Sister asked to resign rather than being made redundant.

ILikeBananas

My sister has a degenerative physical and mental disability and has worked with a national retailer for the past 17 years. She started on the check-outs but as her condition worsened over the years she was moved to tasks with less and less responsibility. In the end she was sweeping the floor but even that got too much for her. She got to the stage where she was a liability and a safety hazard. My parents knew that in the end she would lose the job but they wanted her to work there for as long as possible to give her some independence and get her out of the house.

Things have finally come to a head and the HR Manager has told my mother that my sister cannot work there any longer. The thing is though she wants my sister to resign.

My parents are very grateful to the company for employing here for so long especially when she probably wasn't very productive. However would resigning be a mistake?

She was never permanent. She was 'flexi-time'. I'm not not too sure what the definition of that was. In the end she was only working 15 hours a week and earning a little over €200 a week. She's currently on sick leave until her situation is resolved.

ABajaninCork

Call an employment solicitor.

Tasden

Well I'm assuming her position isn't redundant so redundancy wouldn't apply here, like they're going to fill that role by employing someone else? But I wouldn't advise her to resign without discussing it with citizens information or FLAC first just to see if that's the best thing for her or if there is another avenue she could take, I can't think of any though tbh

vonievega

Resigning would oblige the company that has employed her for 17 years. As you say it got her out of the house. . Kept her busy and occupied. . she would have had a social life all great for self esteem...and as her health deteriorated they accommodated her with less testing positions, that was very kind of them.
They may give her a gratuity on leaving. Let's not make everything about cash and entitlement.
Hope her health picks up. good luck

salmocab

Not resigning might put the company off hiring people with disabilities in the future but I would say to definitely get some real legal advice as resigning over being let go may affect entitlements although thats probably complicated by your sisters disabilities.

Mrs OBumble

I wouldn't waste money on a lawyer. She's clearly not redundant. You could ask FLAC about medical retirements, which is what she's really doing, but because she's flexi-time I suspect it won't make much difference.

Get her doctor to write a letter advising that she is no longer able to work. That should be all the paperwork that Welfare need.

If she doesn't resign voluntarily, she will be forcing the company to put her through a disciplinary process. This will be horrible for all concerned.

Get them to put on a retirement party for her! Or whatever they usually do for staff who are retiring.

3DataModem

ILikeBananas wrote: »

My sister has a degenerative physical and mental disability and has worked with a national retailer for the past 17 years. She started on the check-outs but as her condition worsened over the years she was moved to tasks with less and less responsibility. In the end she was sweeping the floor but even that got too much for her. She got to the stage where she was a liability and a safety hazard. My parents knew that in the end she would lose the job but they wanted her to work there for as long as possible to give her some independence and get her out of the house.

Things have finally come to a head and the HR Manager has told my mother that my sister cannot work there any longer. The thing is though she wants my sister to resign.

My parents are very grateful to the company for employing here for so long especially when she probably wasn't very productive. However would resigning be a mistake?

She was never permanent. She was 'flexi-time'. I'm not not too sure what the definition of that was. In the end she was only working 15 hours a week and earning a little over €200 a week. She's currently on sick leave until her situation is resolved.

I believe HR are possibly being kind - I don't think its resigning or redundancy, it's probably resigning or dismissal. They probably don't want to put her through the ignominy of the performance management, first warning, etc, process.

There is no entitlement to redundancy here; she's not productive. Making people redundant with 17 years tenure is not trivial, other staff may also seek entitlement to it... The "person" is not made redundant, the "job" is.

My advice is to talk to the employer, perhaps offer to resign if they pay her a few weeks wages as severance.

Edit: fair play to all involved (you, rest of family, etc) for the positive impact this has had on the girls life.

Mr. Incognito

Speak to a solicitor.

Statutory redundancy is two weeks pay per year of service plus another week.

She is entitled to 35 weeks pay if they sack her and nothing if she resigns.

She is not quitting. Demand they pay her her statutory redundancy.

Last in first out wont apply to someone with 17 years service ffs.

Mr. Incognito

3DataModem wrote: »

I believe HR are possibly being kind - I don't think its resigning or redundancy, it's probably resigning or dismissal. They probably don't want to put her through the ignominy of the performance management, first warning, etc, process.

There is no entitlement to redundancy here; she's not productive. Making people redundant with 17 years tenure is not trivial, other staff may also seek entitlement to it... The "person" is not made redundant, the "job" is.

