Sacked whilst on the sick

[Grandad.Malky]

our lads had no rights whatsoever unless they'd been employed in continuous service for 2 years.

 

I thought it was 2 years but then there was talk about it being made 1 year but I don’t know if that ever came about, either way its certainly not a couple of months.

[Cyclone]

My partner had a hip operation a few years back, after suffering from Perthese disease. The doctors advised 3 months off work, but said he would be ok and mobile after 1 month, which meant he could have gone back to work after a month. His boss, who was also his best friend, didn't want to pay him sick pay at all, and told him he had to let him go. He obviously knew why, but his boss put the reason in the dismissal letter down as there "not being enough work on". Nothing he could do about it really

 

That would be redundancy, not dismissal, so presumably he was paid the legal minimum redundancy payment?

[Cyclone]

If someone is on the sick, genuinely, and not refusing treatment, physio or anything else designed to get him back to work then the Certificate of Fitness is a legal document. Now, if you can prove he will not be capable of working in the forseeable future then the 'Capability' element comes into play and dismissal is possible, usually with some sort of compensation.

Most employers who do manage to dismiss people who are ill only manage it because the employee is too ill or worn down to fight.

I am a cancer patient, so I get employment law advice and support thru' Macmillan. My HR Dept are not happy bunnies. I dont spend much time off work these days but they still bear a grudge.

 

If they haven't been with the company for a year then non of this is relevant as you can dismiss them with no reason.

[Tradescanthia]

If they haven't been with the company for a year then non of this is relevant as you can dismiss them with no reason.

 

When someone such as myself, is covered by the present Equality Act, formerly the Disabled Discriminatory Act, the employer HAS to have a reason. This act dosent only cover cancer patients but a whole lot more besides. Chances are if someone is off sick then the act covers them. It always pays to take advice. We have the support of Macmillan, their advisors put most trade unions to shame.

[Cyclone]

That's not true. The act says that you can't be sacked for your disability, it doesn't say that you can't be sacked with no reason if you have less than 1 years service.

[Tradescanthia]

That's not true. The act says that you can't be sacked for your disability, it doesn't say that you can't be sacked with no reason if you have less than 1 years service.

 

If the employer was fully aware of his employees disability at the time he set him on then he would have to give a reason for dismissing him, even if it was less than a years service. If he didn't give a reason then he would leave himself open to accusations of discrimination. If I ever had to take my employer to court it would be an easy victory if he had misinterpreted the law as much as you do.

You have a lot to learn my friend, stick with it, you'll get there.

[davyboy]

From what the OP said they are sick not disabled.

It could be argued that being sick for a large percentage of their period of employment is a frustration of contract.

However, since we don't know the full facts of the OP's situation so there seems little point in passing an opinion or giving advice other than suggesting they get proper advice from the CAB or ACAS or an employment lawyer.

[Tradescanthia]

From what the OP said they are sick not disabled.

It could be argued that being sick for a large percentage of their period of employment is a frustration of contract.

However, since we don't know the full facts of the OP's situation so there seems little point in passing an opinion or giving advice other than suggesting they get proper advice from the CAB or ACAS or an employment lawyer.

 

a lot of reasons for abscence are regarded as 'sick' by the employer AND the employee, i.e. arthritis etc. BUT conditions such as these ARE protected by the act. Our friend Cyclone seems to think the rules are 'set in stone'. I can assure him they are not.

 

Know your rights under the law, in times of recession you may well need the law on your side...

[Andy]

This thread illustrates the value of being a member of a union.

 

Unions might get a lot of bad press because of strikes etc, but in a situation like this they will at least tell you what rights you have under law, and take the case up with your employer if those rights are being ignored.

 

Sorry, I don't know the answer to your question, and I guess it depends in part on your contract of employment. I wish you the best of luck though.

[Cyclone]

If the employer was fully aware of his employees disability at the time he set him on then he would have to give a reason for dismissing him, even if it was less than a years service. If he didn't give a reason then he would leave himself open to accusations of discrimination. If I ever had to take my employer to court it would be an easy victory if he had misinterpreted the law as much as you do.

You have a lot to learn my friend, stick with it, you'll get there.

I'm not employment lawyer, but I don't think you are either.

An accusation of discrimination isn't the same as actually proving it took place, which requires a level of proof beyond just your say so.

 

What you're saying is that a person with a disability actually has more rights and better protection in employment than someone without. That isn't the case and was never an aim of the act, the aim is to make discriminatory behaviour illegal, since anyone can be sacked <1 year for no reason, that still applies.