Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Applying for internal vacancies while on long term sickness

Options
2

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 7,644 ✭✭✭GerardKeating


    You never mention in your origional post that you had taken early retirement.

    Without prying into the nature of the disability, If the new role would have make it easier for you to return to work then certainly you would/should have been able to apply. One might even argue, if a more suitable role existing that would accomidate the disability, then some might argue that they should have activily engaged with you to aid your return to work, but unless they activily prevented/discouraged you from seeking a new role, then then is no case for anyone to answer.



  • Registered Users Posts: 200 ✭✭LimerickGray


    part of the their long term illness scheme included a 3% increment yearly.
    I suspect they would allow me aren’t an interview as they knew it would be difficult for them to refuse promotion as it might look like discrimination on disability.

    the have a yearly review and I requested to participate even though I was not in work. I believe this was an en entitlement. They requested proof of captivity to participate and I couldn’t provide it easily - cost would be prohibitive to me to have reports written etc so I gave up. Odds are stacked in theirvfsvour.
    Salary increases are not based on individual performance but rather I. Company. Most in my dept for average 25% increase yearly.

    I guess attrnding an interview would be that same. Huge hoops to hop through to prove competence. I had brand damage and can’t speak well and balance issues. I’m an impressment to them I suppose. Sorry for starting this.
    One vacancy I should have applied for went to someone with 18months experience and the bare minimum of qualifications. I had +++ on this would have done well. Regardless.



  • Registered Users Posts: 150 ✭✭AnnieinDundrum


    I think I’d be hacked of if I applied for a job and watched a colleague who was on disability leave get it. Especially if they didn’t show up for the actual job later, not sure that could actually work. How can you appoint someone who has already sent proof of their inability to work?

    Maybe they should have sent you a notice of all the vacancies, I know we do that for anyone on say maternity leave, but we had someone on long term leave and while there was an annual letter to him which may or may not have included details of vacancies. But expecting him to come in and attend an interview would I think have been extremely unfair.

    As for you being better qualified, to prove that, you would also have to prove that you were able for work, thus ending your leave and then you’d have been the same as the other candidate I guess.



  • Registered Users Posts: 200 ✭✭LimerickGray


    i think that might be correct but laws don’t quite see it like that They don’t have to change my position to allow me return and that is why I had to leave

    Medically unfit to attend and interview or a department performance review is the tactic



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,139 ✭✭✭witchgirl26


    The problem is you would have had to show you were medically able to return to work in the new role in order to get those increases. They won't just give them to you because you're qualified enough. You would have had to attend interviews and also be in a position to take up the job itself. They wouldn't just give you the promotion & then have you off again on medical leave. That would leave them back where they started without someone to do the role they were hiring for.

    Put yourself in the hiring managers position. 2 candidates. Both similar qualifications. 1 maybe has more experience but they're currently on long term medical leave and there's a question mark over their ability to return to work. The other has a little less experience but is available to work. Which would you choose?

    Also 3% increment on salary is actually pretty ok. I know people not on medical leave who are getting less in yearly increments.



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 49,459 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    as per the above, i assume it would raise the question of 'what makes you medically fit for this job, when you were medically unfit for the last?'



  • Registered Users Posts: 150 ✭✭AnnieinDundrum


    actually did the OP ever apply?

    Were the jobs advertised outside the organisation? Or if it was internal did they check their emails?


    im not sure how the practicalities would work. We aren’t allowed attend the office if we are on a sick cert. So how could you even attend an interview? I guess it could be offsite.



  • Registered Users Posts: 116 ✭✭Avatar in the Post


    check out your OP. Try and keep your story consistent next time.



  • Registered Users Posts: 116 ✭✭Avatar in the Post


    You’re not in the Public Sector?

    Okay, this is simple. No, you definitely would not be entitled to promotion while out long term sick. In fact they could have legally managed you out.


    Instead, they were decent and had Income Protection so that you would be taken care of for the rest of your life. Employers don’t need to provide social services, but you’re not alone. I’ve come across more employees than I care to think about that are institutionalised into thinking a company is there to take care of them.



  • Registered Users Posts: 116 ✭✭Avatar in the Post


    Reading further, companies have a defence of ‘dignity in the work place’. This can be used as a defence for not putting someone with a disability/brain damage, out sick for years on sick leave through an arduous interview process.


    Also, BEFORE they could allow you back to a work setting their insurance company policy would demand you prove you can come back to work. THAT would have meant you losing out on your income Protection money… and you still might not have got a job. Since you were out on long term Income Protection the company had no obligation to hold your job.

    TL/DR they did you a favour



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 200 ✭✭LimerickGray


    someone friendly in the HR department told me off the record that if I was ever to attempt to return to work, then they would make me redundant for inability to perform duties. Regardless

    Thanks all



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,902 ✭✭✭tohaltuwi


    A long time ago in the general public services there might have been actually some truth in OP’s question, which I presume to be a p1$$take in present times. I have known of more than one case of somebody getting promoted in something of these circumstances, to beef up the pension. A very long time ago the Civil Service, people were commonly promoted to a job they simply could not have done, just before retirement, in order to get the increased pension.



