Please help problems at work

[Publius enigma]

Hi, this is my last resort as I need some answers!


my mother is disabled and has been in and out of hospital lately. I am currently running around back and forth from my home to hers, and I also work full time (shift work, days and afternoon shift).


sometime ago I worked a continental shift pattern and there was an opportunity to go onto 2 shifts, so I requested to go on these, to which my manager agreed as I was having trouble with child care as my mother used to look after the kids. Both me and my partner work full time so this was much easier.


a fellow employee is going to be off for 4 to 6 weeks and I have been given a weeks notice that I am to go back onto continental shifts to cover his job. My manager knows my mother has been in and out of hospital lately and I am caring for her and if I was to go back on these shift I wouldn't be able to help her out as I will be working 12 hours.


he has requested a meeting tomorrow and I have requested a member of HR to be there. I feel like I am being intimidated by this manager as he is a manager that normally goes mental.


Can someone please help as I don't know where I stand?


Should I record the meeting on my phone and tell them before the meeting starts?


please where do I stand legally?

[labman]

Re: Please help problems at work

Firstly I must make it very clear that employment is not my area, but you said this is a last resort and it sounds like you need the answers quickly.

I have read around the issue for you, and as far as I can ascertain you have no legal right to any amendment in your working conditions. If your employer wants you to go back to a continental shift, he can. It would be different if it was an emergency, but it isn't, or if it was a child under the age of 16, which it isn't.

You may be able to ask on compassionate grounds, and from the tiny amount of knowledge I've gleaned reading around for you, this appears to be your best option.

I realise this is probably not what you wanted to hear, but I do think the employer is on a strong wicket here.

I hope sincerely someone with more knowledge than me comes along to help, and to say whether my small bit of research has come up with a good suggestion for you or not.

[Publius enigma]

Re: Please help problems at work

Firstly I must make it very clear that employment is not my area, but you said this is a last resort and it sounds like you need the answers quickly.

I have read around the issue for you, and as far as I can ascertain you have no legal right to any amendment in your working conditions. If your employer wants you to go back to a continental shift, he can. It would be different if it was an emergency, but it isn't, or if it was a child under the age of 16, which it isn't.

You may be able to ask on compassionate grounds, and from the tiny amount of knowledge I've gleaned reading around for you, this appears to be your best option.

I realise this is probably not what you wanted to hear, but I do think the employer is on a strong wicket here.

I hope sincerely someone with more knowledge than me comes along to help, and to say whether my small bit of research has come up with a good suggestion for you or not.

Hi, thanks for the reply. I feel like I am being bullied into something I can't do, can I not go down the route of being her carer?

[labman]

Re: Please help problems at work

Hi, thanks for the reply. I feel like I am being bullied into something I can't do, can I not go down the route of being her carer?

These are the rules for getting Carer's Allowance (£59.75 per week)

• You must be 16 years old or over.
• You must look after someone for at least 35 hours a week.
• The person you look after must receive a qualifying disability benefit.
• If you work, you must not have net earnings above £100 a week. For more information on this, see the section on caring and earnings below.
• You must not get certain other benefits. See overlapping benefit rules below for details.
• You must be living in the UK when you claim Carer's Allowance and satisfy certain residence and immigration rules.
• You must not be a full-time student.

It is not a means tested benefit.

Clearly this would have a huge impact on your work situation, and the fact remains that if you wanted to stay at work, you'd be very limited as to how many hours you could work. Also they have no obligation I'm aware of to change your contractual hours, but one of the more knowledgeable people will hopefully tell you that.

There is a lot of information on the internet if you Google the subject, and unlike your Pink Floyd username, perhaps this one can be more easily solved for you.

[charitynjw]

Re: Please help problems at work

Hi Publius enigma, & welcome to Legal Beagles.

You have every right to request flexible working hours.

Unfortunately the employer has every right to not allow same, therefore saying "Sorry, but no!" to the request.

They often quote the need for efficient use of the workforce as the reason for refusal.

You would be expected to make your request in writing, giving an alternative plan for your working hours which benefits the company.

[charitynjw]

Re: Please help problems at work

The other matter which I think you are referring to, concerning your disabled mother, is known as associative discrimination.

For example
In Bainbridge v Atlas Ward Structures Ltd an employment tribunal held that an employee had been discriminated against by association when his fixed-term contract was not renewed because he had, on occasion, had to take leave at short notice because of his wife’s disability.
Bainbridge was one of 12 temporary welders employed on fixed-term contracts. His contract had been renewed on two previous occasions as he was a good worker. Bainbridge’s wife is disabled for the purposes of the Equality Act.His contract was not renewed when the employer decided it had one welder too many, but he was given no reason at the time. Bainbridge suggested that the reason was the amount of time that he had had to take off work because of his wife’s disability, particularly at short notice, which had “irritated” his manager, but he was assured this was not the case. His appeal against dismissal was rejected, but he was not provided with a reason as to why it had been him, rather than any of the 12 other temporary welders who had been selected for dismissal.
A tribunal upheld Bainbridge’s claim that he had been directly discriminated against because of his wife’s disability, i.e. associative discrimination.The critical issue was causation: why had his contract not been renewed? The evidence showed he was a good worker. His attendance record, other than for the periods of leave he had taken at short notice (all with the employer’s approval), was good. The employer’s HR representative, even though pressed repeatedly to explain the reason for selection, could not do so. So, in the absence of any other plausible reason, Bainbridge’s selection was because he had taken leave at short notice to care for his disabled wife, and therefore he had been directly discriminated against because of his wife’s disability, for which he was awarded £10,500 in compensation.

