Less than 2 yrs employment
Discussion
I recently had operation ( partial removal of kidney , 1 st may ) , I was then given a doctors note for 2 weeks , extended by a week by doctor , and now extended by doctor until 1 st of July , also told no heavy lifting for 3 months , no driving for 4/6 weeks .
Sent in fit note , revised the date on online portal , message saying as over x amount of days within year sick leave I may be due a review / disciplinary
I’m assuming as employed less than 2 years they could opt to curtail my employment with no reason ? Thanks
Sent in fit note , revised the date on online portal , message saying as over x amount of days within year sick leave I may be due a review / disciplinary
I’m assuming as employed less than 2 years they could opt to curtail my employment with no reason ? Thanks
Gas1883 said:
I recently had operation ( partial removal of kidney , 1 st may ) , I was then given a doctors note for 2 weeks , extended by a week by doctor , and now extended by doctor until 1 st of July , also told no heavy lifting for 3 months , no driving for 4/6 weeks .
Sent in fit note , revised the date on online portal , message saying as over x amount of days within year sick leave I may be due a review / disciplinary
I’m assuming as employed less than 2 years they could opt to curtail my employment with no reason ? Thanks
yes, they canSent in fit note , revised the date on online portal , message saying as over x amount of days within year sick leave I may be due a review / disciplinary
I’m assuming as employed less than 2 years they could opt to curtail my employment with no reason ? Thanks
Nothing you can do about it, other than to say that regretfully you'll have to take to social media to tell the world how they kicked you when you were down. You loved the job, but despite giving it your all, and trying to get back to work as quickly as possible after a serious health issue, they callously discarded you when you were at your lowest ebb.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Nothing you can do about it, other than to say that regretfully you'll have to take to social media to tell the world how they kicked you when you were down. You loved the job, but despite giving it your all, and trying to get back to work as quickly as possible after a serious health issue, they callously discarded you when you were at your lowest ebb.
Compounding losses Under 2 years normally means bugger all protection against dismissal but if your absence relates to a disability it needs to be disregarded, failing which they are wide open for a discrimination claim.
What was the background to the op?
If you've had long term kidney problems (i.e. over 12 months) that have had a substantial adverse impact on your ability to undertake day to day activities you are protected as a disabled person.
The test has to disregard the effect of any treatment or medication you've been taking, e.g. if you've been having regular medication to manage your symptoms but without that medication you'd be really unwell, you'd still qualify.
I's suggest you ensure HR are fully aware of the background to this and make it very clear that you consider s6 of the Equality Act to apply to your condition. Any halfway competent HR department will pick up on this.
What was the background to the op?
If you've had long term kidney problems (i.e. over 12 months) that have had a substantial adverse impact on your ability to undertake day to day activities you are protected as a disabled person.
The test has to disregard the effect of any treatment or medication you've been taking, e.g. if you've been having regular medication to manage your symptoms but without that medication you'd be really unwell, you'd still qualify.
I's suggest you ensure HR are fully aware of the background to this and make it very clear that you consider s6 of the Equality Act to apply to your condition. Any halfway competent HR department will pick up on this.
Jasandjules said:
Just to note, if your kidney removal (partial) is a result of a long term condition which has a significant adverse impact upon your normal day to day activities, you may be considered disabled. This then brings into play other questions from an employment law perspective.
Haha beat me to it!Jasandjules said:
Just to note, if your kidney removal (partial) is a result of a long term condition which has a significant adverse impact upon your normal day to day activities, you may be considered disabled. This then brings into play other questions from an employment law perspective.
This. Also, did you make your employer aware when they took you on that you had a kidney issue (if you knew about it at the time) because that also has a material effect on your employment.
Edited by Jordie Barretts sock on Wednesday 22 May 12:11
To put a more positive spin on it, people often see a call to a review as a negative/excuse to be terminated, however it is also used to check how you are doing, i.e. what are the underlying reasons for your absence. For example, are you struggling outside work, or are there problems in work - is your performance being impacted. A good employer will then work with you or offer support, most companies have a metric on absence and it's in their interest to keep it to a minimum. A review is a method of enabling that and weeding out those who are taking the p1ss (every Monday off) versus those with genuine sickness issues.
