Latest posts:
Rate this!
Bruce McQuillan
Member - 9 posts
Yet again this is causing complete confusion. Colin and Helen C is it not the case that in reality during a probation period or any other period within the first twelve months of employment has, in fact, no minimum requirements for anything they do provided it is not demonstrably based on discrimination or PIDA etc.
They do not have to follow SDDP if they desire they can sack you at 5am by singing telegram for no reason. They dont even have to give you a dimissal letter.
You cant claim unfair dismissal with less than 12 months service.
Rate this!
Bruce McQuillan
Member - 9 posts
I think apart from the inflamatory comments from one individual here two things are apparent from the thread. The scale of the problem and the drastic effect this problem can have on the individual lives of the targets....
Months off work, effects on the health and welfare of the family and the individual, effects on the welfare of other employees who are too terrified to speak up, breakdowns, suicides.... the list is as endless as it is unacceptable.
A 2005 editorial in the British Medical Journal noted that stress-related mental health problems had for the first time topped physical ailments as the chief cause of long-term sickness benefits claims in Britain.
http://www.hazards.org/suicide/cryingshame.htm gives details of work and bullying related suicides ranging from 18 year old girls to family GPs. If these people had been killed as a result of a football stand crashing to the ground anyone who made inflamatory comments such as Mr Maltby would be justifiably pillaried and ostracised and yet these people's lives are worth nothing in comparison ?
Standing up against bullying is not bullying the bully, it takes courage to raise your head above the parapet in defense of what is right and merely weakness and ignorance to do so to stand up for what is so clearly wrong...
Rate this!
Bruce McQuillan
Member - 9 posts
I have to say i am not sure Mr Maltby's comments on this issue are either appropriate or welcome on this board IMHO.
Rate this!
Bruce McQuillan
Member - 9 posts
Mr DuPree i second that motion. After all the type of employer who should be ASBO'd is likely to be exactly the type of employer to abuse a "dishonest employee" database to discredit those with a genuine greivance.
This is an awful idea and will only benefit the lawyers. Guilty until proven innocent ?
Rate this!
Bruce McQuillan
Member - 9 posts
We recently had to let a new start go during her probation period. The new start had not approached us for a job but we had approached her via email im not sure that makes any difference.
The Letter of Offer suggested a three month probation period at the end of which a review would take place.
The contract suggests we can dismiss at any time during the probation period with one week notice.
The former employee is now suggeting that at offer stage we had agreed that due to the nature of the appointment a three month period would be required to build a sales funnel and that since we dismissed her two months in she is due pay in lieu of notice up to that three months and not one week as suggested by contract.
My partner dismissed her and did not follow any procedures as such simply called her into an office and apologised that this was not working out. Not perhaps the view i would have taken.
What notice period applies ? One week ?
Rate this!
Bruce McQuillan
Member - 9 posts
Absolutely Carole ! Issues surrounding disability are still anathema, in fact lets just call it "difference" because the problem is rarely the limits of that disability but that perception of "difference". Its the same generosity of human spirit that makes us marvel at an Amazon Tribe when we watch it on Bruce Parry and then build a motorway through their lands with no thought for anything but the prize fuel, diamonds, minerals whatever.
Whatever happened to "its not the winning that counts but how you play the game" ? And WE are the civilised ones, yes ?
Rate this!
Bruce McQuillan
Member - 9 posts
Derek Type 1 diabetes (insulin controlled) is a "chronic medical condition" in terms of the DDA. As Kevin suggests the test for this would be the effects without treatment. Since the log term effects of insulin depedant diabetes without medication are coma and death i would say thats pretty final, speaking as an insulin dependant Type 1 Diabetic with no reincarnation fantasies !
From a practical viewpoint however i can understand your hesitation in labelling it as such simply because on a day to day basis a diabetic can perform and indeed outperform someone without, just look at Steve Redgrave.
Nevertheless in a society as negative as the one we live in where, as you suggest, you feel you have been treated less favourably because you declared your condition it is for that very reason that since 1995 the DDA has protected you.
Until, to pharaphrase Martin Luther King, lil diabetic boys and lil employer girls can play nice together, i would suggest you avail yourself of any protection that is afforded to you by law.
Rate this!
Bruce McQuillan
Member - 9 posts
The question says more than the answers here Veronica. The employee you describe has a chronic medical condition, he is not a reformed criminal where there would be a moral question as to whether you should give him a "second chance".
If you were to consider dismissing this candidate as a result of DDA related illness then then i would suggest that legal system would be more likely to look at you, as the Employer as if you were a criminal, and quite rightly so.
After all Veronica is the fact that you have asked this question in itself not justification, from your employee's perspective, to withold information about his chronic medical condition. It is clear from your comments that you are considering what action, if any, you should take, simply because the employee has a disability !
How would you feel if you came on this message board and found an email from your boss suggesting he wished to dismiss you because you were not a natural blonde ?
0 (0)
