Marc Gander - The Consumer Survival Handbook


A 220 page introduction to all things consumer related by our own BankFodder.

Includes energy companies, mobile phone providers, retailers, banks, insurance companies,debt collection agencies, reclaim companies, secondhand car sellers, cowboy garages, cowboy builders and all the rest who put their own profits before you.

£6.99



Patricia Pearl - Small Claims Procedure - A Practical Guide


An excellent guide for the layperson in how to use the County Court - a must if you are intending to start a claim.

£19.99 + £1.50 (P&P)


+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 41 to 46 of 46
  1. #41
    Royalties Account Holder ericsbrother Authoritative ericsbrother Authoritative ericsbrother Authoritative ericsbrother Authoritative ericsbrother Authoritative ericsbrother Authoritative ericsbrother Authoritative ericsbrother Authoritative ericsbrother Authoritative ericsbrother Authoritative ericsbrother Authoritative



    Follow Real_CAG on Twitter
    Cagger since : Nov 2012
    Posts : 12,925 (6.84 post per day)

    Default Re: Employers Breaching Duty Of Care

    So, they have a written policy on childcare and flexible working?
    the last line of your original post asks about whether this was a breach of a duty of care. in short, no because they have policies in place that dont appear to breach the Equalities Act. You might not like them but they are there. Your OP also mentioned schizophrenia. This isnt a condition that is stress related so throwing everything into the mix doesnt actually help with the case you are trying to argue.
    I cant see this going anywhere good. The managers who were trying to get to an undersatnding of what is wrong andthe liklihood of a return to work have done a poor job at going about their tasks and have behaved insensitively but this is not the same as breaching a duty of care or breach of their contractual and legal obligations to him. If your brother does indeed have schizophrenia then it will be nigh on impossible for anyone to persuade him what the best course of action is if he has it in his mind to believe certain events are as he sees them rather than as others see them.
    I see no successful or happy outcome and this is not because I do not wish things to be considered in his favour, I know from experience that the law is massively weighted against ordinary employees in every area of employment. If there is a pension scheme he belongs to then there may be some room for an inprived ouitcome there but most schemes updated their rules over the last few years to make ill-health retirement almost impossible as well.


  2. #42
    Basic Account Holder gleno Novitiate



    Follow Real_CAG on Twitter
    Cagger since : Apr 2017
    Posts : 26 (0.10 post per day)

    Default Re: Employers Breaching Duty Of Care

    Quote Originally Posted by ericsbrother View Post
    So, they have a written policy on childcare and flexible working?
    the last line of your original post asks about whether this was a breach of a duty of care. in short, no because they have policies in place that dont appear to breach the Equalities Act. You might not like them but they are there. Your OP also mentioned schizophrenia. This isnt a condition that is stress related so throwing everything into the mix doesnt actually help with the case you are trying to argue.
    I cant see this going anywhere good. The managers who were trying to get to an undersatnding of what is wrong andthe liklihood of a return to work have done a poor job at going about their tasks and have behaved insensitively but this is not the same as breaching a duty of care or breach of their contractual and legal obligations to him. If your brother does indeed have schizophrenia then it will be nigh on impossible for anyone to persuade him what the best course of action is if he has it in his mind to believe certain events are as he sees them rather than as others see them.
    I see no successful or happy outcome and this is not because I do not wish things to be considered in his favour, I know from experience that the law is massively weighted against ordinary employees in every area of employment. If there is a pension scheme he belongs to then there may be some room for an inprived ouitcome there but most schemes updated their rules over the last few years to make ill-health retirement almost impossible as well.
    But how fair was that manager who actually has an outstanding grievance against him trying to establish contact? I previously mentioned that the doctors etc said have contact with family is fine but directly contacting him was only worsening his condition. We even suggested contacts to be maintained via occupational health physicians. May be because I do not have any experience of the law I take your words but lets see how things turn up.


  3. #43
    Basic Account Holder Sangie595 Highly informative Sangie595 Highly informative Sangie595 Highly informative Sangie595 Highly informative Sangie595 Highly informative Sangie595 Highly informative



    Follow Real_CAG on Twitter
    Cagger since : Nov 2016
    Posts : 507 (1.21 post per day)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gleno View Post
    But how fair was that manager who actually has an outstanding grievance against him trying to establish contact? I previously mentioned that the doctors etc said have contact with family is fine but directly contacting him was only worsening his condition. We even suggested contacts to be maintained via occupational health physicians. May be because I do not have any experience of the law I take your words but lets see how things turn up.
    How do you know there is an outstanding grievance - I very much doubt there is after this period of time. It's probably been dealt with, and found in the managers favour because your brother refuses to engage with the employer! There is no way it is reasonable that an employer hangs this over someone's head for the length of time we are talking about here.

    And I don't think you heard what I said - they are legally obliged to communicate with THEIR EMPLOYEE. You asking them to talk to you, his wife asking them to talk to her, his doctor saying that they should talk to his cousin six times removed on his mother's side.... None of you have the authority to instruct an employer to talk to someone who is, to them, a complete stranger. Even if you have a lawyer, it would be expected that communication would go to the employee- not the lawyer.

    I had missed or forgotten the mention of your brother having schizophrenia. But I had thought to ask yesterday, and decided better of it, to ask why he was off sick originally, whether there was a history of mental illness, and why he'd asked for the transfer in the first place. But I can now see what the insurers will be arguing... If there is a history of mental illness, then his judgement of "stress" is questionable, and it is a pre-existing condition which is not their responsibility. I'd lay bets that's what they will be saying. Many of these policies exclude mental illness, or pre-existing mental illness, and it is very difficult to argue "work related stress" as a separate condition with no connection to his existing condition.