It is also 'fairer' to have a trigger point that makes a review occur than single people out.
Hopefully your company is a good one, you'll go and the reason for your absence is obvious, they'll see if you need extra support and job done.
It is also 'fairer' to have a trigger point that makes a review occur than single people out.
Hopefully your company is a good one, you'll go and the reason for your absence is obvious, they'll see if you need extra support and job done.
Alex Z said:
A good employer will use this as a trigger to understand what help and support you need to get back to work. A bad employer will ignore what’s morally right and push you out.
I expect you are about to find out, but the use of the word disciplinary suggests it’s the latter.
do you realise there is no such thing as a good employer? They will look at on a cost/benefit basis, not on a humanity basis. It's a business. They do what is required by law, and they don't care about individuals unless there is a reason for them to pretend to. I expect you are about to find out, but the use of the word disciplinary suggests it’s the latter.
Blown2CV said:
do you realise there is no such thing as a good employer? They will look at on a cost/benefit basis, not on a humanity basis. It's a business. They do what is required by law, and they don't care about individuals unless there is a reason for them to pretend to.
Not true. Our employer pay much more than they need to when it comes to pay offs and assistance in finding a new job.Blown2CV said:
do you realise there is no such thing as a good employer? They will look at on a cost/benefit basis, not on a humanity basis. It's a business. They do what is required by law, and they don't care about individuals unless there is a reason for them to pretend to.
I’ve worked for some pretty mercenary places. None of them would do this if you were genuinely ill.
The scoring on the the redundancy rounds was bloody brutal however.
Mr E said:
Blown2CV said:
do you realise there is no such thing as a good employer? They will look at on a cost/benefit basis, not on a humanity basis. It's a business. They do what is required by law, and they don't care about individuals unless there is a reason for them to pretend to.
I’ve worked for some pretty mercenary places. None of them would do this if you were genuinely ill.
The scoring on the the redundancy rounds was bloody brutal however.
I have never encountered a firm that does more than the bare minimum required by law, unless they were positioning it as a company benefit or something so as to try and use it to compete in the recruiting market. Again, what's in it for them.
jasonrobertson86 said:
Blown2CV said:
do you realise there is no such thing as a good employer? They will look at on a cost/benefit basis, not on a humanity basis. It's a business. They do what is required by law, and they don't care about individuals unless there is a reason for them to pretend to.
Not true. Our employer pay much more than they need to when it comes to pay offs and assistance in finding a new job.Blown2CV said:
do you realise there is no such thing as a good employer? They will look at on a cost/benefit basis, not on a humanity basis. It's a business. They do what is required by law, and they don't care about individuals unless there is a reason for them to pretend to.
I assume you've never worked for one.The vast majority of employers will go beyond legal requirement in the protection and support of workers. A great many will go further than that.
I think that perhaps what you are alluding to is that business put the business first. This is true. If they don't, there is no business left to employ people. This means that there will always be a limit as to the level of support an employer can provide before that support begins to jeopardise the employment of others and the business itself. Where that limit exists will vary and be influenced by any number of things.
But it is entirely wrong to suggest there is no such thing as a good employer.
StevieBee said:
Blown2CV said:
do you realise there is no such thing as a good employer? They will look at on a cost/benefit basis, not on a humanity basis. It's a business. They do what is required by law, and they don't care about individuals unless there is a reason for them to pretend to.
I assume you've never worked for one.The vast majority of employers will go beyond legal requirement in the protection and support of workers. A great many will go further than that.
I think that perhaps what you are alluding to is that business put the business first. This is true. If they don't, there is no business left to employ people. This means that there will always be a limit as to the level of support an employer can provide before that support begins to jeopardise the employment of others and the business itself. Where that limit exists will vary and be influenced by any number of things.
But it is entirely wrong to suggest there is no such thing as a good employer.
t in my direct experience over 30 years in the workforce. It is a tiny minority of companies that might go beyond. Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff