurance employer let him go - they couldn't find a job that would give him the necessary time out of a chair.

"There's nothing we can do because you were dismissed and the legislation in the industry prevents us from taking you on" sounds like something made up on the hoof by someone who was afraid of falling foul of the Disability Discrimination Act. Your post suggests that he's not had any trouble finding other employers that were able to accomodate his disability, or with the previous reference, so personally I would forget it and move on, unless it happens a second time.

Apart from pointing out that it is now the Equality Act, I agree with this. The reason being given sounds like an excuse rather than a real reason, and the regulations are intended to ensure that people dismissed for certain things like fraud are detected. But would your friend really to work for an organisation who thinks like this? Making adjustments of this type are not hard, and if this is their attitude at the start, then what will it be like to work for them?

Annisele

The only insurance industry specific rules I can think of are the ones in FIT. That isn't my area, but I don't believe there's anything in it that would prevent an authorised firm employing somebody in the circumstances the OP describes.