Associate
Also add that if the work union rep is meh go a step above and contact the area/county union rep. They usually know their stuff. Did when I needed them
FluffySheep
FluffySheep
Wife Vs HR
- Thread starter Dis86
- Start date
If I'm off sick twice in 6 months my attendance at work policy also gets triggered and a 26 week oral warning is issued. Had that a couple of times, no biggie. Can escalate off course if do same whilst on the warning.
I guess difference here is it's impossible to not know the policy as it's everywhere
If they never even issued it to her then that is simply ridiculous and yep sounds like they are just looking for an excuse to get rid of her for whatever reason.
I guess difference here is it's impossible to not know the policy as it's everywhere
If they never even issued it to her then that is simply ridiculous and yep sounds like they are just looking for an excuse to get rid of her for whatever reason.
Soldato
Far too gentle IMO.
This isn't about what you "believe". It's right there in black and white.
I'd replace that by explicitly pointing out that they are breaking the law by issuing a warning for this, and you will be seeking legal advice if it is not rescinded immediately.
If this isn't the first incident then there is clearly some malicious intent behind it, and in my experience these kind of people don't respond well to subtle gentle hints - they just take it as a sign of weakness.
It sucks, but the best response is a no-nonsense "these are my rights and if you try to **** with me then I will bring this whole place down around you"
^^^ this, consult an employment solicitor ASAP even if just for an initial appointment/consultation for advice.
They don't have to know she's seen a solicitor either if she ends up staying there and wants this official warning removed but... should also flag this up to the solicitor too:
Lastly, if she is actually leaving then you might want to ask the solicitor about constructive dismissal:
If she wants to leave because they've just made things generally bad but on top of that it seems like she's got two or three objectively valid grievances here an employment solicitor might argue these have contributed to her wanting to leave ergo constructive dismissal.
1. There's a direct financial loss you can point at re: the rises that didn't materilaise.
2. There's another loss from the loss of benefits during maternity leave (potentially a massive no, no for employment tribunals if targeted at her).
3. Clear breach of the rules re: this warning for emergency childcare (shouldn't have been a subject for a warning + where was the first one), again likely to be viewed negatively for them by an employment tribunal.
Get an actual solicitor to look at the evidence (make sure she's got copies fo everything), the potential breaches of contract, and employment law and if she does leave for a new job soon enough then hammer them with a constructive dismissal claim, if it's a solid enough case and their legal dept or outside solicitors aren't as dumb as the HR ppl then you'll maybe find they're willing to write a cheque to avoid a tribunal.
Last edited:
Man of Honour
I have to say I agree. Being there for 15 years will also play into her favour as a long standing committed employee.
Just getting something prepared in the back pocket is worthwhile.
It seems like the place is toxic and it's good that she's leaving. But they also need to know that their behaviour is unacceptable.
I agree with this, however from experience when pointing things out like this I've found I've then got a target on my back. That said, sounds like she's already a target.
Probably find the new company policy behind the scenes is to try and get rid of the old guard during a set period of time in the hope of reducing the amount of redundancy payout.
If I'm off sick twice in 6 months my attendance at work policy also gets triggered and a 26 week oral warning is issued. Had that a couple of times, no biggie. Can escalate off course if do same whilst on the warning.
I guess difference here is it's impossible to not know the policy as it's everywhere
If they never even issued it to her then that is simply ridiculous and yep sounds like they are just looking for an excuse to get rid of her for whatever reason.
I find that sort of sick policy incredibly bizarre,
I get trying to weed out those that take the Mickey, and there is a lot who do, but twice in 6 months is rather zealous, surely there must be other criteria to meet in terms of how long each sickness was and whether doctors certs were provided.
People can't help being sick.
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Oct 2008
- Posts
- 6,010
Time for her to look elsewhere, if after that term of commitment she's being treated in such a way. Sounds like a rubbish company to work for and HR haven't earned the nickname by some as 'Human Remains' for nothing
.Legal angle, would you really want to go through that?
Some may say this approach means the company has won but that's the wrong attitude to take IMO. Employee's must take control themselves. In my opinion she should find a new job and give the company the middle finger telling them on the way out why she left. Not that they'd care anyway probably. If someone feels they're being treated unfairly, hanging around is empowering the company to continue that behaviour and you'd not be doing yourself justice either.
After 15 years in one place she should be able to find a better paying job elsewhere.
Last edited:
Have had the very same more than once
Time for her to look elsewhere, if after that term of commitment she's being treated in such a way. Sounds like a rubbish company to work for and HR haven't earned the nickname by some as 'Human Remains' for nothing
Legal angle, would you really want to go through that?
Some may say this approach means the company has won but that's the wrong attitude to take IMO. Employee's must take control themselves. In my opinion she should find a new job and give the company the middle finger telling them on the way out why she left. Not that they'd care anyway probably. If someone feels they're being treated unfairly, hanging around is empowering the company to continue that behaviour and you'd not be doing yourself justice either.
After 15 years in one place she should be able to find a better paying job elsewhere.