  • Registered Users Posts: 116 ✭✭Avatar in the Post


    Until the person in HR was told to do their job and exit you.

    But, if you were guaranteed redundancy why didn’t you take it. Or, was your ICP worth more to you over the years?

    You were also of the opinion you were guaranteed promotions if you wanted it.



  • Registered Users Posts: 116 ✭✭Avatar in the Post


    As you say it’s now average and not final and the OP said they were not in the CS.



  • Registered Users Posts: 200 ✭✭LimerickGray


    no. The illness that I was on long term sick leave, was not the same illness I had to retire. Different scenarios sadly.
    I would have gone back to do the job but I could speak coherently or “normally”and that was a requirement for the role. I would have applied for roles that didn’t require speaking and were not as taxing. It wasn’t just about money.
    i might have gone on forever on the income protection as I’m getting less income now.



  • Registered Users Posts: 150 ✭✭AnnieinDundrum


    some older pension schemes included income protection for long term sickness.

    Finding a new role, one more suited to your abilities now would have been a nice thing to do, maybe a recruiter can help. Employers aren’t obliged to do that but some do.



  • Registered Users Posts: 116 ✭✭Avatar in the Post



    You didn’t apply when you could, so pointless speculating. If it’s any consolation it may not have been as clear cut as you consider.

    Basically, WHY didn’t you apply if you felt up to it?



  • Registered Users Posts: 244 ✭✭Immaculata


    I'm sorry you were ill or otherwise medically unable to work but without wishing to be uncharitable, one could wonder how one could expect you to be simultaneously too unwell to work but well enough to do an interview?



  • Registered Users Posts: 150 ✭✭AnnieinDundrum


    I can see how someone can be medically unfit for their job, and there’s another one that will work for them. Eg maybe the current one involves standing and the new one doesn’t. And a caring employer with an interest in employee welfare, and perhaps a desire to retain experienced staff, might look at moving them.

    but that’s at a point in time and is more likely to come from an individual member of staff with this motivation rather than a company policy in my experience.


    if you are absent and out of sight for a period you get forgotten simple as that. And if you want to return to work you have to manage it yourself and bang on doors and keep visible. Let people know that you are keen to return, they’d be accused of harassment if they chased you to show up for interviews etc.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,139 ✭✭✭witchgirl26


    Ok you can't make a person redundant, you can only make a role redundant. And that would take a while and they would not be able to hire anyone into that role again because the role is what is made redundant. You would have possibly been let go if unable to perform your duties. And they can't predetermine that before you go back because there is a whole back to work process when someone has been off on long term medical leave. But as a private business they don't owe you a promotion while you're off and can decide that if you are unable to fulfill the role that you can be let go. You wouldn't have gotten a redundancy package.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 200 ✭✭LimerickGray


    that’s not quite true. The reason for redundancy was that the work I was contracted for was being carried out by others.
    this happens a lot if someone is out a long time I suppose.

    thanks for all the help here.



  • Registered Users Posts: 116 ✭✭Avatar in the Post


    Exactly, and while other people taking on another person's role is a redundancy situation, it hardly applies in your position as

    1. They were covering your illness.
    2. You never let them know you were considering coming back to work

    Tell me again, what's the purpose of the thread? Do you think the company has in any way done something wrong?



  • Registered Users Posts: 200 ✭✭LimerickGray


    it’s ok. I have too much time on my hands since I became ill and spend too much time reading this board and procrastinating.
    Sorry for wasting your time.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,139 ✭✭✭witchgirl26


    No the role didn't cease to exist. Other people were covering. There is a massive difference. I covered my colleagues role while she was on maternity leave - her role was not at risk of redundancy.

    The rules for making a role redundant are incredibly strict & there's a whole process around it too that would be quite cumbersome to apparently just get rid of 1 person. Especially if the work still needed to be done. Much easier to let that person go & then be able to hire into the role.



  • Registered Users Posts: 200 ✭✭LimerickGray


    perhaps you are right but I’m looking at the paperwork here now. I was made voluntary redundant for the reason I gave.

    thanks



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,139 ✭✭✭witchgirl26


    Hold on - you said you retired? Which is it? Because even with voluntary redundancies, there's a process involved that the employer has to follow. And you would have received a package of statutory redundancy pay that I find it hard to believe you forgot about until you looked at the paperwork now.



  • Registered Users Posts: 200 ✭✭LimerickGray


    I wish you could see or hear me. You wouldn’t ask.

    Thank you for helping



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,139 ✭✭✭witchgirl26


    Why wouldn't I ask? It doesn't matter your situation there's a huge difference between retiring & being made redundant. Your actual personal circumstances don't change that.



  • Registered Users Posts: 200 ✭✭LimerickGray


    you are most kind.
    the point of this board was to invite conversation about whether it is possible to apply/gain positions internally when in long term sick leave.
    how I finished working isn’t relevant to that- other than I’m not there now.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 116 ✭✭Avatar in the Post


    story changes. It might actually be true, but you’d hardly be surprised if he said. “Gotcha!”


    🙃



Advertisement