Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@. Skimlinks & other affiliated links are turned on

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • Cotta
    • By Cotta 2nd Aug 18, 2:02 PM
    • 3,138Posts
    • 1,532Thanks
    Cotta
    Direct Report Injured at work then Sacked.
    • #1
    • 2nd Aug 18, 2:02 PM
    Direct Report Injured at work then Sacked. 2nd Aug 18 at 2:02 PM
    Hi All,

    A office administrator who reports directly to me a few months ago was told by my boss she had to perform some cleaning duties including high ledge windows, from what I understand she was not given a ladder which was required for the job. The girl in question subsequently fell and broke her arm, my boss was unperturbed about this and the girl was not allowed time off to recuperate with the exception of two half days for hospital appointments which she was signed out for (not sure if she was paid). This week her plaster was removed and yesterday she was subsequently called into the office and sacked by my boss being deemed "unsuitable"; she was here around six months. She has now went to her solicitor about the injury who has made contact with us, I personally feel I am not responsible for any of this and my name should not be involved in the case. Apparently our case has been made worse from not allowing her paid time off and dismissing her the week her plaster was removed. My boss has said not to worry as nothing will come from this and she has no case, however should I be concerned my name is being used at all?

    Thanks in advance
Page 5
    • sangie595
    • By sangie595 7th Aug 18, 5:34 PM
    • 5,702 Posts
    • 9,945 Thanks
    sangie595
    Ah. Excellent. And now I know who you are! I have told you this before - you may find it entertaining to pretend to be a legal expert and quote your Google searches like an authority. Playing with people's lives and telling them things that are entirely unrealistic or untrue is not amusing. It is damaging. Misleading people into believing they have rights or entitlements that do not exist isn't funny. You aren't the one taking the risks or paying the bills. You've caused enough damage. It seems that didn't satisfy you.
    • BrassicWoman
    • By BrassicWoman 7th Aug 18, 5:38 PM
    • 1,914 Posts
    • 7,601 Thanks
    BrassicWoman
    hello dondada!
    Jan 18 grocery challenge £105.13/ £150
    • Smellyonion
    • By Smellyonion 7th Aug 18, 5:43 PM
    • 136 Posts
    • 86 Thanks
    Smellyonion
    Ah. Excellent. And now I know who you are! I have told you this before - you may find it entertaining to pretend to be a legal expert and quote your Google searches like an authority. Playing with people's lives and telling them things that are entirely unrealistic or untrue is not amusing. It is damaging. Misleading people into believing they have rights or entitlements that do not exist isn't funny. You aren't the one taking the risks or paying the bills. You've caused enough damage. It seems that didn't satisfy you.
    Originally posted by sangie595

    What on earth are you on? Who have I misled? What risks or bills?


    Ridiculous.
    T
    • dickydonkin
    • By dickydonkin 7th Aug 18, 10:29 PM
    • 2,906 Posts
    • 2,921 Thanks
    dickydonkin
    under what circumstances would my boss be exempt from a claim? He seems to think that now the girl is sacked and due to the fall being two months ago he is safe.
    Originally posted by Cotta
    None.

    Furthermore, the 'employer' is not 'safe' until three years after the incident.
    • dickydonkin
    • By dickydonkin 7th Aug 18, 10:34 PM
    • 2,906 Posts
    • 2,921 Thanks
    dickydonkin
    I think that you are lacking common sense.


    1) Its contradictory to say that "you don't know that", because you also 'don't know that', beaten by your own argument. Based on the evidence in this thread and the evidence from the direct reports own manager, my assumptions are more likely to be correct than yours so try again and don't defeat yourself using your own arguments.


    2) If it is not in black and white, and it is vague then it is debatable. An employment tribunal would decide if it is within the remit of the role. Saying that all contracts sate "other such duties" means you must do anything is incorrect and shows your lack of understanding.


    3) Again, based on the evidence, my evaluation is more likely. Think.... If a low earning admin assistant has lawyers likely from a no win no fee company, fighting this case. These qualified lawyers have made the judgement that she has a case and a good chance of succeeding, which they wouldn't have proceeded with if the chance of a goof outcome was low. Try once more.


    Your comparison on hitting yourself on the head with hammer is totally irrelevant. What is your point?


    4) Wrong, dismissing someone because of fear of H&S failing coming to fruition has no validation period which she could quite easily claim if she wins the personal injury. Try again, do some reading stop and think and respond again.
    Originally posted by Smellyonion
    Point 4 is mostly nonsense!
    Last edited by dickydonkin; 07-08-2018 at 10:37 PM.
    • Smellyonion
    • By Smellyonion 8th Aug 18, 4:12 AM
    • 136 Posts
    • 86 Thanks
    Smellyonion
    Readers of this forum have to be very careful. It is made up of wannabe lawyers that offer dangerous advice and seem to neglect the fact that this is place where people's opinions and interpretations vary and have no understanding of the subjective element to law. Two of the same cases presented to different judges could yield differing outcomes.

