Dismissal - Unauthorized Absence.

sangie595

vertigo5000 wrote: »

I fully admit that I did make some serious f-ups.
But I'm not sure the management are the angels they're painting.

So, my contracts exact wording is:
"No payment is made during unauthorized absences."

For the entire period from beginning to dismissal: I was paid SSP.

So if my contracts wording is that unauthorized absences will receive no payment, then surely paying me automatically disqualifies it as unauthorized absence?

Yeah I know, I'm nit picking but this is capitalism, there's no such thing as fair play.

Thanks for all the replies. Have a lovely Sunday.

You really want to point that out to them, so they can come after you for an overpayment? This is the time to exit quietly stage left!

Undervalued

vertigo5000 wrote: »

I fully admit that I did make some serious f-ups.
But I'm not sure the management are the angels they're painting.

So, my contracts exact wording is:
"No payment is made during unauthorized absences."

For the entire period from beginning to dismissal: I was paid SSP.

So if my contracts wording is that unauthorized absences will receive no payment, then surely paying me automatically disqualifies it as unauthorized absence?

Yeah I know, I'm nit picking but this is capitalism, there's no such thing as fair play.

Thanks for all the replies. Have a lovely Sunday.

Well actually there is.

You have only been there 15 months! So they could simply have dismissed you without bothering to hold any kind of disciplinary hearing and there would have been absolutely nothing you could have done about it.

However, despite this they gave you an opportunity to present your "defence". Frankly, they would almost certainly have been justified in dismissing you had you been there five years.

Sorry, but move on.

sangie595

vertigo5000 wrote: »

Thanks for the replies. I wanted a view to the situation from someone else's eyes. No, I'm not trolling.

Back dated sick notes are suspicious? So me, my GP and my surgeon (a professor) are liars?

Yes, I have a 40 hour written, signed contract. The management said I would not be allowed to return without a fit for work note. I called 'fit for work' the government organisation and they said I do not need one.

Anyway, considering all plagues and famines are my fault..

From 1st June to 6th July I took pictures of the rotas at work and management had put me through as SSP right up to the dismissal.

So why did they do that then?

Of course backdated sick notes are suspicious, and yes, doctors actually do lie - or not tell the truth. How can any doctor explain how you were feeling a week ago??? They didn't see you. They had no knowledge of you a week ago. So who are they to say you were too sick to work a week ago? They have to take you at your word, and that doesn't mean you are telling the truth.

And actually, I don't know where your are getting your rubbish advice from, but if that is what a government agency is actually saying then they should not be giving out advice. Because it is wrong. If an employer insists on having certification that you are fit for work, they DO have every right to insist on one. There is obviously more to this situation than you are telling - employers usually demand such evidence in specific circumstances, such as claims of work related sickness, or serious illness, or industry regulations. But you still haven't explained why, if you were fit for work, your doctor was still issuing you with fit notes! You simply cannot have it both ways. You were picking up a fit note from the doctor and missed a meeting to discuss that you were fit for work? Really?

Whatever you aren't saying isn't helping you. But whatever, it doesn't matter. They aren't having you back. And I'm sure that they are smart enough to write a truthful reference. You just need hope they don't.

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

Do you honestly think anyone is going to care whether you have been dismissed for 5 unauthorised absences or 35 unauthorised absences?

Manxman_in_exile

FWIW - I think some posters are missing the point of one part of the Op's "story".


They originally had a period of self certified absence and this then continued supported by a fit to work (or whatever it's called) certificate.


The Op's problem is that they never had this certificate at the time, because their GP was "on leave" during this period. This is why the OP "had" to visit their GP on 15 June(after the GP had returned from leave) to obtain their post-dated certificate when they should have been attending a meeting at work that they'd forgotten about.


Personally I think this is the most incredible part of the whole post. As somebody else has pointed out where does the OP live if their GP surgery has a sole practitioner with no locum cover for annual leave?


(Of course they could have tried their professor of surgery who, no doubt, can provide an impeccable certificate).


EDIt: happy to be corrected by the more knowledgeable, but I presume SSP can be recovered if it is subsequently deemed the sickness absence was "unauthorised" ie no contemporaneous sick note (as suggested by sangie).

Manxman_in_exile

Interesting idea...but the Professor of surgery would be willing to support the GP's opinion...surely?

Manxman_in_exile

vertigo5000 wrote: »

Back dated sick notes are suspicious? So me, my GP and my surgeon (a professor) are liars?

Having worked in the NHS and having had some experience of managing sickness absence, the question would be why you didn't get a certificate after the period of self-certification expired?


This may not necessarily be suspicious, but would require a very good explanation where I worked. Not to mention the emails you forgot to respond to and the meeting you forgot to attend (or at least forgot to tell them that you wouldn't be there!)

w06

Back dated certificates if you didn't see a clinician at the time of the illness are also not issuable. Ie you can't go to the GP today and say you were ill last week and need a fit note for last week if you didn't have some sort of consultation whilst you were ill.

vertigo5000

Sorry, I couldn't have been dismissed without a disciplinary hearing... It's written in the contract... Damn, pesky written contracts...

Sangie595 - I don't know if you're a troll or you just can't read lad.

https / w w w. gov .uk /government/publications/fit-note-guidance-for-employers-and-line-managers

That's the official government website son. It's ACAS guidance, if it's not followed you end up in tribunals. I wasn't asking you to verify if you think it is the law, because it's not based on your opinion.

So I take them to Appeals Tribunal and ask them to defend paying me SSP while classing it as unauthorized absence?

My contract clearly states:
"No payment is made during unauthorized absences."

So they pay me and my written contract says they shouldn't pay me.
They will claim back the over payment as it isn't lawfully mine.
But by claiming it back, they're admitting to a breach of contract because they're admitting that they paid me during my unauthorized absence.

They paid me SSP for the entire period, now by definition of the contract: "No payment is made during unauthorized absences."
So if they're making payments... it must be authorized absence.
If not, it's a breach of contract.

Simple.

No I don't want the job back.
No I don't need JSA to get by while I find another position.

sangie595

Not a troll. Not a lad. You know all the answers do you? Have at it. Appeal. Point out that you don't get paid for unauthorised absences. And just TRY to get to a tribunal, why don't you? I look forward to the post tomorrow saying you won. You see, we see your sort here all the time. But if you think you have just got your law degree, think very, very carefully before acting on your impulses. You seem to think it can't get worse. It can. It will.