Employee Disciplinary

Casey1709

Genuineguy03 wrote: »

@casey

Actually. I was being serious there.

How's the wine tonight?

Just seriously offensive to people with dementia then.

elsien

Genuineguy03 wrote: »

You can't just dismiss someone just like that. You have to go down capability route and consider what reasonable adjustments you as an employer can make to enable her to remain in employment prior to dismissing her on capability. If she can't manage the tills and it's a small business, there are unlikely to be any. And you presuime she has a disability. She may not - having an illness does not automatically qualify her as disabled.

You say she has dementia and her colleagues confirmed this. If she does, then you are putting yourself in a risky position legally if you dismiss her as per how your thinking of doing.And could face an unfair dismissal or disability discrimination claim Why? There is no dementia diagnosis. Depression and anxiety may or may not qualify as a disability and even so if people are unable to do the job then they can still be dismissed on capability grounds.

If the issue is financial discrepancies from her use of the till. Then take her off till duties (as others suggest). But inform her, in private first, your reasons being your concern her mental health is the course and the company can't afford to loose so much money, but at the same time you think she is a credit to you and the company and you don't want to loose her as an employee. She might then agree to your taking her off till duties. She doesn't have to agree. It's the employers decision as to where she works. And why tell someone they are a credit to the company when right now they're not?

So I'd suggest you invite her and her husband/partner/son/daughter in for an infornal chat. As having a family member there with her would help her, but also help you. And it maybe the family don't know how much her dementia is effecting her at work. But do not, under any circumstance talk with her family behind her back as that be breach of confidentiality and data protection. As others have said, if you brought my family into this I would not be impressed. Now if you suggested a union, that would be a different ball game.

Her anxiety could be a result of her dementia and she may be feeling anxious given the current issues with her till use as well. So solving one issue may solve the rest.

I do wonder though why the issues have only happened since the OP took over. It seems unlikely that the woman would be fine up until the changeover then suddenly unable to do her job afterwards.
OP you do need to consider all eventualities and reasons before deciding what to do next.
Does your improvement plan have timescales on it?

marliepanda

elsien wrote: »

I do wonder though why the issues have only happened since the OP took over. It seems unlikely that the woman would be fine up until the changeover then suddenly unable to do her job afterwards.
OP you do need to consider all eventualities and reasons before deciding what to do next.
Does your improvement plan have timescales on it?

Havent you seen this guys other posts? If you have a touch of the flu your illness qualifies you as disabled in his eyes, and you must make all the adjustments necessary such as allowing them to work in bed and have lemsip on a drip installed at the employers expense!

bugslet

elsien wrote: »

I do wonder though why the issues have only happened since the OP took over. It seems unlikely that the woman would be fine up until the changeover then suddenly unable to do her job afterwards.
OP you do need to consider all eventualities and reasons before deciding what to do next.
Does your improvement plan have timescales on it?

I suspect that when the previous owner sold the business, they perhaps glossed over some of the problems this lady had, presuming they existed before. It wouldn't be the first time that a business had been sold and issues of one sort or another had not been clearly explained.

NeilCr

elsien wrote: »

I do wonder though why the issues have only happened since the OP took over. It seems unlikely that the woman would be fine up until the changeover then suddenly unable to do her job afterwards.

I thought about that. It did cross my mind that the previous owner may have said all the staff were fine to, how shall we say, make the sale easier.

Otherwise, I agree with you that it's a bit odd. It could just be that this lady doesn't deal well with change.

ETA - cross posted with bugslet. Glad we had the same thought!

elsien

marliepanda wrote: »

Havent you seen this guys other posts? If you have a touch of the flu your illness qualifies you as disabled in his eyes, and you must make all the adjustments necessary such as allowing them to work in bed and have lemsip on a drip installed at the employers expense!

Yes I know. And I briefly considered letting it go.
But when people post [STRIKE]cobblers [/STRIKE]misleading information I do at times find it hard to step away from the keboard.

nicechap

I think this post on the IBS thread may be of help to the OP. I've edited it down and highlighted the bit about company size.

Although Tsx is referring to reasonable adjustments, I believe company size its also a consideration for how a disciplinary is expected to be carried out. A corner shop is unlikely to have the ability to have an independent manager investigate events but a local authority would be. I believe the test is also what a reasonable employer in the same industry would do. So charging someone with misconduct for swearing might be OK in a hotel but not so on a building site.


https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5923553/partner-with-ibs-refused-ssp&page=4
Partner with IBS refused SSP - Page 4 - MoneySavingExpert.com Forums

TSx wrote: »

...
The key is that the Equality Act doesn't give you the right to have as much absence as you want. It may be reasonable to allow more time than normal away from work to attend hospital appointments, or even to allow a higher level of absence than others. It is never going to be considered reasonable to allow unlimited absences from work.

I believe (although I'm not certain so I won't state as fact) that what is reasonable also depends on the employer. A small corner shop with 4 members of staff may find a particular adjusment unreasonable, whilst a call centre with 200 members of staff may easily be able to accommodate it.

And a final point - the Equality Act has a very specific definition of a disability which is much looser than we might consider when talking about disabled people. Many, many people will fall under the umbrella of the Equality Act who wouldn't be considered disabled by any other authority (e.g for benefits purposes or a blue badge)

Government guidance on the Equality Act: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/570382/Equality_Act_2010-disability_definition.pdf

gettingtheresometime

There are other medical conditions which can give the impression that the person suffers with dementia but are easily treatable.

jobbingmusician

I'm not an expert (but I am an experienced manager.) What follows may seem heartless but is in the business's interests - plus I am trying to maintain the employee's dignity and minimise their own fears of Alzheimer's.

What seems to me to be missing here are documented stages of a disciplinary procedure with targets being set for improvement. Dismissing an employee safely takes time, sadly. The cheap and cheerful way to do this is to download the ACAS recommended disciplinary policy (assuming you don't already have one), let all employees know that this is their policy from now onwards, and march this employee smartly through it, setting targets for improvement at each step.

A slightly more expensive option, which might turn out to be cheaper in the long run, is to go and consult a solicitor. I would add to the recommendations for this course of action! Before you go, write down what has happened so far, with dates, so that you a) think clearly in the solicitor's office, and b) impress the solicitor with your organisational skills If you are lucky, the solicitor may consider that you have fulfilled some stages of a model disciplinary policy already and can thus fast track through the process.

Yes, I'm a heartless cow. But I'm not, really. I'm trying to set up a framework which demonstrates transparency and accountability to this employee, and her peers (who may be covering for her or stitching her up at present). I think it's generally unhelpful for someone in this situation to know that they are suspected of suffering from Alzheimers, but the employee will need to know and understand that they are making mistakes (which could be due to depression).

Manxman_in_exile

gettingtheresometime wrote: »

There are other medical conditions which can give the impression that the person suffers with dementia but are easily treatable.

Correct. People (incl the OP) seem to be assuming the employee has dementia simply because their colleagues say so. The GP has only diagnosed anxiety/depression (although these could be linked to dementia - or many other illnesses.)


OP - you didn't answer my question about how you are covering the losses. The Post Office take a strict view of this.