    If someone had suffered a dismisal due to a possible infringement of Act 1996 s.100(1) having read sangie595 posts they would have been given the interpretation that such a right does not exist. This is totally wrong and it was absolutely correct to challenge such users. The two year validation period is not needed in certain circumstances and this is not what long term users would have you believe. I absolutely welcome debat as to whether it is possible or justifiable in court but claiming it doesn't exist is wrong.

    When proven incorrect, this user then goes into paranoia mode, trying to discredit users to justify their own very poor advice that could put off individuals from seeking justice had there been no challenge. In the grand scheme of things, you can understand the reason why, since they spend their time prowling the employment forum for their own gratification, there is a lot to lose.

    I'll remind users again of the two incorrect and misleading statements:
    "She has less than two years service, so no, she can't claim unfair dismissal."
    "..and "health and safety" isn't one of the reasons for being able to bring a claim before two years anyway!"

    To all readers of this thread, do not consider gospel anything that you read on public forums. Take qualified advice, do your own research and make a judgement call. Shouting the loudest or having lots of posts on a forum does not make one correct or a legal expert.
    Last edited by Smellyonion; 08-08-2018 at 4:21 AM.
    • nicechap
    • By nicechap 8th Aug 18, 6:13 AM
    • 1,466 Posts
    • 2,853 Thanks
    nicechap
    Boo hoo, they're all being mean to me because I was wrong.
    “Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
    • Smellyonion
    • By Smellyonion 8th Aug 18, 6:40 AM
    • 136 Posts
    • 86 Thanks
    Smellyonion
    Boo hoo, they're all being mean to me because I was wrong.
    Originally posted by nicechap
    Very thoughtful post, I commend you. Carry on embarassing yourself.
    • mariefab
    • By mariefab 8th Aug 18, 11:33 AM
    • 319 Posts
    • 172 Thanks
    mariefab
    Smellyonion you are not alone.

    A great number of other people 'know' that it's unfair to dismiss someone for health and safety.
    However, what a lot of them don't realise is that this is only true if the health and safety claim fits within a handful of sets of criteria.(as Sangie said, giving examples)

    Automatically unfair dismissal health and safety claims can only be raised by:
    1. A health and safety rep, appointed by the employer or by the workforce, who was sacked for simply carrying out his job.
    2. An employee who was sacked for raising a currently harmful, or potentially harmful, health and safety matter when no health and safety rep was available.
    3. An employee who was sacked for leaving (or saying they would leave) the workplace when they believed that they were in serious, imminent danger that they couldn't avert themself or refused to return until the danger was averted.
    4. An employee who was sacked for taking reasonable steps to protect himself and/or others from serious imminent danger.
    • sangie595
    • By sangie595 8th Aug 18, 11:50 AM
    • 5,702 Posts
    • 9,945 Thanks
    sangie595
    hello dondada!
    Originally posted by BrassicWoman
    Hello. Got it in one!

    For those who don't understand the reference, on another site this person claims to be a volunteer with the Ministry of Justice at Tribunal Offices supporting litigants in person. And to have attended a whole ten tribunals in the past, I believe.

    Following this claim, because I had never heard of such a thing, I had our office contact the Ministry of Justice. It is untrue. Neither the Ministry of Justice nor any Tribunal Office employs anyone, in paid or unpaid capacity, to support any litigants. Of course, this was plainly apparent. These are courts of law and whilst "justice is blind" may not be an entire truism, the court does not retain people to support or assist either side, because that would be iniquitous.

    What people choose to believe is up to them, but I would strongly advise anyone listening to the advice from Smellyonion to (a) take it with a ton of salt, because they won't be picking up the pieces if you make things worse, and (b) feel free to check with the Ministry of Justice themselves whether they are really able to volunteer with them to support litigants.
    • mariefab
    • By mariefab 8th Aug 18, 12:25 PM
    • 319 Posts
    • 172 Thanks
    mariefab
    Oh dear.
    Well it was a debate worth having anyway because it may assist others.
    A lot of people believe that any reference to health and safety in a case is a home run.
    If I had a penny for every time someone exclaimed, "Ah! Health and Safety!" and sat back beaming I'd....actually I'd have about 11p....never mind.
    • Savvy_Sue
    • By Savvy_Sue 8th Aug 18, 12:35 PM
    • 39,249 Posts
    • 36,205 Thanks
    Savvy_Sue
    There's one piece of excellent advice in all this:
    To all readers of this thread, do not consider gospel anything that you read on public forums. Take qualified advice, do your own research and make a judgement call. Shouting the loudest or having lots of posts on a forum does not make one correct or a legal expert.
    Originally posted by Smellyonion
    But if dickydonkin and sangie say something, I'd listen ...
    Still knitting!
    Completed: 1 adult cardigan, 3 baby jumpers, 3 shawls, 1 sweat band, 3 pairs baby bootees,
    1 Wise Man Knitivity figure + 1 sheep, 2 pairs socks, 2 hats, 2 balaclavas for seamen, 1 balaclava for myself, multiple poppies, 3 peony flowers, 4 butterflies ...
    Current projects: ready to decrease / decreasing on all parts of the mohair cardigan pattern! but moved onto wrist warmers for friends at Christmas ...
    • sangie595
    • By sangie595 8th Aug 18, 12:57 PM
    • 5,702 Posts
    • 9,945 Thanks
    sangie595
    There's one piece of excellent advice in all this:But if dickydonkin and sangie say something, I'd listen ...
    Originally posted by Savvy_Sue
    I would agree about forum advice, and frequently say the same thing. But more often than not, I'd tell people to join a union so they aren't depending on the dubious advice of a bunch of strangers! And if they won't do that, take our legal insurance.
    • ohreally
    • By ohreally 8th Aug 18, 1:16 PM
    • 6,848 Posts
    • 5,387 Thanks
    ohreally
    There's one piece of excellent advice in all this:But if dickydonkin and sangie say something, I'd listen ...
    Originally posted by Savvy_Sue
    DD, Little Voice and Crazy Jamie comments,I would hold in high esteem.
    Don’t be a can’t, be a can.
    • Smellyonion
    • By Smellyonion 8th Aug 18, 2:19 PM
    • 136 Posts
    • 86 Thanks
    Smellyonion
    Smellyonion you are not alone.

