Disciplinary for sickness

[smadge]

Hey

Just want some advice please. i am a bipolar sufferer and was off work for 6 weeks due to a breakdown, i was told that this wouldnt affect my sickness. i was happy with this until today when ive had an investigation at work because since then ive had 3 more abscences (my medication for bipolar ruins my immune system) and its not been included! i understand ive had a lot of time off but still i was told this wouldnt be affected and it has now been taken into account.

ive been told i could get a disciplinary for this. where do i stand with having a mental health issue? i feel they do not understand me

thanks

[Hurricane Puffrose]

Re: Disciplinary for sickness

BUMP

[stevread1]

Re: Disciplinary for sickness

Did you make the company aware of the situation on your application form or did they give you a medical health form to fill in on your induction asking to disclose any health issues ?
You need to go to your displinery and explain and make them understand fully that your absences were due to your illness. Maybe it would be a good idea to get a letter from your doctor explaining this if possible. Make sure you take someone in with you as a witness.

Remember a disciplinery may not lead to any further action just go in and state your case.

[bluebottle]

Re: Disciplinary for sickness

If your employers knew of your bi-polar disorder when you started your employment with them, they are required to comply with the requirements of the Equality Act 2010, which includes making reasonable adjustments. Taking disciplinary action because you have been absent due to an illness that is recognised by the NHS and World Health Organisation (WHO), they haven't really got much of a leg to stand on. If you are a trade union member, you TU rep will put your employer in their place. However, your employer does need to have it made very clear to them that their actions may well place them in breach of the law, which could lead to a fine, civil damages and loss of reputation. An Employment Tribunal is, in my opinion, unlikely to take a favourable view of your employer's behaviour in the matter. A court of law is likely to tear them to shreds. Either way, your employer is on dangerous ground legally.

[smadge]

Re: Disciplinary for sickness

hey

thanks for your response everyone. yes they were aware of my condition when i started. they also now have a letter from my doctor to confirm my illness. when i went into the review with them they said it was a 'fact find' and that i didnt need someone to come in with me, which was ok until they started to question me and seemed not to understand. i found it very funny my manager saying : hopefully one day you will come off the drugs, its not good to be on them long term. - clearly he doesnt understand as mood stabilisers are essential to my condition and i will never come off them. just goes to show they have no idea about my illness at all.

[stevread1]

Re: Disciplinary for sickness

Good to hear you wasn't disaplined, hopefully all will be o.k. now.

[smadge]

Re: Disciplinary for sickness

ive been told they are going to investigate and decide if they want to take action
so its just a waiting game

[Eloise01]

Re: Disciplinary for sickness

If your employers knew of your bi-polar disorder when you started your employment with them, they are required to comply with the requirements of the Equality Act 2010, which includes making reasonable adjustments. Taking disciplinary action because you have been absent due to an illness that is recognised by the NHS and World Health Organisation (WHO), they haven't really got much of a leg to stand on. If you are a trade union member, you TU rep will put your employer in their place. However, your employer does need to have it made very clear to them that their actions may well place them in breach of the law, which could lead to a fine, civil damages and loss of reputation. An Employment Tribunal is, in my opinion, unlikely to take a favourable view of your employer's behaviour in the matter. A court of law is likely to tear them to shreds. Either way, your employer is on dangerous ground legally.

I'm sorry but I have to disagree with this rendering of the law. In the first instance, influenza is also an illness recognised by the NHS and WHO - but if your employer has a policy to manage sickness absence, then this fact will not prevent the employer from dealing with you in this way. Medical conditions and disabilities are not the same thing in law, and the basis upon which managing sickness absence policies may operate in a discriminatory fashion is based solely on a disability being present, which in this case it is - not on whether someone has a medical condtion recognised by the NHS or WHO.

Where a disability exists, an employer is required to consider requests for reasonable adjustments, and to make adjustments where is is reasonable to do so. THis is a long way from being a requirement. In this case the employer clearly knew that a disability existed, so the onus was not on the OP to ask for reasonable adjustments, although it is always best to formally do so, for the sake of clarity. In relation to a managing sickness absence policy, a reasonable adjustment may be to discount some or all of sickness which occurs as a result of the disability. But it does not have to be. The law does not define what "reasonable" means, because what is reasonable in one circumstance is not reasonable in another, and it is therefore left to tribunals to determine what is reasonable in individual employers situations. What may be reasonable for a large multi-national or other large employer who may have 6,000 people doing the same job as the poster, may not be reasonable where the employer is a small employer with only one person doing the job. Therefore, the law places the onus on an employer to demonstrate that their decision to refuse an adjustment is reasonable - but it is far from impossible for an employer to do exactly that, and since we know nothing here about the OP's employer or their job, it is impossible to speculate whether the employer is being reasonable or not.