My advice is to talk to the employer, perhaps offer to resign if they pay her a few weeks wages as severance.

Edit: fair play to all involved (you, rest of family, etc) for the positive impact this has had on the girls life.

Almost every single point of this is incorrect, wrong in law or ignorant of employment practice. I dont often say that free advice is dangerous but this really is.

amcalester

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Almost every single point of this is incorrect, wrong in law or ignorant of employment practice. I dont often say that free advice is dangerous but this really is.

Redundancy doesn't apply here because she's not fit to work, if she doesn't resign she'll be performance managed out of the business (if she is even fit to return to work) or she'll be asked to attend a doctor to determine if she is fit to work.

The role of cleaner will still exist so she won't be made redundant if she doesn't resign.

I'm not saying she should resign I'm just confused as to why you say every point raised above is incorrect, can you elaborate?

Shelflife

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Speak to a solicitor.

Statutory redundancy is two weeks pay per year of service plus another week.

She is entitled to 35 weeks pay if they sack her and nothing if she resigns.

She is not quitting. Demand they pay her her statutory redundancy.

Last in first out wont apply to someone with 17 years service ffs.

Shes not entitled to anything if they chose to sack her, assuminhg that she is no longer able to do the job they can go through the disciplinary procedures and sack her and only pay her for the stated notice period.

You are only entitled to redundancy if your job is made redundant not because you are unable to do the job.

Seems to me and others who have posted earlier that the company have been more than reasonable and both employee and employer have worked well together over the years but that now they face the end of the road.

By all means get advise, sit down and chat to the company and see if she is entitled to anything, they might pay her extra notice money as a goodwill gesture.

Best of luck to all involved.

porsche boy

'performance managed out of her role' is constructive dismissal and would be more costly then giving her her redundancy entitlement. Trust me on this.

amcalester

porsche boy wrote: »

'performance managed out of her role' is constructive dismissal and would be more costly then giving her her redundancy entitlement. Trust me on this.

It's really not. If she is unable to perform the duties expected of her in the role and the company can show that they can have followed the correct steps they are within their rights to dismiss her.

3DataModem

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Speak to a solicitor.

Statutory redundancy is two weeks pay per year of service plus another week.

She is entitled to 35 weeks pay if they sack her and nothing if she resigns.

She is not quitting. Demand they pay her her statutory redundancy.

Last in first out wont apply to someone with 17 years service ffs.

What makes you think they have to make her redundant? They can sack her for not being productive, and pay her nothing. Rather than do this it seems they are suggesting she quit.

3DataModem

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Almost every single point of this is incorrect, wrong in law or ignorant of employment practice. I dont often say that free advice is dangerous but this really is.

I'm genuinely interested why this is wrong.

A person is not entitled by law to redundancy because they are unable due to disability to do a job (which is the case here).

3DataModem

porsche boy wrote: »

'performance managed out of her role' is constructive dismissal and would be more costly then giving her her redundancy entitlement. Trust me on this.

Not if correct and fair procedure is followed (I.e giving time and oppprtinity to improve, appropriate warnings, etc). That's how people bad at their jobs are fired in Ireland. Yes, this can be done whole people are on sick leave. Yes, this can be done to people with disabilities.

3DataModem

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

She is entitled to 35 weeks pay if they sack her

If they sack her fair and square, following procedure, she is not entitled to a cent.

Donald73

I think the company have been very good to her from your account and it would be nice to repay that by having her quit, also if they were to 'dismiss' her then she will find this upsetting, thinking they did not want her where it's more that she's now physically unable to continue. For all concerned I think her quitting would have the best outcome.

I hope she feels better soon xx

Forest Demon

3DataModem wrote: »

If they sack her fair and square, following procedure, she is not entitled to a cent.

Except notice period and holidays.

3DataModem

Forest Demon wrote: »

Except notice period and holidays.

That's true. Notice does not always apply (eg for gross misconduct) but that does not seem to be the case here, so notice and accrued holidays are paid (as Forest D says).

Forest Demon

8 weeks notice is minimum for somebody in a company over 15 years by the way. Best of luck.

Btw it is easier to get benefits if the company let her go. She would be entitled straight away in that case. Otherwise there will be a long wait if she leaves. If she is not looking for another job then that would strengthen her case if she ended up applying for disability. It's probably better for them to let her go due to illness.

amtw

I really cannot believe the dreadful advice that has been given in this thread.

