Jump to content


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1256 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

fishy?

No normal. the insurer is taking the financial risk so they call the shots as long as the law is not broken. If they told the employer to send people round t his house and force him to sign things with threats of a good beating that would be very different. If that was the case then the employer is not bound to follow that instruction anyway and cannot rely on it as a defence for assault.

The surrendering of all rights is actaully limited so for example if he gets asbestosis or other industrial disease then they are still culpable regardles of the disclaimer.

Again, this is normal and basically stop him form claiming unfair dismissal a month after he take the golden bullet.

As Sangie says he would be wise to consider what they are offering and then if he thinks there is room for negotiation put in his bid for more. Chances are they got somehting wrong procedurally earlier on and this will give him grounds to go to an ET for a technical reason but not get any substantial settlement but would cost them money so they will have factored this into their offer. Thinking that they may have to start spending on lawyers fees may well get them to increase the settlement if his counter to their offer appears to be based on something

 

I agree. It may be that this particular scheme permits an appeal to the Ombudsman. I've only had experience of the opposite - that the employer is the contractual relationship and the only person who can appeal. But nothing you have described here varies from those similar situations that I have dealt with. And please bear in mind, going to an employment tribunal, even if the employer had done something procedurally wrong, will not get you much. It won't get you back pay - he has been paid what he is legally entitled to. And it won't get him compensation for the loss of his job - because if they kept him on the books for the next ten years that amount would be nil - he's entitled to no pay so there is no loss. A tribunal will not enter into discussion of cause - so there is no compensation for any alleged injury. That means he's up for getting maybe a couple of grand if he's lucky for a procedural error. If there's a procedural error. That's his best case scenario, based on what you've said here.

 

I realise that you are not seeing this objectively, but think about it. Why would the employer need to lie? What they are describing is exactly the standard behaviour of these insurance companies. From the employers point of view, if the insurer was willing to pay out indefinitely then it is no skin off their nose to keep him on the books. It costs them nothing, and whilst he is on the books and being paid by the insurers he had no prospect of a case against them anyway. No cost, no risk... so why would they push this?

 

Obviously, the decision to fight has to be down to him. But if he fights then he must be prepared to cope with that fight. Even with help, there is stuff that he is going to have to do. And he could lose everything, including the offer on the table or any chance of negotiating a better offer. Once an offer is off the table, and once he starts legal proceedings, there may be little way back from there; and assuming that any future offer will be better is a dangerous assumption - it could be significantly less. So you really do need to consider all the risks. You are making assumptions not in evidence, and you are assuming compensation that may not, and probably won't, ever exist. Be very, very certain that you can beat the insurers. And at that stage, if you are - get independent legal advice. If the employers are as bad as you say, then you still aren't prepared for what the insurers will throw at you. As I said, most of the people I represent don't have this form of insurance - but my experience of it has been that they are immensely powerful and immensely clever, and they have absolutely no compunction about methods.

Link to post
Share on other sites
fishy?

No normal. the insurer is taking the financial risk so they call the shots as long as the law is not broken. If they told the employer to send people round t his house and force him to sign things with threats of a good beating that would be very different. If that was the case then the employer is not bound to follow that instruction anyway and cannot rely on it as a defence for assault.

The surrendering of all rights is actaully limited so for example if he gets asbestosis or other industrial disease then they are still culpable regardles of the disclaimer.

Again, this is normal and basically stop him form claiming unfair dismissal a month after he take the golden bullet.

As Sangie says he would be wise to consider what they are offering and then if he thinks there is room for negotiation put in his bid for more. Chances are they got somehting wrong procedurally earlier on and this will give him grounds to go to an ET for a technical reason but not get any substantial settlement but would cost them money so they will have factored this into their offer. Thinking that they may have to start spending on lawyers fees may well get them to increase the settlement if his counter to their offer appears to be based on something

 

Fishy because I having checked the document file from insurers, including all the correspondence between insurer and company I fail to see any mention or instructions in which insurer has asked employer to put forward an offer to us on insurer's behalf. Usually that would've been on letterhead or atleast in writing but there is not even a mention that insurer has asked such a thing to employer. Also the question I fail to understand is that why would insurer pay even a penny when they believe he does not meet their criteria?

