Stat Sick Pay Fraud

stuartJo1989

Tarambor wrote: »

All they have to do is to go to a tribunal, claim they were forced to resign by the OP, present evidence of the OP doing what they've posted in here in their first post and frame it as being done in a vindictive manner to force them out of the job as lots of companies illegally sack people by backing them into a corner where they make a threat and also say "if resign and we'll forget about it but if you don't we'll report you to X,Y or Z". Hey presto, person wins case, gets significant 5 figure payout. And that is precisely why their legal advisors told them not to bother digging deeper.

Huh?

I always thought that you could be dismissed within 2 years of employment without reason? Unless you have a protected characteristic (claiming SSP doesn't automatically mean that you are disabled).

Have you been able to establish the length of employment and any protected characteristic from this thread?

Plus, why would a tribunal award 5 figures and close down a small business? Seems a bit heavy-handed don't you think? Especially considering the employer has evidence, has paid the SSP without question for a few months, and were professional in arranging a meeting.

Plus, do you believe that the employee has sufficient evidence to link the OP in this thread to someone in real life? Maybe with the whole "Fiona Sheila" thing, but even so the post doesn't give away any key information which helps a third party (me or you) to pinpoint the business/employer in real life.

Stylehutz

Why has the employee claimed SSP, this hasnt been established. As one knowledgeable person on here has stated Just because you have 2 similar jobs there are bound to be variations in jobs descriptions. So you can obviously get a fit note for one job whilst carrying on working in another.

Unless you can provide more detail Perhaps you should just let it go.

sangie595

Tarambor wrote: »

Yes they do need to be very careful, extremely careful. Their legal advisors told them NOT to dig deeper.] That isn't remotely what was said! They said that they were not encouraged to dig deeper until recently. Thereafter they were advised every step of the way!

The hours being the same is irrelevant, the job being in the same field is irrelevant. What is relevant is precisely what they were signed off for, the restrictions placed on them and the EXACT tasks the other role involved. No, it isn't irrelevant. The person was "working in a similar role, during hours he was normally working in the cafe and in the evenings and at weekends too. We have photographic proof and a signed declaration from his manager to confirm this". In other words they were fit enough to do a similar role, so they were fit enough to attend work. But if that was even remotely relevant, then they had an opportunity to explain - at the disciplinary meeting which they failed to attend.

I was a lorry driver, I have three stuffed discs in my back. I cannot lift anything and have to be very careful about what tasks I can do but I can still drive a lorry. To you it would look like the last job I did was the same as any other job I did but what you would be unaware of is the runs my employer specifically kept me away from because I couldn't do them without causing myself serious problems, hence the reason the word exact was in capital letters in the previous paragraph. Two jobs can look the same from outside observation but can differ significantly. What happened to you has no relevance to the law on THIS situation. Which the OP was kept fully informed about by a lawyer. Not by someone comparing themselves to a totally different situation entirely!

As for the individual resigning......

All they have to do is to go to a tribunal, claim they were forced to resign by the OP, present evidence of the OP doing what they've posted in here in their first post and frame it as being done in a vindictive manner to force them out of the job as lots of companies illegally sack people by backing them into a corner where they make a threat and also say "if resign and we'll forget about it but if you don't we'll report you to X,Y or Z". Hey presto, person wins case, gets significant 5 figure payout. And that is precisely why their legal advisors told them not to bother digging deeper. Hey presto, no they don't. To claim constructive unfair dismissal it would be requiredthat the claimant attend and exhaust the internal procedures first. To do that they would have to have turned up to the disciplinary meeting, which they didn't. Hey presto, they just lost. And anyone who thinks that tribunals routinely hand out "significant five figure sums" knows nothing about them - the average / median award is a paltry four figure sum!And yet again, their advisors said no such thing - please read that again.

Comparing what happened to yourself in an entirely different situation is not the standard method of advising on what the law says. If you know the law, and if you read the post correctly, you would know that the OP has followed a flawless process, given the person an opportunity to defend their position, and only dismissed when they failed to attend the disciplinary. Hardly surprising that they did such a good job of it - they were advised to act in this way by lawyers.