Also
Price v Action-Tec Services Ltd t/a Associated Telecom Solutions
[2013] EqLR 429
Topic(s): Disability: direct discrimination, harassment
Shrewsbury Employment Tribunal, 29 January 2013.

The Claimant, Rachel Price, has a degenerative disc disease, as a result was absent from work for some days due to back pain. Her husband has leukemia. When her husband’s condition deteriorated, Mrs Price found it hard to concentrate at work, and was signed off for a week by her GP as having high blood pressure. When she returned to work, she was told by her employer that her employment was not working out and “if I had known about your husband’s illness I wouldn’t, no might not, have taken you on”. He then terminated her employment with immediate effect. Mrs Price brought a claim of disability discrimination.
The Tribunal pointed out that it is clear from the wording of the Equality Act that it is unlawful to discriminate “on grounds of disability – not simply or necessarily on grounds of the Claimant’s disability”. The Equality Act 2010 was intended to extend the prohibition on direct discrimination to associative discrimination and Price v Action-Tec Services Ltd t/a Associated Telecom Solutions illustrates the difference this protection makes.

[Publius enigma]

Re: Please help problems at work

The other matter which I think you are referring to, concerning your disabled mother, is known as associative discrimination.

For example
In Bainbridge v Atlas Ward Structures Ltd an employment tribunal held that an employee had been discriminated against by association when his fixed-term contract was not renewed because he had, on occasion, had to take leave at short notice because of his wife’s disability.
Bainbridge was one of 12 temporary welders employed on fixed-term contracts. His contract had been renewed on two previous occasions as he was a good worker. Bainbridge’s wife is disabled for the purposes of the Equality Act.His contract was not renewed when the employer decided it had one welder too many, but he was given no reason at the time. Bainbridge suggested that the reason was the amount of time that he had had to take off work because of his wife’s disability, particularly at short notice, which had “irritated” his manager, but he was assured this was not the case. His appeal against dismissal was rejected, but he was not provided with a reason as to why it had been him, rather than any of the 12 other temporary welders who had been selected for dismissal.
A tribunal upheld Bainbridge’s claim that he had been directly discriminated against because of his wife’s disability, i.e. associative discrimination.The critical issue was causation: why had his contract not been renewed? The evidence showed he was a good worker. His attendance record, other than for the periods of leave he had taken at short notice (all with the employer’s approval), was good. The employer’s HR representative, even though pressed repeatedly to explain the reason for selection, could not do so. So, in the absence of any other plausible reason, Bainbridge’s selection was because he had taken leave at short notice to care for his disabled wife, and therefore he had been directly discriminated against because of his wife’s disability, for which he was awarded £10,500 in compensation.

Also
Price v Action-Tec Services Ltd t/a Associated Telecom Solutions
[2013] EqLR 429
Topic(s): Disability: direct discrimination, harassment
Shrewsbury Employment Tribunal, 29 January 2013.

The Claimant, Rachel Price, has a degenerative disc disease, as a result was absent from work for some days due to back pain. Her husband has leukemia. When her husband’s condition deteriorated, Mrs Price found it hard to concentrate at work, and was signed off for a week by her GP as having high blood pressure. When she returned to work, she was told by her employer that her employment was not working out and “if I had known about your husband’s illness I wouldn’t, no might not, have taken you on”. He then terminated her employment with immediate effect. Mrs Price brought a claim of disability discrimination.
The Tribunal pointed out that it is clear from the wording of the Equality Act that it is unlawful to discriminate “on grounds of disability – not simply or necessarily on grounds of the Claimant’s disability”. The Equality Act 2010 was intended to extend the prohibition on direct discrimination to associative discrimination and Price v Action-Tec Services Ltd t/a Associated Telecom Solutions illustrates the difference this protection makes.

hi,thanks for the replies. I have phoned acas and they have told me the company has to give me 90 days notice by law. I've always thought it was a week as this is what they have done in the past.

I really don't want to attend work today as I've not really slept and I'm feeling sick at the thought of going in.


thanks

[charitynjw]

Re: Please help problems at work

If you're ill, you're ill!

However, if it looks like it may last a while, if it were me I would see a GP & get it 'official', if only to 'cover' myself.

[smileyculture]

Re: Please help problems at work

On the carer issue, I had to care for someone for 6 months before I could apply for an allowance. This was back in 2008, so things might have changed but it was not straight forward then. On the job front, the employers seem to have the law heavily on their side at the moment.