3datamodem is spot on regarding the redundancy situation, and imo you should heed what that poster is saying.

If your sister is currently out sick from work I presume she is on Illness Benefit. She can continue on this for 2 years after which if she is not able to return to work she can apply for Invalidity Pension. This payment is not means tested and is based on her having sufficient PRSI contributions, which she should have if she has worked for 17 years, and on medical criteria. Your local Citizens Information Centre will advise if you or your sister want to discuss the situation.

Queenalocin

Why don't you just contact NERA and ask for their advice? That is their job after all.

gozunda

OP

I would advise to seek impartial professional advice on this matter. Take a read of the following as it has some relevant information regarding disability / dismissal / redundancy.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/unemployment_and_redundancy/redundancy/redundancy_procedures.html

Unfortunately work related advice may sometimes be less than impartial imo.

Mr. Incognito

amcalester wrote: »

Redundancy doesn't apply here because she's not fit to work, if she doesn't resign she'll be performance managed out of the business (if she is even fit to return to work) or she'll be asked to attend a doctor to determine if she is fit to work.

The role of cleaner will still exist so she won't be made redundant if she doesn't resign.

I'm not saying she should resign I'm just confused as to why you say every point raised above is incorrect, can you elaborate?

Sure

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/unemployment_and_redundancy/redundancy/redundancy_procedures.html

Selection for redundancy

In selecting a particular employee for redundancy, an employer should apply selection criteria that are reasonable and are applied in a fair manner. You are entitled to bring a claim for unfair dismissal if you consider that you were unfairly selected for redundancy or consider that a genuine redundancy situation did not exist. Examples of these situations might include where the custom and practice in your workplace has been last in, first out and your selection did not follow this procedure. Another example may be where your contract of employment sets out criteria for selection which were not subsequently followed.

Under the unfair dismissals legislation, selection for redundancy based on certain specific grounds is considered unfair. These include redundancy as the result of an employee's trade union activity, pregnancy or religious or political opinions. The employment equality legislation also prohibits selection for redundancy that is based on any of the following 9 grounds: gender, civil status, family status, age, disability, religious belief, race, sexual orientation or membership of the Traveller community.

The position is not being made redundant. The person is. Here the person is unable to work due to disability.

It's NOT a case where the employer can serve notices in relation to inability to do the work and issue first warning, second warning etc.

If the person is disabled and unable to perform their role and you want to sack them after 17 years service you have to give them statutory redundancy.

Any suggestion that they are being "Kind" by asking her to walk away penniless is a load of tosh.

Tasden

But redundancy is when there is a reduction in the number of staff (ie positions). That selection process applies to when the employer has to select a person due to the reduction in staff or positions. If there is more than one person fulfilling the same role and they need to reduce that number then they have to choose a person to make redundant and that's where that selection process comes in. In this case they're not trying to reduce the number of staff. That's generally what is meant by the position being made redundant rather than the person.

drumswan

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

The position is not being made redundant. The person is. Here the person is unable to work due to disability.

Neither the person or the position is being made redundant here, redundancy has nothing to do with it, you are way off the mark.

amcalester

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Sure

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/unemployment_and_redundancy/redundancy/redundancy_procedures.html

Selection for redundancy


In selecting a particular employee for redundancy, an employer should apply selection criteria that are reasonable and are applied in a fair manner. You are entitled to bring a claim for unfair dismissal if you consider that you were unfairly selected for redundancy or consider that a genuine redundancy situation did not exist. Examples of these situations might include where the custom and practice in your workplace has been last in, first out and your selection did not follow this procedure. Another example may be where your contract of employment sets out criteria for selection which were not subsequently followed.

Under the unfair dismissals legislation, selection for redundancy based on certain specific grounds is considered unfair. These include redundancy as the result of an employee's trade union activity, pregnancy or religious or political opinions. The employment equality legislation also prohibits selection for redundancy that is based on any of the following 9 grounds: gender, civil status, family status, age, disability, religious belief, race, sexual orientation or membership of the Traveller community.



The position is not being made redundant. The person is. Here the person is unable to work due to disability.

It's NOT a case where the employer can serve notices in relation to inability to do the work and issue first warning, second warning etc.

If the person is disabled and unable to perform their role and you want to sack them after 17 years service you have to give them statutory redundancy.

