Compassionate leave - employee lying

eskimalita7

SecondRow said:

eskimalita7 said:

Marcon said:

eskimalita7 said:

If it is legal to do so, I need to know the time off he has had to date was legitimate. If HR can request retrospective documents and he can produce them I feel I can help him with a PIP. If he can’t prove hospital appointments or a house move then I feel I can’t manage him as I cannot cure a compulsive liar with a PIP.

You have an HR department. Let them decide what they can and can't request, rather than asking random strangers on a public forum who haven't had sight of the employee's contract, any handbook, company policies etc.

I will use my HR department. I have been losing sleep over this no matter how much I try to put it to one side over the weekend. The forum has been a helpful outlet. I don’t have access to HR until Monday. I am grateful to everyone who had commented and your comment is a bit unnecessary.

It seems this piece of particularly good advice has irked you. It shouldn’t have, it is precisely what you should be doing. Going further, you may like to consider a challenge to your handling of things thus far, has the extended leave to care for his son been designated a reasonable adjustment as per the Equality Act - if it hasn’t where will you draw the line as there is a compelling argument for whatever has been allowed thus far to be the benchmark for it. In that regard, you seem to be looking for this individual to make up time allowed, why would you do that if you have sanctioned it in the first place, would you ordinarily risk a discrimination claim for these reasons? If you haven’t drawn a line in respect of reasonable adjustments, you will also need to take account of adjusting objectives - why are you managing him to targets that are obviously unachievable in the circumstances and what adjustments do you propose to reflect what’s happening?

Remember, you are perhaps understandably forming a view that he is swinging the lead, you may be right. Equally, you may well be so wide of the mark you’d be shocked. In other words, keep an open mind - you are in need of professional HR support/guidance, as was appropriately pointed out earlier that seems to have offended you.

I didn’t really understand any of this. I read it a few times. It’s patronising. Not sure what you’re trying to say. My original question was valid. 

theoretica

How do you anticipate the employee to feel or react if asked retrospectively for proof?  I would not expect anyone to react well to that. Do you want him complaining that you have made it impossible to continue as his manager?  Seems to me that if you ask for proof and he doesn't provide it you say you won't be able to work with him, and even if he does provide it will he be able to work with you?  So what could asking actually accomplish?

HampshireH

@eskimalita7 were HR receptive and helpful? Do your policies support this approach 

Undervalued

Jude57 said:

SecondRow said:

eskimalita7 said:

Marcon said:

eskimalita7 said:

If it is legal to do so, I need to know the time off he has had to date was legitimate. If HR can request retrospective documents and he can produce them I feel I can help him with a PIP. If he can’t prove hospital appointments or a house move then I feel I can’t manage him as I cannot cure a compulsive liar with a PIP.

You have an HR department. Let them decide what they can and can't request, rather than asking random strangers on a public forum who haven't had sight of the employee's contract, any handbook, company policies etc.

I will use my HR department. I have been losing sleep over this no matter how much I try to put it to one side over the weekend. The forum has been a helpful outlet. I don’t have access to HR until Monday. I am grateful to everyone who had commented and your comment is a bit unnecessary.

It seems this piece of particularly good advice has irked you. It shouldn’t have, it is precisely what you should be doing. Going further, you may like to consider a challenge to your handling of things thus far, has the extended leave to care for his son been designated a reasonable adjustment as per the Equality Act - if it hasn’t where will you draw the line as there is a compelling argument for whatever has been allowed thus far to be the benchmark for it. In that regard, you seem to be looking for this individual to make up time allowed, why would you do that if you have sanctioned it in the first place, would you ordinarily risk a discrimination claim for these reasons? If you haven’t drawn a line in respect of reasonable adjustments, you will also need to take account of adjusting objectives - why are you managing him to targets that are obviously unachievable in the circumstances and what adjustments do you propose to reflect what’s happening?

Remember, you are perhaps understandably forming a view that he is swinging the lead, you may be right. Equally, you may well be so wide of the mark you’d be shocked. In other words, keep an open mind - you are in need of professional HR support/guidance, as was appropriately pointed out earlier that seems to have offended you.

Could you link to which part of the Equality Act applies to parents caring for disabled children as a 'reasonable adjustment'? The only mention of children I can find in the Act refers to those in an education or care setting and relates to the provision of education or care. It would seem to be an unreasonable adjustment for employers to have to give more paid leave to the parent of a child whose disability is well managed than to a parent with a child who doesn't meet the definition of disability set out in the Act, but who has repeated illness, say, repeated ear or chest infections. It would be helpful to know what you're relying on here, so that others could benefit.

Quite!

The right is to short (undefined) periods of unpaid leave in emergency (also undefined) to provide care for somebody who reasonably depends on the employee. Often a child, but can also be an adult relative or even a friend if the employee is their first line of care.

The normal legal interpretation is a day or two to arrange care and not an ongoing period to provide longer term care themselves.

Whilst many "good" employers may offer far more flexibility that doesn't mean all are legally obliged to do so.

SecondRow

@Jude57 It isn’t the Equality as such, but a judgement in the case of Coleman v Attridge Law that effectively gives a parent/carer of a disabled individual, the same protections afforded by the act that they would enjoy if they were disabled.

https://www.xperthr.co.uk/editors-choice/coleman-v-attridge-law-and-another-case-c-30306-ecj/87122/#:~:text=The%20European%20Court%20of%20Justice,association%20with%20a%20disabled%20person.

Undervalued

SecondRow said:

@Jude57 It isn’t the Equality as such, but a judgement in the case of Coleman v Attridge Law that effectively gives a parent/carer of a disabled individual, the same protections afforded by the act that they would enjoy if they were disabled.

https://www.xperthr.co.uk/editors-choice/coleman-v-attridge-law-and-another-case-c-30306-ecj/87122/#:~:text=The%20European%20Court%20of%20Justice,association%20with%20a%20disabled%20person.

Interesting but that is a particular combination of circumstances.

In particular, "She alleged that the discriminatory treatment included a refusal to allow her to return to her existing job after coming back from maternity leave". That of course could be unlawful in itself regardless of any other aspects of her claim.

SecondRow

Miss Coleman’s circumstances will, of course, have been particular to her. What is of wider importance is the ECJ’s finding, which was binding on UK courts and tribunals -  “The ECJ concluded that the prohibition on direct discrimination in the Framework Employment Directive is not limited to individuals who are themselves disabled.”

There may well be a compelling argument in this case that the time already afforded by the OP for carer’s leave has already set a benchmark as a reasonable adjustment. Withdrawing it or asking for the time allowed to be worked back may therefore be illegal. In saying that, there are many things at play here and of course only a tribunal would decide but then, they would have a full set of facts to base a judgement on.

eamon

This is one of those cases were in trying to be helpful, caring etc, you have likely had the wool pulled over your eyes.

Its one of the arguments against WFH as a given right. You have informed your line manager & HR and thats good but don't be surprised if you also get spoken to as well in allowing the issue to fester. Its time for a difficult conversation but at least your will have your employers policies to hand as a guide.