Stylehutz

He could have done identitical jobs with identitcal hours. Job A could have been more stressful and more demanding than job B.

sangie595

Stylehutz wrote: »

He could have done identitical jobs with identitcal hours. Job A could have been more stressful and more demanding than job B.

Irrelevant. If he wished to argue that, he should have turned up for his opportunity to put his side of the story.

Stylehutz

sangie595 wrote: »

Irrelevant. If he wished to argue that, he should have turned up for his opportunity to put his side of the story.

Could have done but still no proof that he wasnt entitled to claim Ssp for one job, whilst working normally at another job.

You continually have a problem in your posts with employees who might not toe the line, but never say anything about the employers who never appear to do any wrong.

sangie595

Stylehutz wrote: »

Could have done but still no proof that he wasnt entitled to claim Ssp for one job, whilst working normally at another job.

You continually have a problem in your posts with employees who might not toe the line, but never say anything about the employers who never appear to do any wrong.

You obviously aren't reading most of my posts. Whereas I read all of yours, so I know that you troll the site looking to start arguments over the most ridiculous things, in particular enjoying making out that employees can never do any wrong.

Stylehutz

sangie595 wrote: »

You obviously aren't reading most of my posts. Whereas I read all of yours, so I know that you troll the site looking to start arguments over the most ridiculous things, in particular enjoying making out that employees can never do any wrong.

Certainly no trolling on the disgraceful attacking of the unemployed aspergers victim where the Mods rightly closed the thread. I would have given all those responsible a 6 month ban but most still continue to post their right Wing drivel on here.

Notice you didnt answer the initial question regarding the fact that he could have been perfectly entitled to claim Ssp in one job and work normally in the other or Perhaps you consider that statement as trolling.

sangie595

Stylehutz wrote: »

Certainly no trolling on the disgraceful attacking of the unemployed aspergers victim where the Mods rightly closed the thread. I would have given all those responsible a 6 month ban but most still continue to post their right Wing drivel on here. You keep on mentioning this. I have no idea what you are talking about. Or what it has to do with anything. But I am sure that if the Mods felt that forum rules had been broken they would have acted accordingly. Since they did not, it would appear that your version of what happened and yours are quite different. That not being too surprising, since your version and that of other people is often quite different

Notice you didnt answer the initial question regarding the fact that he could have been perfectly entitled to claim Ssp in one job and work normally in the other or Perhaps you consider that statement as trolling. I don't need to answer it again because I have answered the question fully already. The person was dismissed for working whilst claiming SSP. That is the reason they were dismissed. Full stop. So the employer and their lawyers are quite satisfied that they had grounds to say that the person was not entitled to SSP. You, who is neither the employer nor their lawyer has decided otherwise based on no evidence at all. So until proven otherwise, the reason for dismissal stands. And that won't be happening because the individual decided not to defend their claim for SSP.

........................................................

FionaSheila16

What i've learned from this whole experience is that employees rights hugely outweigh employers rights. Now this may be in our case only, but I've been utterly baffled by the whole thing.
We genuinely haven't done anything wrong and I'm not being arrogant saying that.
The employee was supported from the outset and was given time off for doctors appointments, latecoming and mood swings which as we were often reminded part of his condition. His illness by the way is depression / stress.
His roles in the cafe included food and beverage preparation and money taking at the till. We have a copy of an email sent to the employer of his 2nd job saying he is "super eager to work", and that he's "available for any other events over the summer months". News to us!!!! The role in this 2nd job was food and beverage server at a music festival. So very similar to his work with us.
When we invited him to a meeting he aggressively told us we were invading his privacy, not recognising his illness and after 3 further emails, he resigned (assuming of course, he knows that we know he's been working elsewhere). He is seeking legal advice although I'm not sure what for!!
He will be paid til Friday plus his 17 days accrued holiday pay. You couldn't make it up.
He is a bad egg no doubt, and makes a mockery of those who actually do suffer from depression. We will take steps to avoid him doing this to anyone else but just glad to be rid of him.