Any suggestion that they are being "Kind" by asking her to walk away penniless is a load of tosh.

What you've quoted there doesn't apply here because this isn't a redundancy situation. What the legislation says is if there are employees being made redundant (i.e. their position in the company no longer exists) you cannot select who is made redundant based on a disability that person.

So for example if the shop had 10 people doing the same job as the sister and 4 were being made redundant, the sister could not be selected based on her disability.

That is completely different to someone being dismissed (or asked to resign) because of their inability to do their job.

my3cents

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/unemployment_and_redundancy/dismissal/fair_grounds_for_dismissal.html

Note: employment equality legislation prohibits dismissal based on any of the following nine grounds for discrimination: gender, civil status, family status, age, disability, religious belief, race, sexual orientation or membership of the Traveller community. So, for example, if you have been employed for less than a year you may not be able to bring a claim under the unfair dismissals legislation, but it could be possible under equality legislation.

Tasden

my3cents wrote: »

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/unemployment_and_redundancy/dismissal/fair_grounds_for_dismissal.html

If they fire her "because she has a disability" that would be applicable. If they let her go because she can no longer do her job, which is as a result of her disability, and they have facilitated her as much as is humanly possible then its entirely different.

my3cents

Tasden wrote: »

If they fire her "because she has a disability" that would be applicable. If they let her go because she can no longer do her job, which is as a result of her disability, and they have facilitated her as much as is humanly possible then its entirely different.

Let her go LOL what exactly does that mean :rolleyes:

At the end of the day either she leaves or is dismissed you can't have it both ways.

drumswan

my3cents wrote: »

Let her go LOL what exactly does that mean :rolleyes:

At the end of the day either she leaves or is dismissed you can't have it both ways.

Which is why the employer has asked that she do the dignified thing and resign, rather than drag her through a humiliating dismissal process. The company has provided the woman with an income for 17 years, they are not some big bully here.

Dyr

Most employment contracts/staff handbooks have a clause that employment can be terminated if the employee is no longer fit for the duties of their role. However, companies tend to thread very carefully around dismissing people that are on sick leave as employment law is quite robust in this area.

More than likely this is why the HR manager is asking her to resign, it absolves the company of any obligations under employment law. The HR managers role is not to look out for your sister, it's to act in the interest of the company.

Most of the advice you're getting in this thread is shocking but not surprising, talk to her union official or a solicitor who specializes in employment law.

Uno my Uno.

As has been pointed out redundancy is not the issue here as the position is not being done away with. Positions are made redundant, people are dismissed it's an important distinction.

OP your sister's employers have asked that she resign because it is a much easier process for them than having to dismiss her. Dismissing her will require them to have to follow procedures, show that there was good reason to dismiss her and that they have not unfairly discriminated against her.

However resigning might not be in your sister's interests, it could limit her entitlements to social welfare or any payments she might be entitled to from her employer upon her dismissal. You should seek fully informed Independent legal advice either from a Solicitor, Citizens advice or FLAC.

Tasden

my3cents wrote: »

Let her go LOL what exactly does that mean :rolleyes:

At the end of the day either she leaves or is dismissed you can't have it both ways.

You've never heard the term being let go from a job?

Mr. Incognito

Look,

The simple facts are this.

1. The default legal approach to ALL dismissals is that they are unfair until shown to be otherwise.

2. If she is unable to do her job she is still entitled to Notice Periods and Redundancy.

2. Asking her to Resign to avoid these entitlements is a Weasel move from a company that had employed her for 17 years. It would likely be a breach of fair procedures.

3. I wont comment on the selection for redundancy as I simply don't know on the facts whether the position is being made redundant or not.

4. If she is disabled she has enhanced protections under the Acts.

Speak to a solicitor.

If you want relevant EAT Determinations on point please read

http://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/Cases/2014/October/UD1758_2012.html

http://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/Cases/2014/February/UD2293_2011.html
Employee Awarded 29K

http://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/Cases/2014/February/UD1023_2012_UD1040_2012.html
Employee Awarded 56K For Breach of Fair Procedures

http://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/Cases/2013/September/UD1429_2011.html
Employee Alcoholic - Unable to perform role. Dismissed. Awarded 10K

my3cents

Tasden wrote: »

You've never heard the term being let go from a job?

Yes and its a euphemism which users hide behind when they mean dismissed.

