Can i be sacked for been out sick with PND

texas star

Hi I was sick after I had my first baby and followed protocol with certs and letters to my job which lasted under a year.I'm better now so I want to return to work.My job has told me I must see there Dr which is I understand and meet with HR to discuss my position.Can I be let go?I'm with them 7 years and was rarely out or late.

davindub

Its probably more "suitable to return to work" rather than to see if they can let you go.

Insurance companies are all over employers at the moment, they worry about letting someone work who would be at a higher risk due to their health.

infogiver

If you are sacked and you feel it's unfair then you like any employee of 1 year + standing are free to make a complaint
Here is the complaint form
https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/Publications_Forms/Workplace_Relations_Complaint_Form_v10.pdf
It's a myth that you "can't" be sacked while out sick.
Any employee can be sacked at any time.
It's how you feel about being sacked and how you react to those feelings that determines what happens next.

texas star

Wel I'll just have to hope I'm not.Not much I can do till I meet with them.Thank you.

Sono

On what grounds would they be sacking you? Sounds absolutely ridiculous if they do let you go, can't see it happening myself

dar100

There has to be a process put in place, they can not just sack you that would be illegal!! Sounds like they are seeing if you are fit for work

Sono

dar100 wrote: »

There has to be a process put in place, they can not just sack you that would be illegal!! Sounds like they are seeing if you are fit for work

Exactly.

BattleCorp

I wouldn't worry too much about it.

The Company I work for send people to see the Company doctor if they have been off work for a long time. It's just to ensure that they are fit to return to work. I'd say your Company are just doing the same.

Heisenberg1

Nothing to worry about OP standard practise for the company doctor to see you before returning to work. You have doctor certs for when you were absent so no issue.

infogiver

Heisenberg1 wrote: »

Nothing to worry about OP standard practise for the company doctor to see you before returning to work. You have doctor certs for when you were absent so no issue.

A doctors note explains your absence but doesn't excuse it. If an employer wants to sack someone they will.
In return the employee can make a complaint and it will be considered.
That's how it works

BattleCorp

infogiver wrote: »

A doctors note explains your absence but doesn't excuse it. If an employer wants to sack someone they will.
In return the employee can make a complaint and it will be considered.
That's how it works

PND is a real illness that many people suffer from. Being out of work for under a year with it wouldn't really be considered excessive.

It would be a stupid Company that would sack someone under those circumstances. They'd be wide open to unfair dismissal.

The OP has done everything by the book. They have submitted certs etc. Why would the company sack her and leave themselves open to possible legal action?

I'd say this meeting and the doctor visit is just standard procedure when someone is out of work for a long time.

Heisenberg1

infogiver wrote: »

A doctors note explains your absence but doesn't excuse it. If an employer wants to sack someone they will.
In return the employee can make a complaint and it will be considered.
That's how it works

Doesn't excuse it? If your ill your ill it's not an excuse. If the company was to sack the OP based on certified illness they would be wide open for unfair dismissal. That's how it works !

Hmm_Messiah

infogiver wrote: »

A doctors note explains your absence but doesn't excuse it. If an employer wants to sack someone they will.
In return the employee can make a complaint and it will be considered.
That's how it works

This and your earlier reply shows a strange understanding of employment law.
The OP is there 7 years, more than 12 months, so no she cannot just be sacked. I suppose you are right as in any employer can tell some they are fired, and stop paying them. But that is very far removed from what they are legally entitled to do and would not have a leg to stand on.

To terminate some one like the OP there would have to be legitimate reasons, and if it were for example due to absences ( liked mentioned in your reply) there would have to have been a process followed - verbal, written warnings etc.

I am not sure your posts are helpful to an employee who is obviously concerned and un well


OP - it is very very much standard practice for firms now to require employees to see the company doctor. Some times it is to determine the nature of an illness if there might be a claim etc. but 99% of the time it is just to follow health and safety protocols , as others mentioned to ensure you are fit to " return to work" and so on

If in your 7 years you have had a good relationship with your employer then please remove any anxiety from what you have already experienced with your PND. It is simply a process, and overall one which benefits every one.

infogiver

BattleCorp wrote: »

PND is a real illness that many people suffer from. Being out of work for under a year with it wouldn't really be considered excessive.

