question on contract of employment with supported employment

madamab

I wonder can anyone help or have advice.

My son began employment late September which was secured with the help of Employability , an organisation that gives people a job coach to help find a job which will have set hours, an understanding that the person needs a bit of extra help etc. For this if the person under a doctors orders advises that a person can work 21 hours per week , the employer gets about 5 euro towards the hourly rate whilst the person gets a reduced DA. My son has a long term illness , on life long medication and was looking for a retail position. After 6 months and a presentation to this group by employability my son did an interview, and a subsequent trial and was offered 21 hour a week contract. This is the maximum he could do. We were all delighted especially him and it was in a discount store. His contract was due to start 3/10 even though his first roster was for 4/10 this year, however at short notice on 30/9 he was asked to start that day.

8 weeks into the role , he was taking cash, handling the till, stacking shelves and all the things expected. He was on time as he is very conscious of this, didnt miss a day and on 2 further occasions changed his roster to suit somebody or the employer, however never working more than 21 hours.

2 weeks ago he got a call on a day off from the manager asking him if he could go round to the shop and work. We had plans made and tickets bought so he guiltily explained that he couldnt - he was worried and offered to cover a lunch in case his manager was stuck and was told no. He then offered to do 4 hours to help but would have had to reduce these hours on another shift. Again the manager was snotty and said he needed him the whole day.

I advised him not to worry as he had offered to compromise. Last Friday the 2nd of December , he received an email from the HR director stating that his manager had his induction documents which he would go through during the week but also attached was his contract and this was most important. He forwards all these things to me but I didnt read it immediately. A few days later whilst in work his manager advised that HR wanted to see him. Another employee advised that this was common to have regular reviews. As he had been issued with his contract I wasnt worried and told him not to. After 5 minutes he came out to tell me that he was being let go, devastated is not the word. He is 27 and was close to tears. It was on the grounds of not being flexible. His job coach had been advised that he was to meet with HR and had offered to go with my son but he declined and she asked if he would let her know. I heard the shock in her voice when he told her and like me could not understand the grounds of inflexibility as when they agreed to go with this programme all was explained and there is no way that my son can work extra hours.

I contacted Hr and the reply was nothing personal and they wished him the best ( he had been doing well and was often left alone to manage the shop) Employablity frequently visited to ask about him. I asked on a few occasions why they had offered him a contract the previous week and few days later terminating his employment. It took a few emails to get a response and it was that there was a backlog and it was unrelated. However when I read it , it does state 21 hours a week but needing to be flexible . I realised what they had done and why it had been stated as important. They needed to cover their asses. I am disgusted and appauled for this to happen to anyone but particularly a fairly vulnerable person like my son needing a bit of confidence. I see that they must issue a contract within 2 months of starting. He got his contract 2/12 and to them his start date was 3/10. Then I realised he had actually started 30/9 and I think they have forgotten this. I know this is longwinded and i hope you see where I am going with this. It was so underhandedly done , we dont want compensation at all just to let them know this is not on. Thank you

Fries-With-That

What a terrible way to treat a vulnerable member of society. It appears to me that the company demands flexibility from employees but show little flexibility when it comes to understanding the flexibility needed by an employee with a disability.

Your son has been unfortunate in that he did everything asked of him and more, I would hope that his employability jobs coach is sending a strongly worded letter to the companies head office.

Mrs OBumble

He was asked to do a shift at short notice, and declined because he had plans made. Now I agree that if he'd accepted that shift he'd also have had not do another shift. But he's clearly demonstrated that he's not flexible, that family plans were more important than work.

While this sucks, and ideally work should not interrupt family plans - that's simply not the way things are for retail workers (and many others). And it most certainly wouldn't be fair to the other workers if the guy with the disability was allowed to do set hours while the others all have to pitch in and work when needed.

amcalester

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

He was asked to do a shift at short notice, and declined because he had plans made. Now I agree that if he'd accepted that shift he'd also have had not do another shift. But he's clearly demonstrated that he's not flexible, that family plans were more important than work.

While this sucks, and ideally work should not interrupt family plans - that's simply not the way things are for retail workers (and many others). And it most certainly wouldn't be fair to the other workers if the guy with the disability was allowed to do set hours while the others all have to pitch in and work when needed.

