Petty Things That Get On Your Nerves...

[NJ2]

It just fucks me off that they can punish someone for having to go in for surgery then have to take time to recover from it.

Philpy, it’s been a while since I last looked at anything HR related but you definitely can’t sack someone for being ill/injured. I’d be getting a hold of someone working in HR, passing them the details and see what they say. Sounds worth taking to a tribunal to me from what you’ve said.

[welshbairn]

8 minutes ago, throbber said:

Welsh accents

I'll have you bach,,

[microdave]

4 hours ago, Melanius Mullarkey said:

That pitch needs an iron (on the reverse side obviously).

It's my brothers. He got it for Christmas from his in laws. I'll get him telt.

3 hours ago, GordonD said:

If it's a Premiership game, yes, but if it's lower league then it's quite accurate.

If you'd seen us play, it was probably Lowland league standard!

[Drew Brees]

Is that your cousin Kevin's?

[hk blues]

57 minutes ago, NJ2 said:

Philpy, it’s been a while since I last looked at anything HR related but you definitely can’t sack someone for being ill/injured. I’d be getting a hold of someone working in HR, passing them the details and see what they say. Sounds worth taking to a tribunal to me from what you’ve said.

It's not that simple - you can sack someone for being absent but there are a lot of hoops to jump through.  No idea if there is enough to go to a tribunal but certainly worth talking to a Union Rep if a member or getting advice elsewhere.

[Honest_Man#1]

1 hour ago, NJ2 said:

Philpy, it’s been a while since I last looked at anything HR related but you definitely can’t sack someone for being ill/injured. I’d be getting a hold of someone working in HR, passing them the details and see what they say. Sounds worth taking to a tribunal to me from what you’ve said.

If what he's said is 100% true, then should have nothing to worry about as you'd win a tribunal fairly easily. Whether that is the case or not who knows.

[Bully Wee Villa]

Is she in a union? Be worth her chatting to her rep if so.

 

Good luck [emoji106]

 

[Adam]

43 minutes ago, Honest_Man#1 said:

If what he's said is 100% true, then should have nothing to worry about as you'd win a tribunal fairly easily. Whether that is the case or not who knows.

Absolutely.  Not a snowball's chance in hell will she get sacked if, as Philpy has said, is all factually correct.  It's incredibly difficult for an employer to sack someone based on any absences which they have had, especially so in the public sector.  She must have ripped the utter c**t out of the absences, or not followed the correct procedure for it to have got to this stage.  

[Honest_Man#1]

19 minutes ago, Adam said:

Absolutely.  Not a snowball's chance in hell will she get sacked if, as Philpy has said, is all factually correct.  It's incredibly difficult for an employer to sack someone based on any absences which they have had, especially so in the public sector.  She must have ripped the utter c**t out of the absences, or not followed the correct procedure for it to have got to this stage.  

Not saying this is the case with philpy, but unfortunately you quite often hear people coming out with similar stories about how disgraceful it is that a business are looking to get rid of someone because they've been off ill, only to then find out later on that they've been utterly ripping the piss and have been found out. Of course if it's legitimate then they absolutely should not be able to sack someone for something that's out of their control, but unfortunately there are plenty of chancers who make people (including me) sceptical of claims like this. Feel bad particularly for small businesses that can genuinely get crippled if they get someone on a big wage off for a significant time and are then unable to afford to replace them.

[MEADOWXI]

SKY - phoned this morning as no TV signal, think the wind must have moved the dish on Sunday.

Earliest they can get an engineer to me is Thursday 1st Feb, but they will be good enough not to charge me while I have no TV signal.

[Myko]

p***k sat facing me in the train station car park with his full beam on. Flashed at him a few times but he was so engrossed in his phone he never noticed.

BMW driver, needless to say.........

[Shandon Par]

2 hours ago, MEADOWXI said:

SKY - phoned this morning as no TV signal, think the wind must have moved the dish on Sunday.

Earliest they can get an engineer to me is Thursday 1st Feb, but they will be good enough not to charge me while I have no TV signal.

Get up and give it a wiggle. What could go wrong?

[MEADOWXI]

Get up and give it a wiggle. What could go wrong?

3rd Floor flat....Sky engineer had to wear climbing gear and be roped up to climb out skylight in attic to fit it......

Death would be guaranteed

[philpy]

Absolutely.  Not a snowball's chance in hell will she get sacked if, as Philpy has said, is all factually correct.  It's incredibly difficult for an employer to sack someone based on any absences which they have had, especially so in the public sector.  She must have ripped the utter c**t out of the absences, or not followed the correct procedure for it to have got to this stage.  

She's always followed the correct procedures. Regular updates, phone calls, returns to work etc. There were days before her operations where she was almost crippled with pain, but she hauled herself into work, because she'd heard that other employees in other care homes through the council had suffered a similar fate to what could happen to her. We've spoken at length about it tonight, and she's decided that she's going to get in touch with a few agencies and get her CV into a good few places as well. We don't have the financial clout to go down the tribunal route, in terms of lawyers and stuff. We think the best thing to do is to look for alternative employment and get out of the council.