  4. #44
    Basic Account Holder Sangie595 Highly informative Sangie595 Highly informative Sangie595 Highly informative Sangie595 Highly informative Sangie595 Highly informative Sangie595 Highly informative



    Follow Real_CAG on Twitter
    Cagger since : Nov 2016
    Posts : 507 (1.21 post per day)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gleno View Post
    Sangie are you saying that if company wants to make changes to an employee's contract then this employee is not entitled to a union representation? He had a Flexible contract in place and manager wanted to make changes to that contract. I may not know much but I would definitely say that if meeting is about making changes to work patterns or contract of work an employee is entitled to union representation
    No. I am saying he had no right to union representation in that meeting. He should have gone, listened, contacted the union after. And he had flexible working in his previous position - that doesn't mean he had it in a new one. So you can "definitely say" what you want - in law he was NOT entitled to union representation in that meeting, and that is what the law says. Not me. Not you. The law.


  5. #45
    Basic Account Holder gleno Novitiate



    Follow Real_CAG on Twitter
    Cagger since : Apr 2017
    Posts : 26 (0.10 post per day)

    Default Re: Employers Breaching Duty Of Care

    Quote Originally Posted by Sangie595 View Post
    How do you know there is an outstanding grievance - I very much doubt there is after this period of time. It's probably been dealt with, and found in the managers favour because your brother refuses to engage with the employer! There is no way it is reasonable that an employer hangs this over someone's head for the length of time we are talking about here.

    And I don't think you heard what I said - they are legally obliged to communicate with THEIR EMPLOYEE. You asking them to talk to you, his wife asking them to talk to her, his doctor saying that they should talk to his cousin six times removed on his mother's side.... None of you have the authority to instruct an employer to talk to someone who is, to them, a complete stranger. Even if you have a lawyer, it would be expected that communication would go to the employee- not the lawyer.

    I had missed or forgotten the mention of your brother having schizophrenia. But I had thought to ask yesterday, and decided better of it, to ask why he was off sick originally, whether there was a history of mental illness, and why he'd asked for the transfer in the first place. But I can now see what the insurers will be arguing... If there is a history of mental illness, then his judgement of "stress" is questionable, and it is a pre-existing condition which is not their responsibility. I'd lay bets that's what they will be saying. Many of these policies exclude mental illness, or pre-existing mental illness, and it is very difficult to argue "work related stress" as a separate condition with no connection to his existing condition.
    Thanks Sangie,
    My understanding of law is clearly different to yours (your knowledge is far better), and I found your messages very useful. To answer your question, HR has recently written confirming that his outstanding grievance is still active if he wishes to pursue it. Therefore, even though you do not agree, I still strongly believe that a manager with an outstanding grievance should not be contacting person who has laid allegations against him.

    He requested transfer because he was already working in that department. Only difference was that his salary was paid by another department so he thought why not just get transferred officially to the department he was already working in. He was already sick for stress too, not for Schizophrenia, there was a history of mental illness but it was not present at the time of actual incident. They were under control for few years (no medication, no treatment) but they kicked in again as a consequence of the trauma he suffered.


  6. #46
    Basic Account Holder Sangie595 Highly informative Sangie595 Highly informative Sangie595 Highly informative Sangie595 Highly informative Sangie595 Highly informative Sangie595 Highly informative



    Follow Real_CAG on Twitter
    Cagger since : Nov 2016
    Posts : 507 (1.21 post per day)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gleno View Post
    Thanks Sangie,
    My understanding of law is clearly different to yours (your knowledge is far better), and I found your messages very useful. To answer your question, HR has recently written confirming that his outstanding grievance is still active if he wishes to pursue it. Therefore, even though you do not agree, I still strongly believe that a manager with an outstanding grievance should not be contacting person who has laid allegations against him.

    He requested transfer because he was already working in that department. Only difference was that his salary was paid by another department so he thought why not just get transferred officially to the department he was already working in. He was already sick for stress too, not for Schizophrenia, there was a history of mental illness but it was not present at the time of actual incident. They were under control for few years (no medication, no treatment) but they kicked in again as a consequence of the trauma he suffered.
    I know this isn't easy for you to get, but what toy believe isn't law! And I'm not getting sarcastic there - your are a long way off being the only person confusing that fact. The law doesn't say this. It's for the employer to decide. And for a tribunal to determine in the final place. But they often don't agree with what people believe.

    And I think you'll find that if this goes to a tribunal they are going to strongly argue that this was all down to his irrational behaviour - because of his mental illness. Bottom line - he didn't have a right to refuse to meet his manager, and he had no right to union representation at that meeting. He already had a history of mental illness and instability. It's all in his mind. And that isn't what I'm saying. It's what they will say. And they might just convince a tribunal. Either way they will rip his mental health to shreds - literally - in a tribunal. Is that something he can cope with? Because it isn't something I would wish on my worst enemy.

    Be careful what you wish for. Because neither wishes nor beliefs always turn into what you wanted.



Reclaim the Right Ltd. - reg.05783665 in the UK reg. office:- 923 Finchley Road London NW11 7PE
We use cookies to personalise content and ads and to provide social media features. We also share information about your use of our site with our advertising and analytics partners. See details