sacked while off sick from work, can they do this

dmg24

Hi aouaj04,

Welcome to MSE.

Are your absences due to a long term health condition/ disability? x

glossgal

I have to say I think the discrimination word gets bandied about all too frequently when there's mention of sick leave. I genuinely don't want to appear unsympathetic to anyone in OPs postion but having an illness doesn't always equate to having a disability. The Disability Rights Commission website (as it was, now part of the equality commission I beleive) used to contain cases they had taken to court including employment cases. Obviously these were only a proportion of cases took forward but they were all quite serious issues quite far removed from the type I often read on MSE. Playing devils advocate to OP, it seems at best they were employed for 2 months before submitting their sick note, at worst 5/6 weeks. This is nothing in employment terms and at this stage your employer doesn't know you or care about you (im sure some of us will testify that this doesn't change!). Lets suppose the sick note says 'back injury' (I respect that the nature of OPs illness is personal and may be more serious)-what would you do if you were the employer? there is nothing to indicate a disability as such and you've barely had chance to see how valuable they are to the company? I suspect 90% of us would cut our losses and dismiss. Again, we don't know the full details but common sense should be a factor before people get defensive about these things, especially if the amount of sick leave exceeds the period of employment!

Again, no offence intended...

exil

The situation is that for the 1st year the employer doesn't need a reason to sack you, as long as they follow the procedures eg notice period.

Having a genuine illness is just a valid a reason for dismissal as "malingering" - more so in fact as the latter can be dealt with by giving you a warning whereas, say, a condition like back pain, migraine, depression, alcoholism etc is unlikely to be easily curable leaving the employer with the choice of whether to put up with frequent absences or find someone else

Fleago

Hi glossgal,

I doubt that any of us who post on these boards with reference to disability in relation to employment law and sickness abscence are guilty of "bandying the discrimination word" about. I know I'm not and when I post about it, I'm doing so with the best of intentions and to assist others. I'm not taking offence, but common sense isn't really the issue.

Whilst employers may wish to cut their losses and run when faced with someone off on sickness absence which is disrupting operations, the fact is that there are employment laws in this country that employers have a legal duty to be mindful of. At the very least, they cannot just dismiss, they must go through proper procedures; the most basic of which are laid down in law.

Also, it is relevant whether a person's condition means that they are disabled under the Disability Discrimination Act as this means that an employer has an extra legal duty to make reasonable adjustments for that person. As a matter of good practice, any employer would be well advised to consider whether "the discrimination word" might be applicable in cases of frequent or prolonged absence.

Being mindful of the law and acting accordingly does not mean that an employer can't dismiss, including people with a disability as laid down by the DDA. It just means that they have to take the proper steps before coming to that decision. Those of us who post on these issues are merely coming from that angle and suggesting ways in which posters can consider what their legal rights are and how to ensure that they are respected.

Fleago

glossgal

I appreciate what you're saying and wouldn't deny any employee their rights, with regards disability or otherwise. I think its good that people can ask for advice and perhaps be made aware of something they had not considered before. However, I have been reading the boards for some time and often see people assuming that the DDA act applies or referring to it in a very simplistic way when making posts in this vain. Of course it should be explored because at times it will be relevant but in this case, from the facts we've been given, Im not convinced

For the record, I would probably rather stick pins in my eyes than advocate shoddy employers! All I am saying is employment is a battlefield and I believe you choose your battles. If I was OP with the equivalent of 3-4 weeks full time service I would chalk it up and walk away. Doesn't make the employers conduct ok but on balance I still believe its the 'common sense' thing to do.

dmg24

glossgal wrote: »

I appreciate what you're saying and wouldn't deny any employee their rights, with regards disability or otherwise. I think its good that people can ask for advice and perhaps be made aware of something they had not considered before. However, I have been reading the boards for some time and often see people assuming that the DDA act applies or referring to it in a very simplistic way when making posts in this vain. Of course it should be explored because at times it will be relevant but in this case, from the facts we've been given, Im not convinced

For the record, I would probably rather stick pins in my eyes than advocate shoddy employers! All I am saying is employment is a battlefield and I believe you choose your battles. If I was OP with the equivalent of 3-4 weeks full time service I would chalk it up and walk away. Doesn't make the employers conduct ok but on balance I still believe its the 'common sense' thing to do.

glossgal,

The OP does not have to give us details of his condition, he has been given a link to the relevant information, and he feels that he is covered. I doubt very much that you know more than him about his own health, and therefore the highlighted comment is completely unfounded.

glossgal

Why is it unfounded? I'm just forming an opinion based on the facts given, OPs health is their own business. I say Im 'not convinced' purely because OP hasn't said a) if they made the employer aware of the health issues c) what reasonable adjustments they feel could be made in that particular workplace. In the absence of these details i stand by the fact that I don't see a discrimination case to pursue. That doesn't mean I think OP isn't disabled or hasn't been treated unfairly or shouldnt seek advice about their position.

maninthestreet

kurjam wrote: »

i can only have a job if they win a contract, they are bidding for. my doctor had already told me i should not be doing the work i was doing... i could not do the other work as it involves heavy lifting and standing for 8-9 hours a day something i can not do !!

Sorry, but if your own doctor says you were not fit enough to do the work you were employed to do, then how were you expecting to actually do that job?

marydot

kurjam wrote: »

taking it further, will stop them doing it someone else !!

Just think about yourself at a time like this, and not about anyone else. Just move on and look for another job, its pointless saying your going to take it any further when you know its revenge you want.
People get sacked for a good reason, otherwise they would not be sacked in the first place. Think about it.

Many people do this but end up trying to lose a winning battle.

Becles

I would think that after 2½ years with no further posts, the OP has moved on!