[Zen Archer (Raconteur)]

1 minute ago, philpy said:

4 hours ago, Adam said:

Absolutely.  Not a snowball's chance in hell will she get sacked if, as Philpy has said, is all factually correct.  It's incredibly difficult for an employer to sack someone based on any absences which they have had, especially so in the public sector.  She must have ripped the utter c**t out of the absences, or not followed the correct procedure for it to have got to this stage.  

She's always followed the correct procedures. Regular updates, phone calls, returns to work etc. There were days before her operations where she was almost crippled with pain, but she hauled herself into work, because she'd heard that other employees in other care homes through the council had suffered a similar fate to what could happen to her. We've spoken at length about it tonight, and she's decided that she's going to get in touch with a few agencies and get her CV into a good few places as well. We don't have the financial clout to go down the tribunal route, in terms of lawyers and stuff. We think the best thing to do is to look for alternative employment and get out of the council.

If she's in a union they do this for you.

[Sergeant Wilson]

4 hours ago, Adam said:

Absolutely.  Not a snowball's chance in hell will she get sacked if, as Philpy has said, is all factually correct.  It's incredibly difficult for an employer to sack someone based on any absences which they have had, especially so in the public sector.  She must have ripped the utter c**t out of the absences, or not followed the correct procedure for it to have got to this stage.  

I'm a bit out of practice on HR issues, but besides adhering to procedure about reporting absence etc, there are other issues that might be involved. Dismissal will never say "because you were sick". It'll be due to inefficiency. You are given a period to improve, if you are absent during that time, you could be dismissed or the period extended If your sick during the extension, it could be curtains. There might be a possibility of medical retirement though.

If someone wins a tribunal it's usually because the employer didn't follow procedure.

 

[Sergeant Wilson]

6 minutes ago, philpy said:

4 hours ago, Adam said:

Absolutely.  Not a snowball's chance in hell will she get sacked if, as Philpy has said, is all factually correct.  It's incredibly difficult for an employer to sack someone based on any absences which they have had, especially so in the public sector.  She must have ripped the utter c**t out of the absences, or not followed the correct procedure for it to have got to this stage.  

She's always followed the correct procedures. Regular updates, phone calls, returns to work etc. There were days before her operations where she was almost crippled with pain, but she hauled herself into work, because she'd heard that other employees in other care homes through the council had suffered a similar fate to what could happen to her. We've spoken at length about it tonight, and she's decided that she's going to get in touch with a few agencies and get her CV into a good few places as well. We don't have the financial clout to go down the tribunal route, in terms of lawyers and stuff. We think the best thing to do is to look for alternative employment and get out of the council.

If she's in a union she should get free legal advice, it comes as standard in most memberships.

[welshbairn]

9 minutes ago, philpy said:

4 hours ago, Adam said:

Absolutely.  Not a snowball's chance in hell will she get sacked if, as Philpy has said, is all factually correct.  It's incredibly difficult for an employer to sack someone based on any absences which they have had, especially so in the public sector.  She must have ripped the utter c**t out of the absences, or not followed the correct procedure for it to have got to this stage.  

She's always followed the correct procedures. Regular updates, phone calls, returns to work etc. There were days before her operations where she was almost crippled with pain, but she hauled herself into work, because she'd heard that other employees in other care homes through the council had suffered a similar fate to what could happen to her. We've spoken at length about it tonight, and she's decided that she's going to get in touch with a few agencies and get her CV into a good few places as well. We don't have the financial clout to go down the tribunal route, in terms of lawyers and stuff. We think the best thing to do is to look for alternative employment and get out of the council.

 

[Adam]

Correct procedure for all public bodies regarding absence is meeting one, where they discuss what can be improved, and then given a specific timescale as to when it has to be completed by. If not adhered to by the employee, it goes to stage two. Once again, a specific timescale is applied to the issue. If this is not met by the employee, then it goes to stage three, which can result in dismissal.

I’ve worked for public bodies for years and I have only ever seen a couple of people dismissed for attendance, and it was mostly youngsters who called in sick on numerous Mondays after a weekend on the lash.

[NJ2]

She's always followed the correct procedures. Regular updates, phone calls, returns to work etc. There were days before her operations where she was almost crippled with pain, but she hauled herself into work, because she'd heard that other employees in other care homes through the council had suffered a similar fate to what could happen to her. We've spoken at length about it tonight, and she's decided that she's going to get in touch with a few agencies and get her CV into a good few places as well. We don't have the financial clout to go down the tribunal route, in terms of lawyers and stuff. We think the best thing to do is to look for alternative employment and get out of the council.

Assuming there’s no union, she should speak to HR at work - they’re supposed to impartial. Citizens advice will be able to offer help as well (and obviously it’s free). Worth looking in to it by the sounds of it. Completely understand the viewpoint of just get the CV out there and find something else though. Best of luck either way, sounds like some real shoddy treatment.