Tasden

my3cents wrote: »

Yes and its a euphemism which users hide behind when they mean dismissed.

Ok...

drumswan

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Look,

The simple facts are this.

1. The default legal approach to ALL dismissals is that they are unfair until shown to be otherwise.

What? This is completely wrong

2. If she is unable to do her job she is still entitled to Notice Periods and Redundancy.

You clearly have no idea what redundancy is.

3. I wont comment on the selection for redundancy as I simply don't know on the facts whether the position is being made redundant or not.

Can you read? The position is clearly not being made redundant.

Tasden

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Look,

The simple facts are this.

1. The default legal approach to ALL dismissals is that they are unfair until shown to be otherwise.

2. If she is unable to do her job she is still entitled to Notice Periods and Redundancy.

2. Asking her to Resign to avoid these entitlements is a Weasel move from a company that had employed her for 17 years. It would likely be a breach of fair procedures.

3. I wont comment on the selection for redundancy as I simply don't know on the facts whether the position is being made redundant or not.

4. If she is disabled she has enhanced protections under the Acts.

Speak to a solicitor.

If you want relevant EAT Determinations on point please read

http://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/Cases/2014/October/UD1758_2012.html

http://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/Cases/2014/February/UD2293_2011.html
Employee Awarded 29K

http://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/Cases/2014/February/UD1023_2012_UD1040_2012.html
Employee Awarded 56K For Breach of Fair Procedures

http://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/Cases/2013/September/UD1429_2011.html
Employee Alcoholic - Unable to perform role. Dismissed. Awarded 10K

She hasn't been dismissed yet though.

She's not entitled to redundancy if she's not being made redundant.

It's not avoiding entitlement to redundancy if she won't be made redundant either way.

But I agree she does need to speak to FLAC before making any decisions.

Edit: drumswan got there before me

falan

just ring NERA (national employment rights agency) and be done with it. They are brilliant with advice on employment and redundancies.

Mr. Incognito

drumswan wrote: »

What? This is completely wrong


You clearly have no idea what redundancy is.


Can you read? The position is clearly not being made redundant.

You really really need to read this

I genuinely hope you do not work in HR or anything employment related.

Go Here

http://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/

Click on Unfair Dismissals

Dismissal

In general, the Unfair Dismissals Acts provide that every dismissal of an employee will be considered to have been unfair unless the employer can show substantial grounds justifying the dismissal.

OP Here is the Link to FLAC. I volunteer there. You will get great advice from suitably qualified professionals.

http://www.flac.ie/help

Mr Barbie

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Look,

The simple facts are this.

1. The default legal approach to ALL dismissals is that they are unfair until shown to be otherwise.

2. If she is unable to do her job she is still entitled to Notice Periods and Redundancy.

2. Asking her to Resign to avoid these entitlements is a Weasel move from a company that had employed her for 17 years. It would likely be a breach of fair procedures.

3. I wont comment on the selection for redundancy as I simply don't know on the facts whether the position is being made redundant or not.

4. If she is disabled she has enhanced protections under the Acts.

Speak to a solicitor.

If you want relevant EAT Determinations on point please read


Employee Awarded 29K


Employee Awarded 56K For Breach of Fair Procedures


Employee Alcoholic - Unable to perform role. Dismissed. Awarded 10K

Eh ? Far from facts there ! Pretty much everything is your post is incorrect or does not apply. Dangerous advice really.

Uno my Uno.

This thread is an example of why employment issues and employment Law is so difficult. Lots of Barstool lawyers who don't actually understand what they are talking about, giving conflicting opinions and advice all of which is wrong in at least one area.

OP again, your sister should seek competent professional advice.

drumswan

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Dismissal

In general, the Unfair Dismissals Acts provide that every dismissal of an employee will be considered to have been unfair unless the employer can show substantial grounds justifying the dismissal.

Can you see that bit in bold there?

It would be trivial for the employer to show grounds justifying the dismissal seeing as the OPs sister cannot do the job she is paid to do.

The will have to drag her through several rounds of disciplinary process first. Fun for all the family.

OP Here is the Link to FLAC. I volunteer there. You will get great advice from suitably qualified professionals.

I really hope you are not advising people on the stuff covered in this thread. You clearly do not know what you are talking about.

MarkAnthony

To try and shed some clarity on this, although it's been very well explained by others in the thread, this is not a redundancy.