It would be a stupid Company that would sack someone under those circumstances. They'd be wide open to unfair dismissal.

The OP has done everything by the book. They have submitted certs etc. Why would the company sack her and leave themselves open to possible legal action?

I'd say this meeting and the doctor visit is just standard procedure when someone is out of work for a long time.

I agree with you that this is just a standard box ticking procedure to return the OP to work.
The WRC is tripping over itself every day with "stupid" employers who do stupid things all the time.
Its important that employees know,however, that having a doctors letter is not a silver bullet that can save you from the sack.

infogiver

Heisenberg1 wrote: »

Doesn't excuse it? If your ill your ill it's not an excuse. If the company was to sack the OP based on certified illness they would be wide open for unfair dismissal. That's how it works !

...and my opening post in this thread stated just that. Unfair Dismissal which will be considered by an adjudicator.

_Brian

I'd expect this is a return to work assessment after long term illness.

Their nominated gp will make an assessment and decision on your fitness for work.

HR can discuss the decision but I wouldn't let them stray into any personal medical issues as sometimes happens.

After so long out they may also want to discuss which position would be suitable for you to return to and maybe a soft start back rather than jumping in full time straight off.

My advice is form the moment take it that they are being a caring employer looking to give you a successful start back, just be sure that they don't stray away from that. If you feel the meeting with HR is going places you don't like ask it be stopped so you can take professional advice. If it makes you more comfortable ask that you can bring someone with you for moral support - I find meetings stay more on track when there are more witnesses there.

_Brian

Hmm_Messiah wrote: »

This and your earlier reply shows a strange understanding of employment law.
The OP is there 7 years, more than 12 months, so no she cannot just be sacked. I suppose you are right as in any employer can tell some they are fired, and stop paying them. But that is very far removed from what they are legally entitled to do and would not have a leg to stand on.

To terminate some one like the OP there would have to be legitimate reasons, and if it were for example due to absences ( liked mentioned in your reply) there would have to have been a process followed - verbal, written warnings etc.

I am not sure your posts are helpful to an employee who is obviously concerned and un well


OP - it is very very much standard practice for firms now to require employees to see the company doctor. Some times it is to determine the nature of an illness if there might be a claim etc. but 99% of the time it is just to follow health and safety protocols , as others mentioned to ensure you are fit to " return to work" and so on

If in your 7 years you have had a good relationship with your employer then please remove any anxiety from what you have already experienced with your PND. It is simply a process, and overall one which benefits every one.

The actual truth is an employee can be let go if they are no longer able to fulfill the position which they were hired to do.
I only saw this done once where the employee was making no real effort to rehabilitate and return for work. It's a sort of neculear option and an employer would need to have been building up to it with proper warnings given to the employee over a period of time.

But thinking that certified illness gives some special protection to endless be an employee and not work is just wrong.

Having a cert for absence explains the absence it does not excuse it, it still has a negative effect on the employer and depending on the size of the employer this can be a big problem or a minor inconvenience.

Mrs OBumble

Also now that employees still clock up annual leave while they are out sick, there is a real disincentive for an employer to hold a position open for someone who cannot fulfill their side of the contract long term.

Expect to see more employers say that if a person is not well enough to return to work within a reasonable time then they will have to be let go.

Stealthfins

Mrs OBumble wrote:

Expect to see more employers say that if a person is not well enough to return to work within a reasonable time then they will have to be let go.

Looks like it's back to the dark ages where employees are concerned.

Same should be said for managers and CEO's...

This ruthlessness in company's will shut the country down, people will tire of this sht and will demand better rights etc

A nation wide strike should suffice....

LynnGrace

_Brian wrote: »

I'd expect this is a return to work assessment after long term illness.

Their nominated gp will make an assessment and decision on your fitness for work.

HR can discuss the decision but I wouldn't let them stray into any personal medical issues as sometimes happens.

After so long out they may also want to discuss which position would be suitable for you to return to and maybe a soft start back rather than jumping in full time straight off.