Absolutely agree with this, my wife has been going through similar things for past couple of years expected to do management jobs but never given the title and always made to make the incompetence of others not show through. She was recently pulled to the side and told she needs to up her sales every day, she does a minimum of 4 times every one else that works there everyday (regularly does 6-8k everyday, everyone else there are 3 others do between 1 and 1.5k per day ), on top of doing half the managers duties, this time she had the where withal to stand up for her self and bite back which management wasn't expecting causing them to make a swift u turn on what they were trying to say.
She has put up with it for years and has stayed hoping things will change and the carrot keeps getting dangled promising next time the job will be yours, but it never ever is. They e stated the reason first time it was because she just come back off maternity leave and they thought it might be too much, 2nd time they said there was another applicant more qualified (absolutely wasn't the case and my wife had to train him and found out he was a family friend of the then manager and hadn't been in a motor factor or the trade in his life) 3rd time told she didn't apply in time (despite applying before the deadline) 4th time told she couldn't jump straight to management despite acting as interim manager, 5th time told that because she needs to finish earlier to collect child she wouldn't be suitable and it's not her time, this despite her and the assistant manager having a workable plan (which other branches have) to work around it.
Luckily this last time has made her wake up and smell the coffee, got a job offer yesterday and starts new job on 3rd of Feb. She's gonna hand her notice in on Xmas eve wrapped with a bow ties round it.
Commissario
That is what my immediate thought was.
Also I'm fairly sure it's illegal to do things like remove benefits whilst someone is on maternity leave unless they are removing them for everyone.
Commissario
At the risk of going off topic.
IIRC it's a "policy" that came out of an American business guru or school a few decades ago and was meant as a rough example for a guideline that businesses in America could adapt. Note the American thing, where they basically expect you in most cases to go to work unless you're actually in A&E and maternity leave is often measured in days...
The truly stupid thing is that the same policy is often employed in businesses both for office staff who are very unlikely to get any work related injury, and staff who do things like work in warehouses or on production where they're quite likely to need more time off due to minor work related sicknesses or injuries. I remember a paramedic about a decade ago talking about the insanity of his Trust applying the same policy to control room/management staff as the actual paramedics who were actively exposing themselves to all sorts of diseases, and had to routinely do heavy lifting of patients (even with training it's an injury risk) and carrying very heavy backpacks/equipment whilst rushing up/down stairs etc (even if they don't have an accident it's very hard on the knees and backs, and walking over rough ground in the dark as they often do is a sure way to twist an ankle or worse).
Caporegime
There is plenty to go through here but sounds like her line manager hasn't got a clue. At the point of the hearing did he have both forms of stage 1 and stage 2 disciplinary with him? If not he prejudged the hearing and it is null and void.
You cannot just issue a disciplinary without any sort of formal interview that has to be booked in with her. He cannot just call her into the office and slap it in her face and say sign this.
Also was there any form of informal interview with her after the first period of absence?
She should really be taking a witness with her even if it is you.
Is the company small or big? It might be worth calling a whistleblower hotline if she has one.
I would be appealing it as he most likely did one of the above incorrectly but he will want revenge one way or another.
Unfortunately once you are on the hook they will do everything to make her life miserable. HR and management are always in with each other. I would be looking for other employment if I was her.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Sep 2016
- Posts
- 10,720
If the workplace is toxic with that sort of nonsense, best to get out.
Why spend half your day in horrid place, making them money and taking advantage.
Have my own reasons to stay on benefits now, just less BS and abuse. You wouldn't believe the crap I've had to deal with.
Why spend half your day in horrid place, making them money and taking advantage.
Have my own reasons to stay on benefits now, just less BS and abuse. You wouldn't believe the crap I've had to deal with.
Soldato
What sort of size is the company or the branch she’s in? If it’s a large corporate type thing then local HR and management will have to be careful.
Evidence they are breaking the law by giving a warning?
The government site only says time off has to be given, not that you can't issue warnings for it.
You're legally entitled to have time off for sick leave but employers can issue warnings for it.
The company sounds awful but I don't think they have broken any laws yet.
Last edited:
The employment rights act of 96 says you cannot face any negative consequences
Nope just any 2 non related items of sickness, could be for 1 day each, if within 6 months then policy is triggered.
I completely agree, hence when people do go off sick, they take the full 7 days off as can self cert, even if only need 1 day, as they both count as an 'item'. Also every 6 months people will just take a week off 'sick' as they can.
Commissario
That always makes some sense to me, especially if the sickness policy is stupid and inflexible, why risk taking a couple of days off work then forcing yourself back, if you might then have to take another couple of days off because it turns out you weren't ready to go back. I've had a bunch of infections where I've been really bad for a few days, started to pick up then went back downhill after trying to push on.
I swear a lot of companies/bosses seem to be far more interested in making sure staff are in view in the office than actually productive/able to work well whilst in - people who are in the office whilst ill because they don't want a disciplinary due to sick days are both likely to be far less capable of being productive due to being ill, far more likely to make mistakes, and quite likely to end up spreading whatever they've got to everyone else in the office so rather than being 1 person down the office might now have 10 people operating at half their normal rate/efficiency.
A friend used to work at a supermarket bakery IIRC the staff in his department, deli and meat counters were the only ones exempt from the standard sickness policy, and then only because the law stated very clearly something along the lines of "you cannot allow anyone who has had X symptoms to work with food for y days" (someone in food safety realised exactly how standard company polices could be terrible for food safety and got the law/regulation through).