Actual injuries were caused due to work related stress which were a direct reaction of bullying, harrasment and discrimination that took place at work. Then a proper grievance was filed and there are further aggravating features from the company where they were aggravating condition by simply not following advice of medical professionals. Now if you think in this context then his company definitely may have some reasons to offer him Settlement Agreement by saying it is from insurer, because then it then covers them from all the possible future claims.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree. It may be that this particular scheme permits an appeal to the Ombudsman. I've only had experience of the opposite - that the employer is the contractual relationship and the only person who can appeal. But nothing you have described here varies from those similar situations that I have dealt with. And please bear in mind, going to an employment tribunal, even if the employer had done something procedurally wrong, will not get you much. It won't get you back pay - he has been paid what he is legally entitled to. And it won't get him compensation for the loss of his job - because if they kept him on the books for the next ten years that amount would be nil - he's entitled to no pay so there is no loss. A tribunal will not enter into discussion of cause - so there is no compensation for any alleged injury. That means he's up for getting maybe a couple of grand if he's lucky for a procedural error. If there's a procedural error. That's his best case scenario, based on what you've said here.

 

I realise that you are not seeing this objectively, but think about it. Why would the employer need to lie? What they are describing is exactly the standard behaviour of these insurance companies. From the employers point of view, if the insurer was willing to pay out indefinitely then it is no skin off their nose to keep him on the books. It costs them nothing, and whilst he is on the books and being paid by the insurers he had no prospect of a case against them anyway. No cost, no risk... so why would they push this?

 

Obviously, the decision to fight has to be down to him. But if he fights then he must be prepared to cope with that fight. Even with help, there is stuff that he is going to have to do. And he could lose everything, including the offer on the table or any chance of negotiating a better offer. Once an offer is off the table, and once he starts legal proceedings, there may be little way back from there; and assuming that any future offer will be better is a dangerous assumption - it could be significantly less. So you really do need to consider all the risks. You are making assumptions not in evidence, and you are assuming compensation that may not, and probably won't, ever exist. Be very, very certain that you can beat the insurers. And at that stage, if you are - get independent legal advice. If the employers are as bad as you say, then you still aren't prepared for what the insurers will throw at you. As I said, most of the people I represent don't have this form of insurance - but my experience of it has been that they are immensely powerful and immensely clever, and they have absolutely no compunction about methods.

 

Thanks Sangie, we have sought professional legal advice on this matter and my brother may have a few case or so against employer for both employment and personal injury side.

 

My brother should've been this scheme nearly a year ago but it is undue delay from insurers that has caused him not to be on it. So for example his appeal is upheld either by Ombudsman or insurers he would automatically get money backdated to last year.

 

The reasons we believe employers may lie is that because it is all brought down on my brother as they have bullied, harrassed and discriminiated against him and there are evidence and witnesses to this. So this leaves them open for personal injury and employment law claims. Having checked the documents received from insurers there is no mention or instructions to employers that an offer should be made to my brother. Then there is also mentions that these injuries are caused due to incidents that were caused by the company. So in a way insurers are telling company that they are the ones who have created the mess and need to sort it out. And either way because the money offered is so low my brother's wife has already turned the settlement agreement down so now its definitely off the table.

Link to post
Share on other sites

you refer to injuries- not true.

 

As for it being a fact that he suffered stress related illness that is the fault of the employer this again is not so.

It isnt so until a tribunal or court says it is.

 

Likewise for the bullying harassment or anything else.

They are allegations at this stage.

 

This doesnt mean that we dont believe you or that there is no cause and event as far as your brothers illness goes but there are huge obstacles to clear before such statements are applicable.

 

Employers and pension co's insurers will often come out with ridiculous things they fly in the face of logic.

 

I have mentioned on this forum before

a case where a pension provider argued that a man who lost his leg was not PERMANENTLY disabled because the modern blade type prosthetics worn by people like Jonny Peacock are considered at least as good as a real limb if not better for athletics governing body classification purposes so therefore everyone should have them, which is palpable nonsense.

 

The person did not get his pension though so it does make you wonder.

(I know that the wording of the scheme is a key factor but in that case the permanent disability referred to his job,

not any work and he had to climb ladders and go into confined spaces

so perhaps they thought he could remove the limb to squeeze into tiny spaces ordinary people couldnt reach)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm afraid that I agree.

My concern here is that I see too many examples of friends and family who believe that they have evidence of something,

when what they have is evidence of very little.

 

Objectivity goes out of the window when it is your own you are talking about.

But I think all we can do is point out the risks and pitfalls of assumptions

- we don't have the detail to say that it's definitely not going anywhere.