My advice is form the moment take it that they are being a caring employer looking to give you a successful start back, just be sure that they don't stray away from that. If you feel the meeting with HR is going places you don't like ask it be stopped so you can take professional advice. If it makes you more comfortable ask that you can bring someone with you for moral support - I find meetings stay more on track when there are more witnesses there.

This would be my take on the situation also, OP, and sound advice as regards the approach for you to take.
Fairly standard anywhere I worked that this type of process would be followed.

texas star

Thank you for the replys.They have another person doing my job who is working for less then me.The company have paid off people before I'm just hope I'm not one of them.

lawred2

texas star wrote: »

Hi I was sick after I had my first baby and followed protocol with certs and letters to my job which lasted under a year.I'm better now so I want to return to work.My job has told me I must see there Dr which is I understand and meet with HR to discuss my position.Can I be let go?I'm with them 7 years and was rarely out or late.

If you are diagnosed and have a defacto permanent contract then no they can't simply dismiss you.

infogiver

lawred2 wrote: »

If you are diagnosed and have a defacto permanent contract then no they can't simply dismiss you.

its more correct to say that they couldn't expect to simply dismiss her without expecting some consequences.
but people with permanent contracts and doctors letters are sacked.

foggy_lad

OP the doctor visit is most likely because you were out for so long and is probably standard in the job, they must make sure that you are fit to return to work.

The chat with HR will probably be them asking if there is anything they can do to help you with your illness like offering less hours or lighter duties etc, again this would usually be standard after a prolonged illness.

lawred2

infogiver wrote: »

its more correct to say that they couldn't expect to simply dismiss her without expecting some consequences.
but people with permanent contracts and doctors letters are sacked.

and such actions should be followed up with a letter from a solicitor

dar100

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Also now that employees still clock up annual leave while they are out sick, there is a real disincentive for an employer to hold a position open for someone who cannot fulfill their side of the contract long term.

Expect to see more employers say that if a person is not well enough to return to work within a reasonable time then they will have to be let go.

Still has to be a process put in place!! The person has to go through the warning system and natural justice!!

However if they can prove the person is not fit for the job there may be a case for dismissal!! It is quite hard to sack an employee by staying within the legal requirements!! Of course they can sack them if they want, but they will be brought in front of a tribunal for potential damages

seamus

dar100 wrote: »

Still has to be a process put in place!! The person has to go through the warning system and natural justice!!

Yes. But it is always important to note that being out sick, certified or otherwise, does not mean that you cannot be dismissed.

Being out sick can in fact lead to dismissal, provided the company follows the correct process.

There's a big misconception with a lot of people that once you're certified, you're untouchable. Which is very far from true.

In the OP's case, since no proceedings have been started then it's unlikely they're going to dismiss her. But the company are only obliged to keep her position open for the duration of maternity leave. Given the length of time which has passed since she last worked there (18 months?), it's quite probable she'll be offered a new position on different terms, or redundancy. There is a presumably permanent employee now doing her job, so they won't just bump them out to put the OP back in.

infogiver

lawred2 wrote: »

and such actions should be followed up with a letter from a solicitor

Theres no need to pay a solicitor.
If you follow the link I provided you can make a complaint online to Workplace Relations and they will follow up on it for you.
If the complaint ends up in a hearing you MAY need a solicitor, but I wouldn't engage a professional to do something that is very straightforward.

lawred2

infogiver wrote: »

Theres no need to pay a solicitor.
If you follow the link I provided you can make a complaint online to Workplace Relations and they will follow up on it for you.
If the complaint ends up in a hearing you MAY need a solicitor, but I wouldn't engage a professional to do something that is very straightforward.

good advice

infogiver

dar100 wrote: »

Still has to be a process put in place!! The person has to go through the warning system and natural justice!!

However if they can prove the person is not fit for the job there may be a case for dismissal!! It is quite hard to sack an employee by staying within the legal requirements!! Of course they can sack them if they want, but they will be brought in front of a tribunal for potential damages

Warning systems or disciplinary procedures have no protection under current legislation and employers although encouraged to include a disciplinary procedure in a terms and conditions of employment, have no legal obligation to do so.