    A great number of other people 'know' that it's unfair to dismiss someone for health and safety.
    However, what a lot of them don't realise is that this is only true if the health and safety claim fits within a handful of sets of criteria.(as Sangie said, giving examples)

    Automatically unfair dismissal health and safety claims can only be raised by:
    1. A health and safety rep, appointed by the employer or by the workforce, who was sacked for simply carrying out his job.
    2. An employee who was sacked for raising a currently harmful, or potentially harmful, health and safety matter when no health and safety rep was available.
    3. An employee who was sacked for leaving (or saying they would leave) the workplace when they believed that they were in serious, imminent danger that they couldn't avert themself or refused to return until the danger was averted.
    4. An employee who was sacked for taking reasonable steps to protect himself and/or others from serious imminent danger.
    Originally posted by mariefab

    I do agree with your points but there are other iterpretations that may apply in this instance.


    My point has been that it may be able to fit into conditions 2 or 3. We don't have any access to any evidence so it is purely speculation but she could argue that by taking time off due to the psychological fear caused by the injury, she was dismissed. Why was she deemed immediately unsuitable following the accident? Should could also argue that her falling highlighted the H&S failings so her employer fired her to avoid the issue.
    • Smellyonion
    • By Smellyonion 8th Aug 18, 2:35 PM
    • 136 Posts
    • 86 Thanks
    Smellyonion
    but I would strongly advise anyone listening to the advice from Smellyonion to (a) take it with a ton of salt, because they won't be picking up the pieces if you make things worse, and
    Originally posted by sangie595

    We should all listen to your impeccable advice:
    "She has less than two years service, so no, she can't claim unfair dismissal."

    "..and "health and safety" isn't one of the reasons for being able to bring a claim before two years anyway!"



    I think that the evidence is here in thread. You provide a lot of advice to people and quite often very helpful (from what I here) so you have a certain credibility and image to maintain. You are therefore extremely defensive and paranoid in when you feel your credibility is at risk to pass the buck from your own errors.


    Are you going to be picking up the pieces after what you said was incorrect? Are you suggesting that you are 100% liable for any comments you make on a public forum? Arrogance is a horrible trait.
    • mariefab
    • By mariefab 8th Aug 18, 2:35 PM
    • 319 Posts
    • 172 Thanks
    mariefab
    Head......Wall.......Ouch!...... I give up.
    • dickydonkin
    • By dickydonkin 8th Aug 18, 2:54 PM
    • 2,906 Posts
    • 2,921 Thanks
    dickydonkin
    Should could also argue that her falling highlighted the H&S failings so her employer fired her to avoid the issue.
    Originally posted by Smellyonion
    But the reality is that by firing the injured person, does not eliminate an employers liability should safety failings become apparent.

    A fracture of the arm would automatically trigger the requirement to report the incident under RIDDOR within 10 days.....if that has not been done, then that is a breach - irrespective of whether the worker is still employed or has been dismissed.

    Due to the HSE’s fund cutting, a report (if submitted) would not necessarily result in an inspection, however, a report directly to the local HSE (or EHO- depending on the industry) possibly might. There are a few injuries that automatically result in an inspection such as amputations, however, both enforcement agencies take falls from height- particularly from ladders - very seriously.

    Due to data protection laws, it is now a bit of a pain to check that a RIDDOR report has been submitted, but it can be done.

    I shouldn’t speculate, but based on what has been posted, it would seem the employer in question seems to have a very cavalier attitude to the safety of employees and if he thinks that by getting rid of the worker also evaporates his shortcomings, then he may be in for a shock, particularly if any subsequent inspection triggers a fee for intervention (FFE) which at around £125 per hour will soon add up.

    Incidentally, there is nothing legally wrong for a shop worker to use ladders to clean windows....provided proportionate ladder and work at height training has been provided and risk assessments have been carried out, however, again, I suspect these have not been provided which are potentially breaches of safety legislation.

    It shouldn’t be like this in this day and age, however, there are still unscrupulous employers who have total disregard for their staff and I hope the injured person pursues this.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

2,711Posts Today

7,500Users online

Martin's Twitter