 

In the end they must make a decision and if that doesn't work out for them then hindsight won't be useful.

I know exactly how likely a claim of mental illness from work related causes is to succeed,

and I know that it is always a lot harder than people appreciate.

 

I'm going to contribute one more thought on this matter.

YOUR OWN doctors and consultants and medical experts are not evidence of anything

- neither are occupational health.

 

They are evidence of what you have told them.

Not evidence of facts.

 

Former employees are "disgruntled ex staff with an axe to grind" and current staff will not only disappear into the woodwork,

but might turn up witnessing for the employer!

 

Be very, very careful what you think evidence is.

 

Because it often isn't.

Link to post
Share on other sites

that sounds horrific. Poor guy. I have effectively been bullied in ridiculous ways but not so petty as name calling etc. It made me ill aswell and I am taking them to a employment tribunal for discrimination.

Unfortunately I don't think GP letters would have any stance. An employer does not even have to follow occupation health, occ health only provide 'recommendations' and it is up to the employer if they follow them or not.

If you have bullying and harrassement in writing I would definitely take it further or speak to ACAS. if you don't have anything in writing you will struggle getting anywhere. :(

Link to post
Share on other sites

what sort of discrimination? If you mean because of a disability the you have a very high hurdle to clear and your terminology in your comments here do not bode well for success. If you mean sex or race discrimination then although the threshold is lower you still have to demonstrate how the bullying was solely because of those characteristics.

The OP doesnt have much to help him in that respect, it never really got far enough procedurally

 

that sounds horrific. Poor guy. I have effectively been bullied in ridiculous ways but not so petty as name calling etc. It made me ill aswell and I am taking them to a employment tribunal for discrimination.

Unfortunately I don't think GP letters would have any stance. An employer does not even have to follow occupation health, occ health only provide 'recommendations' and it is up to the employer if they follow them or not.

If you have bullying and harrassement in writing I would definitely take it further or speak to ACAS. if you don't have anything in writing you will struggle getting anywhere. :(

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we are getting off the track here and it's important to not read into this something not in evidence. Put aside the OPs comments - sorry, they are a lovely person, clearly very concerned, and caring a lot. But there is not a shred of evidence to say that there had been any bullying or harassment presented here, and even if there had, it's really hard to fit that in to a claim in law because bullying and harassment, in employment law terms, only fits into certain categories of claim.

 

What is in evidence here is that the employer has acted properly, and the employee didn't. Set aside the insurance for a moment here. Look at the root. The employee was called to a meeting with their manager to discuss their working hours, which is a legitimate issue for the manager to discuss. The employee refused to speak to them (which they had no right to do), demanded their union rep was present (which they were not entitled to), and - speaking objectively, not subjectively - went off sick when they couldn't have their own way. Then they have refused to engage with the legal processes that the employer is obliged to abide by in managing long term sickness. I know the OP is going to take offence at that comment. Unsurprisingly. But we are not allowed the luxury of subjectivity - because the law doesn't either. What I have just described is exactly the same events that the OP has described, stripped of all emotion. I'm not saying that is the full story - we don't know everything. But the OP has chosen a set of "actions" which they believe shows how bad the employer has been. And they don't. They actually show an employer following the letter of the law and advised practice.

 

It is neither bullying nor harassment to ask to meet with your employee who is off sick, especially on long term sickness. It is, in fact, a requirement! The employer would be, quite rightly, heavily criticised by a tribunal if they didn't. Especially if they are looking at capability processes. Yes, if the doctor advises against it the PATIENT should take that into account in their decision. And the employer may agree, if asked, to reasonable adjustments such as meeting with a relative, or allowing representation from a wider group than the law allows for. But the employer Must ask for these meetings. And, in particular, they have no right to simply deal with someone else - they cannot ascertain that person actually represents the wishes of their employee if the employee isn't there!

 

People often assume all sorts of things about the protection the law provides them as employees. And in some areas, but not all, things are better than they have been in the past. But that still means that employees have few rights! And when you strip circumstances down to their basics, you often find that what they think are infringements of their rights are actually things they don't like, but which are perfectly lawful. So before you do something, you make sure that you are correct. For example, refusing a reasonable instruction is an offence which MIGHT be deemed sufficient to result in dismissal. The employee here did that when they refused to speak to their manager. Thereby setting in motion all these events... Another employer might have dismissed them already for that!

