Disciplinary Meeting

[dazedndconfussed]

Hello all.

 

After a few absences in the last 7 months (3 separate periods all with the same medical condition and all accompanied by a Dr's note) and returning to work over a month ago, I was informed that I would be receiving a verbal warning for unsatisfactory attendance.

 

After waiting over a month for this meeting, I was informed yesterday afternoon that the meeting was scheduled for today.

 

I was just wondering if it is usual to have to wait such along time from returning to work and receiving the disciplinary warning?

 

Also, part of the warning means that I am unable to take any days of sick for a period of 7 months (so I hope my medical condition doesn't flare up again) - should the 7 month period start from the date I returned to work or the date of the warning (as previously mentioned, I have been waiting a month for).

 

Thanks for any help

[dazedndconfussed]

Just want to add that, I have check the grievance procedure but it doesn't mention anything about how long it takes to arrange a meeting or from when the period will start.

[lbruk]

There isnt really a time limit, but there could be an issue within the warning wording as the "monitoring period" is normally from the date of the disciplinary meeting, but if you already have a month under your belt then that seems unfair that they would re-start the clock so to speak.

 

24 hours isnt really a satisfactory notice time for a disciplinary meeting. Unless of course it is an investigation meeting rather than the handing out of the warning.

[postggj]

this medical condition

 

if it is considered to be applicable to the equalities act 2010( old DDA) then you would be exempt normally from any attendance procedure

(protected characteristics)

 

do you consider your condition to be a disability or could be

 

did the employer do a risk assessment on you when you returned to work on each occasion

 

(management of health and safety at work act 1999)

 

have you been refered to occupational health

 

any warning needs to be back dated from when you started work last after any absence

 

and a minimum of 48 hours notice needs to be given for a disciplinary meeting to allow representation from a trade union rep or collegue

 

and i do mean formal disciplinary and not a fact finding interview

[Emmzzi]

Disciplinary meetings normally don't have a pre-judged outcome. If you have been told it is a meeting to get a warning as opposed to a potential outcome of warning there a a procedural error.

 

southernjessie, even if it is a disability, the usual reasonable adjustment is a change to the trigger points for warnings etc - not complete removal of them.

 

if OP was fully recovered on each return to work there was no need for a risk assessment.

 

I agree an occ health referal may be useful for recurring conditions.

[stu007]

Hi

 

If this is Disciplinary for a written warning then they have already pre-judged the outcome if this is the case?

 

As its Disciplinary has you been informed of your Right to be accompanied at the hearing by either a Union representative or Work Colleague and have you been provided with a copy of the Disciplinary procedure and evidence to be used at the hearing?

 

these PDFs from ACAS may be of help:

[dazedndconfussed]

Thanks for the replys.

 

I had another thread awhile ago that discussed my medical issue http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?355576-Am-I-able-to-request-a-change-of-duties&p=3904653#post3904653

 

In the letter it is called a 'Disciplinary Meeting' but I know it is to issue a verbal warning. The condition was not better each time I returned and no risk assessment was done - until after the second period of absence and my duties were not changed and my condition improved significantly until after the 3rd period of absence (in my other thread, you will see that my HR department stated there was no risk assessment to be done, only for pregnant women, etc).

 

Also, my meeting was cancelled today. My manager told me around an hour or so before the meeting was due to start that she was to busy and that we would 'do it sometime next week when it's quiet'.

[postggj]

if you have been off sick then it is a legal requirement for you to have a risk assessment on your return

 

that is normally done at the back to work interview

 

as stated, it is covered under the management of health and safety at work regulations 1999

Edited August 30, 2012 by southernjessy

[becky2585]

if you have been off sick then it is a legal requirement for you to have a risk assessment on your return

 

that is normally done at the back to work interview

 

as stated, it is covered under the management of health and safety at work act 1999

 

That's utter rubbish.

[postggj]

instead of saying utter rubbish, please elaborate on your reasoning

 

try regulation three and six for a start

 

and i am not talking of colds, flu, upset stomach

 

i am talking of doctors sick notes for hospital admissions, surgery, mental illness etc

 

and having good manners when you do a reply to a posting would be nice as well

Edited August 30, 2012 by southernjessy

[becky2585]

I presume you mean The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999. Please do tell me where it states there are mandatory risk assessments upon return to work?

 

Your interpretation of the Regulations is incorrect.

[postggj]

if they are incorrect my interpretations then tell me why, not just say they are incorrect

 

3.-(1) Every employer shall make a suitable and sufficient assessment of-

 

(a)the risks to the health and safety of his employees to which they are exposed whilst they are at work; and

 

6. Every employer shall ensure that his employees are provided with such health surveillance as is appropriate having regard to the risks to their health and safety which are identified by the assessment.

 

i will even throw in Regulation 2 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 as well

 

2 General duties of employers to their employees.

 

 

(1)It shall be the duty of every employer to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all his employees.