That's a load of nonsense. He was asked to come in on his day off, that is not usual for retail (ex-retail manger here). Flexibility in shifts and changing shifts is expected but not to drop everything in a day off and come in to work.

@OP - I don't think there's much you can do, crappy situation to be in.

madamab

Well he was asked by phone to go to the shop there and then - he hadnt even got a uniform organised and it was not said to him that he would have another day off. All of the staff bar the manager have been sick since my son has been there but my son would have to be in hsopital not to go to work. We are not asking that he gets special treatment , but supported employment means there is a little more understanding. This is precisely why earnings are supplemented.

madamab

Flexibility was never discussed with him at the beginning. It is shoved into the contract though that he got a week before the fired him. This is the point I am making the underhanded way they went about it.

Stheno

Nothing illegal has been done though in the first year of employment employees have few rights

madamab

Stheno - does he not have to have gotten his contract within 2 months? And the fact that he actually began work on September 30th and not October 3rd as they rang him that day and asked if he could start as they were stuck. Does this not mean that he got his contract after 2 months had expired December 2nd?

Stheno

madamab wrote: »

Stheno - does he not have to have gotten his contract within 2 months? And the fact that he actually began work on September 30th and not October 3rd as they rang him that day and asked if he could start as they were stuck. Does this not mean that he got his contract after 2 months had expired December 2nd?

There is that alright i missed that.
Otherwise nothing illegal

madamab

Thank you - I am going to call the employment rights tomorrow to check it all out.

Stheno

madamab wrote: »

Thank you - I am going to call the employment rights tomorrow to check it all out.

They will tell ypu he has no recource unless there a yeat tbh

Kristopherus

Stheno wrote: »

They will tell ypu he has no recource unless there a yeat tbh

Thats all very well. But the lad is on D.A. He is allowed to work for a max of 21 hours per week. When we had those staff, it was impressed strongly by the Welfare people that the 21 hours were not to be exceeded. This scheme has been given to the Assisted Employment Unit and they are much more hands-on with the client. The issue I would have with them is that they are slow enough to call the employer to task. The employer in this case has acted despicably. Its one thing what the law says, but common sense would solve most issues.

madamab

Kristopherus wrote: »

Thats all very well. But the lad is on D.A. He is allowed to work for a max of 21 hours per week. When we had those staff, it was impressed strongly by the Welfare people that the 21 hours were not to be exceeded. This scheme has been given to the Assisted Employment Unit and they are much more hands-on with the client. The issue I would have with them is that they are slow enough to call the employer to task. The employer in this case has acted despicably. Its one thing what the law says, but common sense would solve most issues.

Thank you for understanding what I mean. Anyway spoke to the Work Relations this morning and yes his contract did begin the day he started work which was 30 September and so they did breach whatever law it is by not giving him his contract before 2 months were up. They hae definitely forgotten that they asked him to start earlier. The guy on the phone also said that yes they can call him to cover but he doesnt have to and it is reasonable to expect 24 hours to do this. I have submitted a complaint on behalf of my son today so we will see what happens

R.D. aka MR.D

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

He was asked to do a shift at short notice, and declined because he had plans made. Now I agree that if he'd accepted that shift he'd also have had not do another shift. But he's clearly demonstrated that he's not flexible, that family plans were more important than work.

While this sucks, and ideally work should not interrupt family plans - that's simply not the way things are for retail workers (and many others). And it most certainly wouldn't be fair to the other workers if the guy with the disability was allowed to do set hours while the others all have to pitch in and work when needed.

I know plenty of retail workers (as I am one) who have kids who would absolutely not come in on their day off and definitely could not be called flexible. They are accommodated (and have been in every retail job I've had for the past 15 years) so there should be no reason that a person with a disability couldn't be accommodated.

This employer deserves to be called out for terrible behaviour.

Yummymummy83

I would submit a request under the data protection act for his records.

I'm an ex retail manager myself and I would consider this highly suspect to be honest. Have worked as an assistant in organisations that are known for shoddy treatment and I doubt even they would terminate a contract for something so menial.

Is there any suggestion that there may be a hidden agenda here and he was let go because of his disability?

madamab

Yummymummy83 wrote: »

I would submit a request under the data protection act for his records.