Link to post
Share on other sites
what sort of discrimination? If you mean because of a disability the you have a very high hurdle to clear and your terminology in your comments here do not bode well for success. If you mean sex or race discrimination then although the threshold is lower you still have to demonstrate how the bullying was solely because of those characteristics.

The OP doesnt have much to help him in that respect, it never really got far enough procedurally

 

Sex discrimination and discrimation as he worked flexible working

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sex discrimination and discrimation as he worked flexible working

Flexible working is not a protected characteristic - so there is no claim of discrimination for flexible working. And where is the sex discrimination? His hours were altered because he's a man? Just because he's a man, and no other reason? Good luck making that fly! Sorry - I do understand that he is in an awful place and you are doing your best to help, but if that is what your lawyer said then either there is a HUGE thing you haven't told us - or get a better lawyer!

 

And I mean that last comment very seriously. I see absolutely no evidence of any form of discrimination in a single thing that had been posted here. And I can give you one piece of certain advice. Lawyers always win, whether their clients do or not. I'm not one to knock lawyers as a group - we have great lawyers in the union. And I know a lot of good lawyers. But like any group, they have their mediocre and their downright shysters! It is easy for a lawyer to mislead. And I've seen it done too often. Always at the expense of the client. Be very careful that they are working in your interests and not their own...

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think we are getting off the track here and it's important to not read into this something not in evidence. Put aside the OPs comments - sorry, they are a lovely person, clearly very concerned, and caring a lot. But there is not a shred of evidence to say that there had been any bullying or harassment presented here, and even if there had, it's really hard to fit that in to a claim in law because bullying and harassment, in employment law terms, only fits into certain categories of claim.

 

What is in evidence here is that the employer has acted properly, and the employee didn't. Set aside the insurance for a moment here. Look at the root. The employee was called to a meeting with their manager to discuss their working hours, which is a legitimate issue for the manager to discuss. The employee refused to speak to them (which they had no right to do), demanded their union rep was present (which they were not entitled to), and - speaking objectively, not subjectively - went off sick when they couldn't have their own way. Then they have refused to engage with the legal processes that the employer is obliged to abide by in managing long term sickness. I know the OP is going to take offence at that comment. Unsurprisingly. But we are not allowed the luxury of subjectivity - because the law doesn't either. What I have just described is exactly the same events that the OP has described, stripped of all emotion. I'm not saying that is the full story - we don't know everything. But the OP has chosen a set of "actions" which they believe shows how bad the employer has been. And they don't. They actually show an employer following the letter of the law and advised practice.

 

It is neither bullying nor harassment to ask to meet with your employee who is off sick, especially on long term sickness. It is, in fact, a requirement! The employer would be, quite rightly, heavily criticised by a tribunal if they didn't. Especially if they are looking at capability processes. Yes, if the doctor advises against it the PATIENT should take that into account in their decision. And the employer may agree, if asked, to reasonable adjustments such as meeting with a relative, or allowing representation from a wider group than the law allows for. But the employer Must ask for these meetings. And, in particular, they have no right to simply deal with someone else - they cannot ascertain that person actually represents the wishes of their employee if the employee isn't there!

 

People often assume all sorts of things about the protection the law provides them as employees. And in some areas, but not all, things are better than they have been in the past. But that still means that employees have few rights! And when you strip circumstances down to their basics, you often find that what they think are infringements of their rights are actually things they don't like, but which are perfectly lawful. So before you do something, you make sure that you are correct. For example, refusing a reasonable instruction is an offence which MIGHT be deemed sufficient to result in dismissal. The employee here did that when they refused to speak to their manager. Thereby setting in motion all these events... Another employer might have dismissed them already for that!

 

My brother use to work Flexible Working and he transfered departments. While he was off sick he received letter confirming transfer being approved. Few days later his manager new manager (from department he got transfered to) called him and told him he wants him to work full time due to shortage of male staff members. My brother told manager firstly he is off sick so manager should not be calling in to discuss work. Secondly, when he applied for transfer he applied for it under same conditions and Flexible Working was included in transfer request therefore, if manager recently lost few male members of the team then manager should rather recruit new members than to call him up while he is already off sick and stress him further.

 

On his return to work after his shift, manager shouted accross the room to ask him to come for a meeting (No previous notice was given for this meeting). When my brother requested he needs a union member because meeting involves making changes to working contract, the manager refused and said he will not be waiting for any union reps. He wanted my brother in his room in next 5 minutes, he then made various gestures and comments which were heard by staff members present.

