Is attending a gay event when you are off sick with m.e. grounds for dismissal fair?

seven-day-weekend

Fleago wrote: »

I am surprised that so many people believe that if a person is signed off sick it means that they are confined to home. Clearly, a person on sick leave should use discretion as to what sort of things they do, but their doctor has declared them unfit for work, not declared them under house arrest.

Indeed, going out can be therapuetic and encouraged by a doctor, as in Stebiz's case, or it can be part of recovery, say, for example, for building up stamina and strength after surgery. People can even go on holiday whilst signed off sick, if a doctor deems it appropriate (some employers require people in these circumstances to inform them and seek consent from them - my own does this).

Employers are, of course, entitled to enquire if they believe that an absent employee is abusing their sickness absence, but in these instances proper procedures should be carried out and the employee afforded the option of providing evidence that their activity was therapuetic, for example, by the employer seeking consent to approach a doctor for information.

I make no comment as to whether attending a public parade is misuse of sickness abscence or a therapuetic thing for the OP to do, but I did want to comment on the apparent belief that people who are sick may not have a life outside of their own four walls.

Yes, I agree, just becasue you are off sick diesn't mean you are not allowed out of the house. It depends very much upon the nature of the illness (obviously if you have the flu you should be at home tucked up in bed., but other illnesses it can be beneficial to be out and about).

My husband has had two nervous breakdowns and long bouts where he was too ill to work. While he was recovering from one of these, we had an invitation to stay with some friends in Spain (before we came to live here). He asked the Doctor if it would be OK for him to go as he was signed off sick and the reply was 'if I could put it on prescription I would do'. He also checked with a high official of his union who said not only would it be OK but would probably be therapeutic.

I make no comments on the OP's question as I do not think we have enough information as to what they were physically doing at the parade (If they were leaping around swinging from the chandeliers this might not fit in with the ME diagnosis), or whether the company have followed the right disciplinary procedures.

I agree the fact that it was a gay event should have no relevance here.

chuckles1066

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

I agree the fact that it was a gay event should have no relevance here.

Which begs the question: why did the OP feel the need to include that snippet of information?

I suspect, and it's been suggested elsewhere in this thread, that there's some sort of ploy here to portray the employer as homophobic and then it's blank cheque time at a Tribunal.

superscaper

chuckles1066 wrote: »

Which begs the question: why did the OP feel the need to include that snippet of information?

I suspect, and it's been suggested elsewhere in this thread, that there's some sort of ploy here to portray the employer as homophobic and then it's blank cheque time at a Tribunal.

The OP has already explained why they mentioned it. Whether we think that reason is relevant or not is another matter.

tigtag02

chuckles1066 wrote: »

Which begs the question: why did the OP feel the need to include that snippet of information?

I suspect, and it's been suggested elsewhere in this thread, that there's some sort of ploy here to portray the employer as homophobic and then it's blank cheque time at a Tribunal.

Post number 41 should clarify this for you!

superscaper

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

I agree the fact that it was a gay event should have no relevance here.

I think that was the OP's point but they should have explained earlier that it was the employer who emphasised that it was a gay event.

Ewarwoowar2

It doesn't really matter where you where or what you were doing their. The tribunal will be interested in:

1) how did your employer investigate this matter
2) what information they had when they dismissed you; and
3) was your dismissal within the reasonable band of responses.

I'll give you some proper legal advice if you provide me with the following information:

1) how long did you work for your employer;
2) what process did they go through (investigation, hearing, etc) before they decided to dismiss;
3) whta information did you give your employer when they asked about your attendance at the parade;
3) did you tell your employer about your illness
4) do you have good reason to believe that you were dismissed for being gay or having ME?

chuckles1066

Ewarwoowar2 wrote: »

4) do you have good reason to believe that you were dismissed for being gay or having ME?

Yep, there's the compensation puller.........right there.

tomstickland

The OP mentioned it because it appears that they are receiving harrasment as a result of being gay.

superscaper

A lot of people seem to have missed the OP's explanatory followup post. It is NOT the OP who was sacked. It was their partner. Considering how much new info has been put in I think it just leads to more questions and even more explanation needed. Sounds like a long story that's been really cut short and therefore not doing the full story justice and making us all make further assumptions (me included) that may or may not be right. The OP unfortunately confused the issue by making it hypothetically first person instead of just saying it as it was leading us who looked at the post history to be even further confused.

ohreally

cab412 wrote: »

We were followed by his employer and the fact that a gay event is mentioned is because his employer has mentioned it in 4 contacts with him. We have received two abusive phone calls, a letter, abusive emails, three men threatening disability, a brick through our front window, and the final one of three men threatening to kill us.

Are the police following a definite line of enquiry?