I'm an ex retail manager myself and I would consider this highly suspect to be honest. Have worked as an assistant in organisations that are known for shoddy treatment and I doubt even they would terminate a contract for something so menial.

Is there any suggestion that there may be a hidden agenda here and he was let go because of his disability?

Hi Yummymummy , all seemed to go well over the 8 weeks and his job coach was in touch with the manager etc. She was very shocked and he is seeing her tomorrow for an update. I genuinely think the manager was annoyed that my son did not drop everything and head around to work as this is when all of this really began. Remember my son was on 9.15 an hour but the shop got over 5 euro per hour towards this for taking him on and obviously the benefits were reduced accordingly but it meant that he had a bit of pride etc. YOu see it is getting very busy now close to Christmas and there is no way he could exceed 21 hours and they did take on another girl recently which meant that with my son there were 5 staff. However the manager had said to my son that 4 staff is plently, so perhaps the new girl is more flexible going forward.

Deagol

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

He was asked to do a shift at short notice, and declined because he had plans made. Now I agree that if he'd accepted that shift he'd also have had not do another shift. But he's clearly demonstrated that he's not flexible, that family plans were more important than work.

While this sucks, and ideally work should not interrupt family plans - that's simply not the way things are for retail workers (and many others). And it most certainly wouldn't be fair to the other workers if the guy with the disability was allowed to do set hours while the others all have to pitch in and work when needed.

I've worked in many different environments over the years and all companies need a bit of flexibility. However, what you are saying is complete and utter tosh and rubbish. No reasonable manager asks people to come in at short notice and when they say they already had plans, gets rid of them after a single refusal.

I suspect you must run / manage some company because it's not the first time I've noticed you posting such ridiculously owner / manager biased advise. I think you'd be much happier if we were back in Victorian times where the little people knew their place? :mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

madamab

Deagol - yes he had changed as recently as a few weeks before that with a girl who needed a swop, no problem. Also when the manager called him , it wasnt said to him that if he came in that he would have the next day off that he was due in , therefore it appears he wanted him to do an additional 7/8 hours to which he is not permitted under the terms of medical advice and the medical notice provided to his job coach. Job coach has re iterated that she doesnt know where this flexibilty came into play when the shop knew from the offset that it was 21 hours. Now he could be flexible within these 21 hours but not beyond it.

dublinbusdude

Who is your son doing the Supported Employment with?

madamab

He is with Employability limited and just finished the position on Saturday but I don't want to say where it was as I have filled out the complaint form for him today for the work place relations organisation having spoken with them this morning.

dublinbusdude

PM me!

purpur1

This is extremely surprising behaviour from a company that operates with a HR function. I would be saying here that this was an over reaction on their part and not reasonable (unless there is more to this than we know here), and employers must apply the rules of natural justice even within a probationary period. They do not seem to have envoked their own disciplinary procedure - was he offered the right to be represented, was he offered an appeals mechanism post dismissal - i would agree that a grievance should be raised here.

madamab

purpur1 - there doesnt seem to be anything else underlying. I did email the HR lady and ask that if there is anything at all then my son needs to know so that he can learn from mistakes. Her reply was that she was sorry he was upset and explained it was nothing personal and wished him well. He went into meet her alone which i felt also was wrong and though she advised his job coach from Employability that she had requested a meeting with my son , she never told the job coach what it was about or made sure she was there with him. THe job coach offered to go with my son but he thought it was just a review and declined her offer. She was very shocked when she found out. The job coach's boss said it is very disappointing how they have behaved. The HR have still not responded to Employabiility or taken the job coach's calls. It all seems to have started from his not going to work the day that he was called last minute. Up until then all seemed fine.

I am me123

Kristopherus wrote: »

Thats all very well. But the lad is on D.A. He is allowed to work for a max of 21 hours per week. When we had those staff, it was impressed strongly by the Welfare people that the 21 hours were not to be exceeded. This scheme has been given to the Assisted Employment Unit and they are much more hands-on with the client. The issue I would have with them is that they are slow enough to call the employer to task. The employer in this case has acted despicably. Its one thing what the law says, but common sense would solve most issues.

From what I gather, there has been widespread abuse of the EmployAbility Service by some employers; who seemingly just use it to get away with paying the staff less than minimum wage. (Getting funding given to them at €5.30 an hour) It really shows the lack of respect employers have for staff nowadays.