 

My brother gave into the pressure and took a member of staff in the meeting instead and I cant share the details of particulars of the meeting. All I can say that he was bullied and harassed further during the meeting. So I dont understand when you say "my brother was not entitled to a union rep". My understanding is that any changes to your working pattern or contract allows an individual to be accompanied by a union rep. He did informed the manager though that his conduct and improper attitude including calling him on days off and while he was being sick for stress was severely aggravating his condition. A grievance was also raised against concerning managers.

 

Considering my brother was already stressed few further instances happened when the company acted in a way they should not have acted and that lead to the incident in which my brother suffered paralysis. According to medical evidence from range of doctors, OH Physisans and consultants that was directly related to series of incidents that happened at work. Then the team of medical professionals further wrote to the company not to engage in direct or indirect contact with my brother because that was further aggravating my brother's condition. This advice was again overlooked by the company. Maybe as you said advice from GP, Consultants and Occupational Health physicians are just recommendations but I do believe some sort of help and understanding from company could've prevented further damage.

 

But being reasonable at the same time the company was given a choice of speaking to directly to the treating GPs and consultants to know about the progress of his recovery. Furthermore, company was also given choice of establishing contacts with his wife and me. We assured company we were willing to attend any meetings as my brother was deemed not suitable or in a mental state to deal with such meetings by Consultant Psychiatric.

 

To make things worse his manager, the same guy who was responsible for creating all the mess, the same guy against whom a grievance was lodged was still trying to make contacts both directly and indirectly despite knowing there is a grievance against him in which there are some serious allegation put against the manager.

 

May be Sangie you are right, may be we are not thinking correctly as we do not have any experiences like that in the past. But from where we see this could've all been avoided if things were done slightly differently.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I really think you are barking up the wrong tree. Does he thik that the behaviour of the company is solely down to the fact that he is male and all other female employees are treated better in this and other respects.

Discrimination for allowing him to wrk flexibly? that rather points to them making adjustments to take something into account so agin I cant see any legal glue on that argument to make it stick.

Life sometimes deals you a bad hand. i had 4 years of trying to get my pension scheme to pay me an ill health retirement pension, I have MS but their "expert" said I may get better over the next 15 years with new technologies and possible cures. that in itself is b******** and the wording of the schme didnt say anything about miracles or crystal balls but as long as they had an opinion that suited them and they followed the rest of the rules that was OK.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't disagree with that last statement. But it wasn't, and we've already gone over the ground - the right to union representation treated to disciplinary and grievance hearings only. That is why I have told you several times that he wasn't entitled to a union rep - because he wasn't! There is a difference, a huge difference, between what is legal management and what is good management. There's even a pretty robust debate about what good management is! Yes, if they'd done things divergent you wouldn't be here. But what I am trying to emphasis if that the things you are often complaining about they didn't have to do differently. It isn't about whether I agree with them or you. It's about whether they acted within the law. And I'm struggling to see where they didn't.

 

And sorry, but unless the psychiatrist formally declared your brother legally mentally incompetent - which had a very specific meaning in law - then he cannot tell the employer to deal with people they don't employ. Look at it objectively. Let's say the employer offered you £19k to go away and you agreed? Then your brother comes along, after you've cashed the cheque, says he doesn't agree and makes a claim on the basis he agreed nothing. That could happen. And the employer would have nothing to stand on - they don't employ you and they don't have any authority whatsoever to discuss anything with you. So they must go through the person they employ, and if he refuses or sends someone else, they must get evidence every step of the way.

 

And I also should point out that there is new information here. Which suggests that the employer may indeed have had grounds to reconsider the flexible working situation. There is no automatic right to carry flexible working arrangements from one job to another. And there are business needs that can override such arrangements anyway. I could easily interpret this, if I get the facts from what you have said - your brother requested a transfer and that was approved while he was off sick. He assumed it was on the same terms, but it was not - and he didn't check this fact. So his manager informed him that the transfer was subject to hours that meet the needs of the business. He refused to speak to the manager... And we return to the rest that I said above! Being a union rep isn't about taking sides. It is about being able to objectively sort through two entrenched positions and try to find a solution. Sometimes the employee "wins", sometimes they don't, and often it's a case of finding some middle ground. What happened here was that it escalated quickly into positions that couldn't be resolved. And yes, the employer could have done things differently. So could your brother! I pointed out before, he could have gone into the meeting, listened to what was said and simply said he couldn't agree so he need to consult his union.