Edited August 30, 2012 by southernjessy

[becky2585]

You still haven't highlighted anything at all which implies a risk assessment has to be done when a sick employee returns to work - that just isn't the case.

[postggj]

the employer has a duty of care on any employee returning to work after a sick absence

 

Equality Act issues may need to be considered

 

Equality Impact Assessments for example

 

say an employee returns after loosing an eye or hard of hearing, then we come into the realms of safe systems of work due to things such as fire regulations

 

say an employee has lost a leg to diabetes and the building has no lifts, only stairs

 

those examples are just equality issues

 

what about someone returning due to hyperglycemic shock, do you not think the designated first aiders need to be informed and understand what treatment may be needed

 

i can go on and on but

 

it is the employers legal responsibility for the employees emotional and physical well being at work

 

(when made aware) and adaquate risk assessments put in place

 

pregnant women for example have their own risk assessments as they go into the realms of "protected characteristics" when the employeer is aware of the condition

 

That is why employees are bundled off to Occupational Health to take any responsibility off the employer at the first opportunity

 

but i will say

 

the employee allso has a legal obligation to inform his employer on any condition that may effect him while employed

 

 

their is no "one regulation"

 

it is a multitude of interlocking regulations as contained within the "six pack"

 

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CCEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.awardhealthandsafety.co.uk%2Fwhat-is-a-six-pack&ei=Gds_UJCpEOyY0QXKtoG4Cg&usg=AFQjCNFjaPfOAY9YnGBsNuOY3swRC5SXDw&sig2=MyZHIlHAf7OcHBx2R_M4Qw

Edited August 30, 2012 by southernjessy

[Emmzzi]

I agree 100% with Becky and will add

a) I have never worked with an employer where a risk assessment is part of return to work procedures and

b) I've never lost an ET for not having evidence of one being done

 

You are confusing risk assessments and reasonable adjustments and return to work interviews in one mish-mash.

 

I do a risk assessment for a) pregnant women b) people who have disabilites c) a change in work environment, type, conditions.

 

After *every sick absence*? For that amount of pointless paperwork? Not on your nelly.

[Emmzzi]

p.s. pregnant women do not have a risk assessment because of protected characteristics.

 

they have one because being pregnant change the level of risk.

 

Do please stop waving around terms you are not using properly!

[postggj]

they do have protected characteristics for things like being absent through morning sickness/taking time off work and the attendence procedure

 

and try reading post 10

 

i am talking on an absence through surgery etc

 

not coughs and colds

Edited August 30, 2012 by southernjessy

[Emmzzi]

I've read post 10 and it disagrees with what you say in post 8

 

Time off for morning sickness has nothing to do with risk assessments

[postggj]

a pregnant women needs increased risk assessments the nearer she gets to maternity due to the nature of her pregnancy

 

the protected characteristics are their to offer protection due to her pregnancy and maternity in regards to the absence procedure, keeping her job etc

 

i never said time off for morning sickness has anything to do with a risk assessment

 

but throwing up while in work hours and the type of job she does may need a risk assesment

 

 

thats not to hard to understand

is it ???

Edited August 30, 2012 by southernjessy

[Emmzzi]

You said "pregnant women for example have their own risk assessments as they go into the realms of "protected characteristics" when the employeer is aware of the condition"

 

That is wrong. They have a risk assessment as their risk has changed and it is bog all to do with protected characteristics.

 

You know half of what you are talking about and you are getting terms and laws confused. The spirit of what you say may be right but you are presenting your opinions and interpretations as fact - you are not giving the correct facts.

 

I am too old and tired to argue. Believe as you wish. Just don't talk anyone into going to court on the basis of what you reckon because you're going to end up costing them money.

[postggj]

before we sign off and end this

 

may i ask what qualifications you have in regards to health and safety in the work place

[Emmzzi]

this is the internet. I could be a professional cucumber peeler whatever I write here. The internet is full of shady people. So whoever I claim to be is not that important. You should check all facts yourself.

 

Find facts. Proper facts. The internet is also full of them.

[postggj]

well i have a level 1, 2 ,and 3 qualifications in Health and Safety in the workplace

i also have a level three diploma in occupational health

a diploma in employment law

 

all done through the open college network

 

i am the Area Health and Safety Representative for a national trade union on full time release, with a total of 3.5 k members in my area. i have been doing it for 15 years, elected unopposed each time

Edited August 30, 2012 by southernjessy

[Emmzzi]

or you could be a professional cucumber peeler *shrugs*

 

wave all the certificates you like. my experience tells me you are giving incorrect advice.

[postggj]

that may be your opinion which you are entitled to but i do have the qualifications to confirm what i say.

 

i have done my time in the classroom/college

 

all i can say is that i have been a rep for 15 years with no complaints from either my members or the business

 

we work well together

Edited August 30, 2012 by southernjessy