The OP's best line of defence in this, regardless of what they may have been told verbally, is to formally, and in writing, ask for a reasonable adjustment to the managing sickness absence policy to discount sickness resulting from their disability. Although the employer should be aware of their disability, and yes, should be cautious in their approach to how they handle sickness absence, it is always best to get things forally in writing and agreed. If nothing else, this provides evidence should the matter go any further. But it is misleading to assume that all sickness absence arising from a disability must be treated differently from any other sickness absence, or that something is discriminatory based on very few facts and almost no information. The Equality Act provisions are designed to level the playing field, not to treat protected groups better, or to interfere with the ability of the employer to manage and run their business. That is why the word "reasonable" is used in this, and other, aspects of employment law. Because what is "reasonable" or possible cannot be a defined answer for all circumstances.

[stevread1]

Re: Disciplinary for sickness

When I worked for a company a few years ago when some one continually used to have time off for a single illness, in disaplinerys they would say that they could dismiss you as "unfit for work". Never saw them do this but I know they threatened a few people with this.

[Eloise01]

Re: Disciplinary for sickness

When I worked for a company a few years ago when some one continually used to have time off for a single illness, in disaplinerys they would say that they could dismiss you as "unfit for work". Never saw them do this but I know they threatened a few people with this.

This is part of the same thing - sometimes called a capability process or managing sickness absence policy. It is a form of disciplinary process (which is why, if there are set triggers and policies in place, some employers use the disciplinary process) which may lead to dismissal. It may be used for long term absence (a single illness) or for repeated absences for multiple illnesses. So what I said above applies - in the event that someone has a disability, it may be a reasonable adjustment to discount sickness or some sickness absence relating to the disability, but the reasonableness of doing this would depend on the employers ability do so. Some employers are exceedingly ferocious in their application of such policies - as indeed, they would need to be to be able to demonstrate consistency - and this is becoming increasingly the case with many employers. Others, when faced with long term sickness of a single absence / cause tend to take a laid back approach and only apply policies to short term sickness. This is because it is often the simplest and easiest thing to do - sit back, wait until sick pay runs out (either contractual or SSP) and then wait until the employee cannot afford to remain in work any longer and resigns.

[bluebottle]

Re: Disciplinary for sickness

This is part of the same thing - sometimes called a capability process or managing sickness absence policy. It is a form of disciplinary process (which is why, if there are set triggers and policies in place, some employers use the disciplinary process) which may lead to dismissal. It may be used for long term absence (a single illness) or for repeated absences for multiple illnesses. So what I said above applies - in the event that someone has a disability, it may be a reasonable adjustment to discount sickness or some sickness absence relating to the disability, but the reasonableness of doing this would depend on the employers ability do so. Some employers are exceedingly ferocious in their application of such policies - as indeed, they would need to be to be able to demonstrate consistency - and this is becoming increasingly the case with many employers. Others, when faced with long term sickness of a single absence / cause tend to take a laid back approach and only apply policies to short term sickness. This is because it is often the simplest and easiest thing to do - sit back, wait until sick pay runs out (either contractual or SSP) and then wait until the employee cannot afford to remain in work any longer and resigns.

And I fear this is where a lot of employers will, eventually, come unstuck. I have a pretty good knowledge of mental health issues and have worked with disabled persons over a 35-year period, apart from the time I spent in the police force. Bi-Polar Disorder is an enduring condition and, as the OP states, mood stabilising medication is essential to keep him well. However, there are going to be occasions when medication stops controlling the euphoria and depression that is symptomatic of Bi-Polar Disorder, necessitating admission to hospital or home treatment by Community Psychiatric Teams in order to stabilise the patient's condition.

