Tea and biscuits required

[Tyre Smoke]

hutchst said:

Have I misunderstood this, or did you only work for this company for 6 months Chukka?

Now you mention it, it does look like that.

From the Company's point of view, they could have simply let him go with no repercussions as he was there less than 12 months. Obviously not the morally right thing to do, but the easiest and cheapest way out for them. Wow! They really dropped the ball there.

[edc]

For disability discrimination the length of service is irrelevant.

[Tyre Smoke]

Ahh yes, but they 'could' have dismissed him for the period off sick before the diagnosis.

I'm not condoning this approach obviously, but it just goes to show the level of relative incompetence big firms have.

[anonymous-user]

Is this a crusade case, as surely all the money you get, what a few thousand, which you might have to take to court again to enforce, won't be actually worth all the ex

Legal costs.

I hate how big companies work, but were is the line, they employ people to work a certain amount of hours, they wouldn't exist without hours being put in?

I talk from experience as I have a long-term health issue that has effected by roles but can't afford to have time off.

[prand]

Tyre Smoke said:

they could have simply let him go with no repercussions as he was there less than 12 months.

Not true - if a company has even a vague company policy or contract wording about sick leave, disabilities, disciplinary procedure or notice period, and they try and sling an employee out on their ear contrary to that "policy", they can be found at fault.

[chukka64]

Wow, lots of responses to try and get through, so here goes

Sir Bagalot said:

Just read this. Wow, wow and wow.

WTAF are they doing?

Indeed! I've asked myself the same thing multiple times

elanfan said:

OP without being specific what industry/sector is this?

How long were you there? We’re you a member of a union? We’re you a member of their pension scheme? You might find that you were entitled to I’ll health early retirement with a possibility that they might have to credit you with many years service or possibly enough for full pension.

Someone I know had 6 years left until retirement date but unbeknown to them the pension scheme allowed employees to stay on to 65 giving the possibility of a 45/60ths pension rather than 40/60ths. They got 11 years credit and an instant pension on more than they would have got had they worked to ‘normal’ retirement date at 60.

Whilst I fully appreciate you want to show them up for what they are the best outcome for you is a settlement or full pension or both! I think you’ve done very well dealing with this yourself however there will be little twists and turns and aspects of the law you will not be aware of. I can highly recommend an Employment Lawyer that hates bullies and does PH rates too. I suspect if you lawyer up he might get this settled for you. PM me

Yes I was a member of their pension scheme but I cannot find any particular reference to any provision for early health retirement. I'm afraid that my current income is such that even pistonheads rates would be beyond my means but thanks for the offer.

Kermit power said:

This reads like a film script!!!

If this happened to me, I suspect I'd respond in exactly the same way. For all that it might not help my health to engage in the fight, I suspect it would damage my mental health even more to know I'd let them ride roughshod over me.

Best of luck in getting a satisfactory outcome.

Thanks, stress, without a doubt exacerbates MS but I don't see that as a reason to allow them to behave in the manner in which they have.

hutchst said:

Have I misunderstood this, or did you only work for this company for 6 months Chukka?

I guess that depends on how you look at it, my employment started in Aug 2016, I suddenly became ill in Mar 2017 but wasn't dismissed until Aug 2018

Tyre Smoke said:

hutchst said:

Have I misunderstood this, or did you only work for this company for 6 months Chukka?

Now you mention it, it does look like that.

From the Company's point of view, they could have simply let him go with no repercussions as he was there less than 12 months. Obviously not the morally right thing to do, but the easiest and cheapest way out for them. Wow! They really dropped the ball there.

Absolutely spot on. They would have been quite within their rights to start the process of managing me out of the business on the basis of medical capability as soon as they thought that this could be a prolonged illness. They could have started following their own process of holding wellbeing meetings every 4 weeks, obtaining medical information and an occupational health report (they'd already received signed consent forms to do so from me). However, they chose not to do so, they chose not to follow their normal procedure but to cut off all contact with me from the day that I informed them of my eventual diagnosis in July 2017. There is a 'long term absence' tracker that shows 11 other people on long term absence within the same time frame, the only person who had not been dealt with was me and the only material difference was the fact that I had a condition automatically qualifying as a disability.

Thesprucegoose said:

Is this a crusade case, as surely all the money you get, what a few thousand, which you might have to take to court again to enforce, won't be actually worth all the ex

Legal costs.

I hate how big companies work, but were is the line, they employ people to work a certain amount of hours, they wouldn't exist without hours being put in?

I talk from experience as I have a long-term health issue that has effected by roles but can't afford to have time off.