 

I still see nothing here that says sex discrimination. And without that claim, bullying and harassment fall too- harassment attaches to discrimination claims, not to ordinary claims.

 

And just to make myself even more unpopular - without making a judgement at all - what one person calls harassment or bullying may not be what others call it. Just because that is what he perceived doesn't mean that is what a judge will think. I often have members telling me they are being bullied by their manager. Sometimes they are. Oft times what they mean is that they don't like the way the manager acts or manages them - that is not the same thing.

 

If you end up making a claim, this is the top of a very large iceberg of similar discussions you will have with the employers lawyers and with judges. So don't take it personally, because it isn't personal. But you need to look at it from all points of view, not just the one you prefer.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I really think you are barking up the wrong tree. Does he thik that the behaviour of the company is solely down to the fact that he is male and all other female employees are treated better in this and other respects.

Discrimination for allowing him to wrk flexibly? that rather points to them making adjustments to take something into account so agin I cant see any legal glue on that argument to make it stick.

Life sometimes deals you a bad hand. i had 4 years of trying to get my pension scheme to pay me an ill health retirement pension, I have MS but their "expert" said I may get better over the next 15 years with new technologies and possible cures. that in itself is b******** and the wording of the schme didnt say anything about miracles or crystal balls but as long as they had an opinion that suited them and they followed the rest of the rules that was OK.

 

 

No but being a male childcare is not his responsibility and therefore he should not be working Flexible Working Hours. Manager directly made remarks that because he is a male he is more needed at work because females cannot carry out same duties as him and that childcare is not company's responsibility

Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't disagree with that last statement. But it wasn't, and we've already gone over the ground - the right to union representation treated to disciplinary and grievance hearings only. That is why I have told you several times that he wasn't entitled to a union rep - because he wasn't! There is a difference, a huge difference, between what is legal management and what is good management. There's even a pretty robust debate about what good management is! Yes, if they'd done things divergent you wouldn't be here. But what I am trying to emphasis if that the things you are often complaining about they didn't have to do differently. It isn't about whether I agree with them or you. It's about whether they acted within the law. And I'm struggling to see where they didn't.

 

And sorry, but unless the psychiatrist formally declared your brother legally mentally incompetent - which had a very specific meaning in law - then he cannot tell the employer to deal with people they don't employ. Look at it objectively. Let's say the employer offered you £19k to go away and you agreed? Then your brother comes along, after you've cashed the cheque, says he doesn't agree and makes a claim on the basis he agreed nothing. That could happen. And the employer would have nothing to stand on - they don't employ you and they don't have any authority whatsoever to discuss anything with you. So they must go through the person they employ, and if he refuses or sends someone else, they must get evidence every step of the way.

 

And I also should point out that there is new information here. Which suggests that the employer may indeed have had grounds to reconsider the flexible working situation. There is no automatic right to carry flexible working arrangements from one job to another. And there are business needs that can override such arrangements anyway. I could easily interpret this, if I get the facts from what you have said - your brother requested a transfer and that was approved while he was off sick. He assumed it was on the same terms, but it was not - and he didn't check this fact. So his manager informed him that the transfer was subject to hours that meet the needs of the business. He refused to speak to the manager... And we return to the rest that I said above! Being a union rep isn't about taking sides. It is about being able to objectively sort through two entrenched positions and try to find a solution. Sometimes the employee "wins", sometimes they don't, and often it's a case of finding some middle ground. What happened here was that it escalated quickly into positions that couldn't be resolved. And yes, the employer could have done things differently. So could your brother! I pointed out before, he could have gone into the meeting, listened to what was said and simply said he couldn't agree so he need to consult his union.

 

I still see nothing here that says sex discrimination. And without that claim, bullying and harassment fall too- harassment attaches to discrimination claims, not to ordinary claims.

 

And just to make myself even more unpopular - without making a judgement at all - what one person calls harassment or bullying may not be what others call it. Just because that is what he perceived doesn't mean that is what a judge will think. I often have members telling me they are being bullied by their manager. Sometimes they are. Oft times what they mean is that they don't like the way the manager acts or manages them - that is not the same thing.

 

If you end up making a claim, this is the top of a very large iceberg of similar discussions you will have with the employers lawyers and with judges. So don't take it personally, because it isn't personal. But you need to look at it from all points of view, not just the one you prefer.

 

 

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...