Thread deleted

sking82

Thread deleted

Browntoa

You can be laid off as long as the selection method was fair , you cannot be selected purely as you are off work

How long have you been working for them

sangie595

sking82 wrote: »

Hello People

I am going to have to be pretty vague on the details but basically i had an accident at work (not my fault) a few months ago and i'm still unable to go back to work for up to another 12 weeks (due to the type of work i do).

The company i worked for is a very large and well known company in the industry i work in.

I did get the correct redundancy pay(if i would of been fit for work), but my question is: can i be laid off while on the sick from an accident i had while at work. This is the first time for even thinking about making a claim but i believe this is unfair dismissal.

I will be going to see a solicitor, but i just want to make sure i'm not going to be wasting my time.

Also this is not a British company (it is european)

Sorry for being so vague, if you need any more details please private message me

Thank you in advance

Sking82

I don't do private messaging - and you would be well advised not to as well. There are some rogues around at times who will happily take you for a ride; and employment law doesn't work on "secrets" anyway, so there is nothing that you can say or be told on here that would affect your chances no matter whether your former employer saw it or not.

Yes, you can be dismissed whilst off sick. With months off already, plus at least three more months off sick, then it isn't really that unexpected. And where you had the accident is irrelevant.

If the employer was at fault over the accident then that is an entirely separate matter.

Why would you think this is unfair dismissal?

sangie595

Browntoa wrote: »

You can be laid off as long as the selection method was fair , you cannot be selected purely as you are off work

How long have you been working for them

There's actually nothing in law that says being off sick can't be the selection criteria, is there? Yes it might be a dodgy choice of you got tied up in a disability claim, but nothing stops an employer using this criteria, and nothing says they must use more than one criteria.

Undervalued

sangie595 wrote: »

If the employer was at fault over the accident then that is an entirely separate matter.

That is the most important point and one that is so often misunderstood.

If your employer was at fault then you need to pursue a legal claim against them for damages. If you win, those damages should take account of the losses you have suffered as a result and that may include the loss of your job (if that is indeed what happens).

How you came about your injury or illness need have no bearing on how your employer treats your long term sickness absence. In fact the employer would be ill advised to treat you more favourable as that could be seen as admitting liability for your accident.

They will be insured against injury to employees and it will no doubt be a condition of that insurance that they don't admit any liability without the insurers agreement.

I sympathise with your position but that is how it works I'm afraid.

sangie595

People in "the industry" have no idea what they are talking about.

There is no legal reason why you cannot be dismissed whilst off sick. lengthy sickness will almost certainly be a major factor in deciding redundancies - that is commonplace. And probably your main factor in "most" of the redundancies being people who had accidents.

I realise that this is tough, but employers employ people to be in work and not off sick. Having a lot of time off sick almost always ended in dismissal, one way or another. Selecting those who have poor attendance records is no surprise.

If the employer was in some way responsible for the accident then toy need to be looking at that as a possible action. But the location of your accident has nothing to do with whether your can be dismissed or not.

Undervalued

sking82 wrote: »

So i'm better to go for an accident claim?

In short, yes assuming your employer was to blame.

sangie595

Oh look. I was expecting the OP to delete their post. Good thing I quoted it!

TELLIT01

sangie595 wrote: »

Oh look. I was expecting the OP to delete their post. Good thing I quoted it!

You start to feel that the first person to respond needs to quote the entire initial post. It seems to be far more common that somebody will ask questions and then try to delete their post.

Mr.Generous

I sometimes think there is an element of "I don't like the answers I'm getting so I'm deleting this."

jobbingmusician

It's incredibly selfish. People answer these problems to benefit subsequent readers, not just the OP.