jaxxx wrote: » 13 weeks. Assuming 5 day working weeks, that's 65 days. One day fully off due to illness. One day late cos of problems with the car. Taking the OP at their word, both things were unavoidable. Seems businesses just don't care for the 'human' in human resources anymore. Obviously some people take the mick altogether puling sickies left right and centre, but assuming the OP is sincere I just think it's a sad reflection on the world, just 2 days of a 65 day period. "Johnny why weren't you at work today?" "Oh it wasn't my fault, I was crossing the road at a zebra crossing, a bus decided to ignore it and flattened me. I broke 7 ribs, had a punctured lung but here I am 2 days later". "Unacceptable, you're fired!"
Hoboo wrote: » I'm not talking about generic information as you provided. I'm referring to the opinion of posters when referring to employment law. It's mainly garnered from Google searches and ignores case law or recent updates, which aren't included in citizens information publications or website. The biggest issue for me though is it's generally provided with little or no fact. Only working 15 weeks. No rights. Case closed. Nonsense.
AndyBoBandy wrote: » 2 days taken off for separate reasons within the 1st 3 months.... They probably see it as a sign of things to come, and it just not being worth their hassle.
zig wrote: » Whatever about the sick one, the car one is a bit weird to state you're not coming in that day. Not trying to be harsh but most people I know including myself wouldnt dream of 2 day out in a first 13 weeks.
Asitis2019 wrote: » Jesus wept This is complete bull****. Your lying. Your friends are lying. Stop it. Please. Now go and polish your halo
54and56 wrote: » I'm sorry to hear of your troubles OP, sometimes life just gangs up on you but hopefully your daughter is and will be ok going forward, you get a new and better job and this unpleasant chapter in life will fade into the rear view mirror. FWIW during probation you are effectively on trial to see if you're fitting in, you're competent in the job, you're diligent, you aren't bringing anything to work they aren't expecting and you're basically the person you sold them you were in the interview process. For that reason your performance during the probation period needs to be the best you can deliver. If you give an employer reason(s) to question whether they hired the right person things can turn against you quickly as you have unfortunately found out. In my experience employers may use a specific reason when communicating a notice of termination during probation but the true reasons are usually much more nuanced. What I mean by that is if they felt you weren't delivering as expected or weren't fitting in then the sick days (especially a sick day which was in fact a problem with transport day) can be a trigger for making a decision they may have already been considering. Conversely, if they felt they'd made a good decision hiring you as you'd been meeting or exceeding their expectations in every way a day or two sick or required off during probation for very understandable personal reasons (providing you are as straight with them as is appropriate and I don't mean sharing details of your daughter's crisis rather saying there's an urgent personal family matter you need a day or two off for) then my experiences is employers will be as flexible as possible in order to retain an employee they value. Its entirety possible the employer is just s bad employer, only you will know enough detail to know the truth. Either way, try to take some learnings from what has otherwise been an unpleasant experience and best of luck finding a new job and for 2020 and beyond.
oholly121 wrote: » This actually happened to a friend of mine a few years back, he was called into a meeting and fired in line with his probation the company gave a very grey and shadowy reason for letting him go. Anyway he took it up with the WRC and went to court with it, the WRC actually found in his favour that due process was not followed and he was unfairly dismissed the thing is if the WRC find in your favour in under a year of employment they can only give recommendations and not legally binding rulings. My 2 cents from what I read is that you could bring a case to the WRC and will probably win and have a recommendation in your favor but the company are not legally compelled to pay out any award it would be a moral victory. You can start this process yourself by: • Writing to your former company and making a request under the data protections acts for all personal information held about you on file by the employer. • Explain also in the letter that you feel that due process was not followed and you feel you where unfairly dismissed and you are currently in the process of bringing a case to the WRC. • Go to the WRC website and open up a case for yourself, outline why you are bringing this case. • The WRC will go to your employer and ask would they be open to a mediation in this case - I’d say your old employers would say no, then you must escalate this yourself to the Labour Court directly where they MUST Attend Id say if they take their own legal advice (In the scenario as to where labour court compels them to attend) they would be told its best to offer you a good ref and possible discretionary payment, perhaps cheaper for them instead of lawyering up and going to court. Some companies just don’t want the hassle or trouble or indeed costs associated You can represent yourself in both the WRC and labour court the WRC website tells you how to go about this. It sounds what happened to you although in theory is legal its certainly not fair.
beauf wrote: » ...Plenty of people ended up mortified because they didn't call in sick...
robinbird wrote: » Nothing you can do. Most employers would see two seperate days off in first three months as a bit of a rag flag. Particularly the car issue one. And there may have been other factors and they are just citing that in order to give a reason.
bladespin wrote: » Agree, but still, took me years before I had my first sick day, still a last resort though I'll use one if I have to.
AdMMM wrote: » If your employer sees two reasonable days off in a 3 month period as a red flag then you should be running from that employer!
beauf wrote: » So what? Does everyone has the same biology or experience of life? This is all irrelevant.
bladespin wrote: » It's not at all, as a probationer I'd be eager to make a good impression and not be seen as 'pulling a sickie' even if there was a reason for it, but each to their own. 2 days off inside 3 months would set off all kinds of warnings for me though.
Graham wrote: » Average that over a year and your talking not far off two weeks of additional "reasonable days off" on top of holidays. And that's during the on-my-best-behaviour-probation-period.
beauf wrote: » You're implying that taking a sick day is never genuine. That if someone says they are sick its never genuine. Basically people never get sick enough not to go to work. Maybe you should share some of your ideas on the long term illness forum and let us know how you get on. Let them know they are not creating a "good impression"....
beauf wrote: » Most places have sick leave policies with strict limits to all types of leave. Things like a rolling counter totaled over 1, 2 and 4 yrs. your HR policies should indicate the limits. Are you just ignoring that, are not aware because you've never been informed.
bladespin wrote: » Please don't tell me what I'm implying, I didn't realise OP was terminally ill, I read the thread but must have missed that, OP you have my sympathies but I wouldn't worry about a probationary job if you're dealing with a terminal illness. I'm saying I wouldn't be inclined to take a sick day unless absolutely necessary, especially if I was on probation, even then I'd make damn sure a sick cert was delivered to work that day. Car trouble would excuse a late for me but not a day off. I have missed days due to illness, 3 in 8 years with my current employer, down to a fairly serious illness, I wouldn't be afraid to take a sick day but haven't needed more than that thankfully.
Graham wrote: » Cool, would you mind sharing a link to the legislation that defines those rolling counter sick leave limits?
beauf wrote: » A long term illness doesn't mean terminal. Arthritis is a long term illness.
beauf wrote: » Some have never taken a sick day in their life. They'll assume 3 days is way too many. I mean if you were working for 40 yrs its 3 weeks :eek:
Deleted User wrote: » An employer ultimately doesn't care about your personal health - all they care about is you do your job efficiently and can be relied on.Although HR might tell you otherwise their only function is to keep the company protected and happy.