Yes, I guess you could call it a crusade case, I cannot influence how they chose to deal with me but it may make them think twice about how they deal with the next person who finds themselves, through no fault of their own, in this position. The Company is a multi-billion pound International Company, the evidence shows that they planned to replace me almost immediately but weren't actually able to recruit somebody into my position until Oct 2017. They were therefor not holding a position open for me and were not paying me. They did eventually re-engage with me (after 7 months of silence) and did hold a wellbeing meeting 8 months after it was proposed (company policy is every 4 weeks) the 2nd wellbeing meeting didn't take place for a further 19 weeks. They did eventually arrange an occupational health meeting (15 months after my absence began and 12 months after acknowledging receipt of my consent form. They eventually dismissed me in Aug 2018, 17 months after my absence began and did so without considering alternative employment, without considering any 'reasonable adjustments' and without obtaining any up to date medical information. All of which they have admitted.

prand said:

Tyre Smoke said:

they could have simply let him go with no repercussions as he was there less than 12 months.

Not true - if a company has even a vague company policy or contract wording about sick leave, disabilities, disciplinary procedure or notice period, and they try and sling an employee out on their ear contrary to that "policy", they can be found at fault.

Exactly, they could have followed their policy and dismissed me on the grounds of medical capability. As I say, they chose not to do that and by July 2017 there was the added complication that I had been diagnosed with MS. That, in itself, would still not necessarily have prevented them from dismissing me on the grounds of medical capability. They do have to follow a 'fair' and 'reasonable' process though. They didn't even follow their own processes and have just lied, threatened, attempted to intimidate and generally just try to steamroller me. Their choice, this is the route that they chose to go down. None of the evidence supports their ever changing version of events, we'll see what's what at the full merits hearing.

[Tyre Smoke]

prand said:

Tyre Smoke said:

they could have simply let him go with no repercussions as he was there less than 12 months.

Not true - if a company has even a vague company policy or contract wording about sick leave, disabilities, disciplinary procedure or notice period, and they try and sling an employee out on their ear contrary to that "policy", they can be found at fault.

I wouldn't want to test it, but I would almost guarantee that if the Company had been on their game, they would have spent a lot less time and money and he would have been gone before 12 months were up.

[prand]

Tyre Smoke said:

I wouldn't want to test it, but I would almost guarantee that if the Company had been on their game, they would have spent a lot less time and money and he would have been gone before 12 months were up.

Yes absolutely - but usually companies (or individuals within) are not on their game, either by not knowing or following the company or legal process, and neglecting to document and collecting the correct evidence.. I've found then the company then puts the walls up to try and protect itself, but it rarely helps, and just prolongs the situation.

[edc]

Re the ill heath retirement, often there is no entitlement contractual or otherwise to have this. It is normally a provision and often at the company's discretion. In ant event, it isn't necessarily a good thing to use as you are penalised for drawing down early.

[anonymous-user]

This sounds like a classic case of litigating on principle. Crusade? Oh dear.

I may of course be wrong, but if I were the OP I would not be quite as breezily confident as he appears to be . The very fact that the OP is looking for detailed advice and in effect validation on a car forum, and apparently has not taken any insured expert advice may itself tell us something. Anyway, good luck OP. Ah’m oot.

[chukka64]

Breadvan72 said:

This sounds like a classic case of litigating on principle. Crusade? Oh dear.

I may of course be wrong, but if I were the OP I would not be quite as breezily confident as he appears to be . The very fact that the OP is looking for detailed advice and in effect validation on a car forum, and apparently has not taken any insured expert advice may itself tell us something. Anyway, good luck OP. Ah’m oot.

My use of the word "crusade" was very much tongue in cheek. My apparent confidence "breezy" or otherwise is due to the fact that the original post was posted in July 2018, we are now 15 months down the line. I have, of course, taken other advice but due to my illness, have no income as such and therefor cannot afford to pay a solicitor to handle this for me. I don't apologise for being positive, there has been enough negativity following my illness and subsequent diagnosis. I do not hold the Company responsible for my illness but I do hold them responsible for what followed. They discriminated against me and by doing so broke the law, that is the basis for my case. The principle, that they've just acted appallingly, is secondary.

[FocusRS3]

chukka64 said:

My use of the word "crusade" was very much tongue in cheek. My apparent confidence "breezy" or otherwise is due to the fact that the original post was posted in July 2018, we are now 15 months down the line. I have, of course, taken other advice but due to my illness, have no income as such and therefor cannot afford to pay a solicitor to handle this for me. I don't apologise for being positive, there has been enough negativity following my illness and subsequent diagnosis. I do not hold the Company responsible for my illness but I do hold them responsible for what followed. They discriminated against me and by doing so broke the law, that is the basis for my case. The principle, that they've just acted appallingly, is secondary.

All agreed