Denny_Crane

infogiver wrote: »

Warning systems or disciplinary procedures have no protection under current legislation and employers although encouraged to include a disciplinary procedure in a terms and conditions of employment, have no legal obligation to do so.

Legislation is not the be all and end all of any legal system let alone a Constitutional Common Law one like our own.

There is a requirment for fair procedures. You can bet your last Euro that the procedure used in 99.999999999% of employment situations will probably be the modle assumed. Any other model is going to recieve very close scrutiny.

BattleCorp

seamus wrote: »

Given the length of time which has passed since she last worked there (18 months?), it's quite probable she'll be offered a new position on different terms, or redundancy. There is a presumably permanent employee now doing her job, so they won't just bump them out to put the OP back in.

Genuine question.

How can they offer her a different position on different terms?

So if an employee is out long term because of a maternity related illness, are you saying that they can be demoted or have their wages reduced?

seamus

BattleCorp wrote: »

So if an employee is out long term because of a maternity related illness, are you saying that they can be demoted or have their wages reduced?

If an employee has been out sick for a long time, to the point that the company has hired someone else to replace them, then the company can indeed look to make the employee redundant on their return to work.

Companies in these situations will often present an employee with an option of taking a different role with lower pay, or redundancy. They can do this, because the employee is the one who makes the choice. They cannot force the employee to take a pay reduction.

"Maternity-related" in this case is somewhat irrelevant. You're really only protected from discrimination while pregnant and during maternity leave. Once maternity leave has formally finished, any sickness which arose out of the pregnancy is functionally no different to any other.

dar100

infogiver wrote: »

Warning systems or disciplinary procedures have no protection under current legislation and employers although encouraged to include a disciplinary procedure in a terms and conditions of employment, have no legal obligation to do so.

If you follow that line of thinking to the end of its I/logical ending it would go like this...

There is no requirement in legislation for us to offer you a far contract with terms and conditions of how we can end your contract, however, we are encouraged to do this!! (Encouraged by who?).

Meaning, effectively we can sack you when we want without due process or a system in place!!

In theory this can and from time to time does happen, however, there are systems, processes and institutions in place to monitor and hold companies to account when it happens

I'm speaking in general terms here, not specifically about the op

The reason they are encouraged to use these processes is to cover their own ass against litigation

davindub

dar100 wrote: »

If you follow that line of thinking to the end of its I/logical ending it would go like this...

There is no requirement in legislation for us to offer you a far contract with terms and conditions of how we can end your contract, however, we are encouraged to do this!! (Encouraged by who?).

Meaning, effectively we can sack you when we want without due process or a system in place!!

In theory this can and from time to time does happen, however, there are systems, processes and institutions in place to monitor and hold companies to account when it happens

I'm speaking in general terms here, not specifically about the op

The reason they are encouraged to use these processes is to cover their own ass against litigation

Exactly, the employment tribunal want to see what process was followed and then determine if the process was fair as much as establishing whether the termination reasons were just. There has been awards where the process followed was found not to be fair and but the reasons for termination were not found so.

irishgrover

to the OP, speaking as a manager of multiple people, many of whom over the years have been off sick for various durations for various reasons...
In a situation like yours I would request that you visited the company doctor. My exclusive motivation would be to verify independenty that you are fit for work. This is standard practice. Is it not at all indicative that your manager or company do not trust you. It is not indicitave that there is going to be a problem, or that the company are snooping or anything else.
I, and the company, have a duty of care for the members of the team. I want to know from a professional if a.) the person is fit to retun to work and b.) if there is anything I can or should do to facilitate that return to work.
I would want to maximse the probability that your return to work is smooth and positive.

Do not fear visiting the company doctor. In my own company I know of plenty people over the years who were not keen to visit, but after the visit were very complimentary of the service they received.
Best of luck with your return to work. Try to remain unstressed and enjoy it.

infogiver

dar100 wrote: »

If you follow that line of thinking to the end of its I/logical ending it would go like this...

There is no requirement in legislation for us to offer you a far contract with terms and conditions of how we can end your contract, however, we are encouraged to do this!! (Encouraged by who?).