The employee would have been employed under a contract, with excellent reasons that contract has been breached. The employer must go through fair procedures to dismiss the employee and should make allowances where possible. They have certainly done the latter they are trying (again with very good reasons) to avoid the former.

As Uno has stated resigning may create an issue. After consulting with FLAC and NERA I would let HR know she won't be able to attend any more and let them issue a job abandonment letter, the reason for the job abandonment can then be explained to social welfare, although this is essentially a dismissal it will hopefully avoid the necessity of an unpleasant disciplinary process.

The above should not be considered legal advice just a possible course of action that might be considered, get proper advice!

Mr. Incognito

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

I wouldn't waste money on a lawyer. She's clearly not redundant. You could ask FLAC about medical retirements, which is what she's really doing, but because she's flexi-time I suspect it won't make much difference.

Get her doctor to write a letter advising that she is no longer able to work. That should be all the paperwork that Welfare need.

If she doesn't resign voluntarily, she will be forcing the company to put her through a disciplinary process. This will be horrible for all concerned.

Get them to put on a retirement party for her! Or whatever they usually do for staff who are retiring.

Part time workers have the same protections as full time employees

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/types_of_employment/employment_rights_of_part_time_workers.html

drumswan

MarkAnthony wrote: »

To try and shed some clarity on this, although it's been very well explained by others in the thread, this is not a redundancy.

The employee would have been employed under a contract, with excellent reasons that contract has been breached. The employer must go through fair procedures to dismiss the employee and should make allowances where possible. They have certainly done the latter they are trying (again with very good reasons) to avoid the former.

As Uno has stated resigning may create an issue. After consulting with FLAC and NERA I would let HR know she won't be able to attend any more and let them issue a job abandonment letter, the reason for the job abandonment can then be explained to social welfare, although this is essentially a dismissal it will hopefully avoid the necessity of an unpleasant disciplinary process.

The above should not be considered legal advice just a possible course of action that might be considered, get proper advice!

Excellent post. The lady should of course seek independent advice and ensure that her social welfare benefits will come onstream as soon as she stops working, she is no doubt entitled to them after paying into the system for 17 years.

Mr. Incognito

Can you see that bit in bold there?

It would be trivial for the employer to show grounds justifying the dismissal seeing as the OPs sister cannot do the job she is paid to do.

The will have to drag her through several rounds of disciplinary process first. Fun for all the family.

I have linked several EAT decisions.

Kindly link me a decision EAT or Rights Commissioner where a person, unable to perform the role by reason of disability was put through a disciplinary process and fairly dismissed.

Should be easy enough if you believe that is the correct legally allowed approach.

drumswan

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

I have linked several EAT decisions.

Kindly link me a decision EAT or Rights Commissioner where a person, unable to perform the role by reason of disability was put through a disciplinary process and fairly dismissed.

Should be easy enough if you believe that is the correct legally allowed approach.

If it is a legally allowed approach then it wouldnt reach the EAT or Rights Commissioner would it? People are dismissed for not being able to perform their duties all the time.

Youve posted your advice now, people can read it for themselves, lets leave it at that.

Mr. Incognito

drumswan wrote: »

If it is a legally allowed approach then it wouldnt reach the EAT or Rights Commissioner would it? People are dismissed for not being able to perform their duties all the time.

Youve posted your advice now, people can read it for themselves, lets leave it at that.

I am sorry but that's really not good enough. I am happy to debate the issue for the benefit of the OP and other persons in the same situation.

Here a long term employee, who is disabled has been asked to resign, to forgo the monies that she is automatically entitled to as an employee with a lengthy service.

I believe this is likely a breach of fair procedures and is underhand.

Yes, people are dismissed for not being able to perform the role for which they are contracted but there is a set legal formula that this dismissal must follow or else it will automatically be unfair.

In addition no mention has been made by the OP's sister of whether the employee would be able to make a claim on the disability fund of the employer or any insurance schemes that may be in place for the employees of the company. No information seems to have been provided in relation to entitlements, benefits, third party supports, notice period etc.

This is bad practice at a minimum, actionable at a maximum.

On a human level if they have been good to her in the eyes of her family is utterly irrelevant to the legal formula that applies to the termination of employment.

If you believe I am incorrect there are a myriad of online searchable formats of Rights Commissioners and EAT decisions which have clarified the law in this area. Pull one out that supports your position.