Employers may feel they have the upper hand where sickness absence is concerned and, if an employee is "swinging the lead", then, yes, disciplinary action is wholly appropriate, but what is, in essence, a form of legalised bullying and coming very close to bringing employee and employer into conflict with health and safety legislation is neither appropriate or, in my considered judgement, should it be tolerated. The law needs tightening up and some employers do need to have a warning shot fired across their bows. TBH, I can see legislation coming to clamp down on this odious practice by employers who give other employers, who treat their employees fairly and like human beings, the same bad name as themselves.

[Eloise01]

Re: Disciplinary for sickness

And I fear this is where a lot of employers will, eventually, come unstuck. I have a pretty good knowledge of mental health issues and have worked with disabled persons over a 35-year period, apart from the time I spent in the police force. Bi-Polar Disorder is an enduring condition and, as the OP states, mood stabilising medication is essential to keep him well. However, there are going to be occasions when medication stops controlling the euphoria and depression that is symptomatic of Bi-Polar Disorder, necessitating admission to hospital or home treatment by Community Psychiatric Teams in order to stabilise the patient's condition.

Employers may feel they have the upper hand where sickness absence is concerned and, if an employee is "swinging the lead", then, yes, disciplinary action is wholly appropriate, but what is, in essence, a form of legalised bullying and coming very close to bringing employee and employer into conflict with health and safety legislation is neither appropriate or, in my considered judgement, should it be tolerated. The law needs tightening up and some employers do need to have a warning shot fired across their bows. TBH, I can see legislation coming to clamp down on this odious practice by employers who give other employers, who treat their employees fairly and like human beings, the same bad name as themselves.

I can't disagree with the sentiment, but I'm afraid I do with the conclusion. The legislation that is coming, given current trends, will be draconian and will further erode both employment rights and the ability of employees to challenge employers. Anyone not in a union should either join one now, or take out exceedingly good legal insurance.

If the OP comes back it would be helpful if they could clarify the matter of the size of employer and their role. It would be easier to advise with this information.

[bluebottle]

Re: Disciplinary for sickness

I can't disagree with the sentiment, but I'm afraid I do with the conclusion. The legislation that is coming, given current trends, will be draconian and will further erode both employment rights and the ability of employees to challenge employers. Anyone not in a union should either join one now, or take out exceedingly good legal insurance.

If the OP comes back it would be helpful if they could clarify the matter of the size of employer and their role. It would be easier to advise with this information.

In order to push through the legislation you mention, the ConDem government have to stay in office long enough to push it through. And to be perfectly honest, I cannot see that happening. Too many things are being uncovered and people won't tolerate it. The ConDems have had to do U-turns on a number of issues already and I have a gut-feeling there will be a snap General Election around April of this year, following a vote of No Confidence in the ConDem government, which the government will lose. They are pushing the people too far, too fast and the people will hit back, but not in the way of violence on the streets, which is what Cameron & Co want. The Conservative element are acting out Thatcher's communitarian fantasies and trying to bring them into reality. They will not achieve it. What you have outlined is Corporate Fascism in its rawest state.

[Eloise01]

Re: Disciplinary for sickness

The primary legislation is already in place - and Labour will almost certainly not repeal it. That is the pattern of history. Not one of Thatcher's employment "reforms" was repealed by the later Labour Government - the only ones repealed were fought in the courts and won by lawyers. So if you want to see the repeal of the two year qualifying period for employment protection, or the charges to lodge a tribunal claim repealed, I think it will take more than a snap election. Don't get me wrong - love to see it happen your way. Just too old and cynical to believe it!

[bluebottle]

Re: Disciplinary for sickness

Things are changing very rapidly and those who are pushing for a lot of the more draconian measures are the banksters. They are the ones driving a lot of it. Pure unadulterated greed is the motivating factor. However, the US government and the EU are turning the screws on them. The US government has made it clear that it is going to start investigating banks and financial institutions and will seek to jail anyone they find who has been defrauding consumers. The EU is doing something similar. And I understand there are moves afoot to bring the US Federal Reserve back under US government control, i.e. public ownership. When that was put to David Rockefeller, from the look on his face, he looked as if he was having a stroke! He thinks that he, the Rothschild Family and other banking dynasties run the world. They are so far out of touch with reality, that's what they believe. Take away their ability to manipulate the money markets and governments and they are impotent, along with the big corporations they own. Then watch the management of those big corporations run for cover.