Meaning, effectively we can sack you when we want without due process or a system in place!!

In theory this can and from time to time does happen, however, there are systems, processes and institutions in place to monitor and hold companies to account when it happens

I'm speaking in general terms here, not specifically about the op

The reason they are encouraged to use these processes is to cover their own ass against litigation

Employers groups would encourage employers to include disciplinary procedures in an employee statement of term and conditions, because it's recognised by both employers representative bodies and unions as best practice.
Nonetheless many employers don't bother with it because they don't have to.
Likewise notice periods.
If there's no notice period mentioned in the T&Cs then the law says either side only has to give 1 week

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

fupduck

Have any of you encountered Bradford Factor points? My company recently implemented them, and are using them to bash us over the head for GENUINE, CERTIFIED ILLNESS .
Scoring enough points starts an absence management procedure, which technically can get you out the door quicker than a formal disciplinary for wrong-doing!

dar100

fupduck wrote: »

Have any of you encountered Bradford Factor points? My company recently implemented them, and are using them to bash us over the head for GENUINE, CERTIFIED ILLNESS .
Scoring enough points starts an absence management procedure, which technically can get you out the door quicker than a formal disciplinary for wrong-doing!

It's based on pattern of leave as opposed to the amount of sick leave taking

dar100

infogiver wrote: »

Employers groups would encourage employers to include disciplinary procedures in an employee statement of term and conditions, because it's recognised by both employers representative bodies and unions as best practice.
Nonetheless many employers don't bother with it because they don't have to.
Likewise notice periods.
If there's no notice period mentioned in the T&Cs then the law says either side only has to give 1 week

So in this case terms and conditions hold up as law??

fupduck

It's based on pattern of leave as opposed to the amount of sick leave taking
Supposed to be, but no lee-way in our place, hit the points and you are cautioned.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

infogiver

Fred Swanson wrote: »

Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Acts 1973–2005.

Yes your right however the mistake I made was in saying that either side have only to give one weeks notice if there's no provision made for notice in the T&Cs
What you have posted only applies to the employers obligation
It stands that if I the employee want to give notice and there's no notice period specified then 1 week is enough regardless of length of time employed
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/starting_work_and_changing_job/changing_job/giving_notice.html

Denny_Crane

infogiver wrote: »

Employers groups would encourage employers to include disciplinary procedures in an employee statement of term and conditions, because it's recognised by both employers representative bodies and unions as best practice.
Nonetheless many employers don't bother with it because they don't have to.
Likewise notice periods.
If there's no notice period mentioned in the T&Cs then the law says either side only has to give 1 week

Don't bother with what? What is it you're suggesting an employer does not have to do?

NUTLEY BOY

+1 the views that the employer is box ticking by having the OP assessed by their own doctor. In cases of prolonged absence the company HR people are really satisfying themselves, on their medical advice, that the employee is actually fit to return to work.

A side bar question which the thread might not have answered.

Can an employee be fairly dismissed for a sustained absence from work on grounds of valid (and validated) medical unfitness to work ?

On a simple contract basis I would have thought that such an employee was failing to render performance under a contract. What I do not know is what employment law would say and if it would overbear on such a contractual failure.

uck51js9zml2yt

It's quite common to get medical clearance to go back to work and for HR to have a chat with you on your return.

infogiver

Denny_Crane wrote: »

Don't bother with what? What is it you're suggesting an employer does not have to do?

Include anything about a disciplinary procedure in the T&Cs of an employee

_Brian

fupduck wrote: »

Have any of you encountered Bradford Factor points? My company recently implemented them, and are using them to bash us over the head for GENUINE, CERTIFIED ILLNESS .
Scoring enough points starts an absence management procedure, which technically can get you out the door quicker than a formal disciplinary for wrong-doing!

I've not come across this but in many companies with performance management systems you can be negatively positioned as Below Expectations or Improvement Required, while not a disciplinary in themselves they will need a PIP and failing to meet the requirements of the PIP will end up with disciplinary action "up to and including termination"

texas star

I didn't get sacked thank you for all your help.