Perhaps your contract states that you aren't paid for sick, so if they've paid you for it, you've had your "week in hand".
As for any further compensayshun (the second time you've asked if you can get any in the second job this year judging by your posts)... nope, you ain't entitled to a dime.
An employer is quite within their right to ask for medical information post offer. Indeed it's important that they do so because if any illness or absence record that is disclosed becomes cause for concern, then the employer needs to establish whether a) they can support the individual by putting in special measures/reasonable adjustments to enable the individual to carry out the role or b) consider whether they can go ahead with the appointment at all.
Personally if I had any enduring illness then I would disclose it and be frank about any reasonable adjustment that I'd need - that way no one is surprised.
When or what to disclose to an employer regarding any long term health condition can be a bit of a dilemma. It's unlawful to ask health related questions prior to making a conditional job offer except when there's a clear and direct connection between the role and the need for physical fitness. Also a person can be asked if they consider themselves to have a disability - this is to look at whether reasonable adjustments are needed to enable a person with a disability to go through the recruitment process.
An employer can ask health questions once a job offer has been made and then it's for the individual to decide whether or not they do. Refusing, for example, to complete a health questionnaire can cause practical difficulties and raise issues of trust. But there's no obligation to do so.
If an employee completes a health questionnaire and lies or misleads and this is discovered it can lead to the employee being disciplined or even dismissed.
I fully agree with you, but, I still firmly believe that if the OP knew that he had an illness that may necesitate time off work sick IMO he should have made his employers aware - I think in this instance you and I are going to have to agree to differ
I did make my previous employer aware at interview stage. It was then used against me during a highly dubious home visit where I was told that to have asked about sick pay in the interview (I asked about all benefits) must have meant I was deliberately planning to have time off sick (I wasn't, just knew it was a possibility)
Speaking as a person with a recognised illness and disability, you really can't win on this one. Be upfront and you don't get the job - tell them afterwards and you're eyed with suspicion for not being upfront!
I'm pretty sure it depends on the job offer. That's called a provisional (or is it probational?) period, and mine is 6 months (almost finished).
Standard disclaimer applies: I'm not a lawyer.
there's no legal basis of a probationary period. the employer may have this but there are no specific laws regarding it. it's just treated the same in regards to the law as if you weren't on probation
Alex Law - what does it say in the contract that you signed when you first started working for them? Is there any mention of a probationary period? Most companies these days do have a probationary period, sometimes its 12 or 13 weeks and sometimes (as mentioned earlier) its 6 months. This does mean that you have to be on your best behaviour for that period, so any naughtyness or sickness absence will count against you.
That statement doesn't really stand up. A properly drafted contract will be enforceable by law and If the contractual terms exceed minimum statutory requirements it's the contractual terms that will apply.
I did make my previous employer aware at interview stage. It was then used against me during a highly dubious home visit where I was told that to have asked about sick pay in the interview (I asked about all benefits) must have meant I was deliberately planning to have time off sick (I wasn't, just knew it was a possibility)
Speaking as a person with a recognised illness and disability, you really can't win on this one. Be upfront and you don't get the job - tell them afterwards and you're eyed with suspicion for not being upfront!
I'm sorry to read that - seems you're dammed if you do and dammed if you don't
That statement doesn't really stand up. A properly drafted contract will be enforceable by law and If the contractual terms exceed minimum statutory requirements it's the contractual terms that will apply.
There are parts of a contract that can be unenforceable. For example, if a contract says a person will be dismissed if they become disabled then that would be overridden by the provisions of the Equality Act.
There are parts of a contract that can be unenforceable. For example, if a contract says a person will be dismissed if they become disabled then that would be overridden by the provisions of the Equality Act.
Which was why I qualified what I said with 'properly drafted' and where the provisions of a contract exceed (ie are better than) minimum statutory obligations!
There are parts of a contract that can be unenforceable. For example, if a contract says a person will be dismissed if they become disabled then that would be overridden by the provisions of the Equality Act.
In fact it could in very limited circumstances be possible to have a clause about ability to do the job that would stand up against the Equality Act. Although an employer would have to be mad to include one.
It is a very difficult call, because in essence the employer would have to demonstrate a clear ability issue (or an H&S one) that could not be overcome in any way by reasonable adjustment. They would be arguing on the definition of 'reasonable', perhaps on grounds of cost (ie it would not be reasonable to expect a small family firm to spend £500k on adjustments for an employee).
I believe it could also apply in relation to a very small number of buildings which are Grade 1 listed too. As adaptations may not be possible, it would again in theory be possible to have some clause in the contract relating to that.
Actually the OP has twice been deemed to be the best person for a role and been offered and accepted the job, then gone off sick.
I imagine there is something going on here which is not being revealed. Although employment contracts normally set out the right to visit employees off sick at home (and not just to try and catch them out) and the alleged assertion that the OP had asked about benefits at the interview, that would not be sufficient to dismiss.
I suggest if the OP is not currently well enough to carry out a f/t role,taking a p/t role would be a good idea and then perhaps gradually increase the working hours?
If you're up front with employer it gives them a chance to take your condition into account and possibly make allowances/adjustments within your duties. Just keeping quiet or pretending you have full/normal health is a deceitful way to behave if you have a permanent condition/illness and it creates problems when you inevitably have a problem attending work or performing your duties.
They seem to think as they are a small private firm and are above the law....
I just hope there not!
No they are acting within the law. It's unfortunate but if you had previously explained your illness, they may have looked at the situation differently.
It shouldn't be up to employers to act as some sort of social security benefits provider.
Just my opinion, as someone who runs a small business.
I suspect this is a comment on employers having to deal with sickness pay instead of it being administered directly by a government department.
imo it's hardly complex for employers, and if it was administered by the JobCentres (for example) would be absolute chaos. Not to mention no cheaper for the employer, as their taxes would be paying for the staff to do it.
Would they not just get statutory sick pay? And only after a certain number of days? Which I thought you as an employer could claim back?
Though I have to admit my knowledge of employment law/benefits etc is a bit out of date and never my strongest subject so I could be pretty wrong
SSP reclaim has pretty much stopped. but employers could normally only reclaim SSP if the SSP was 13% or more of the NI bill, meaning typically only very small employers could do it
you can claim back 92% of SMP (statutory maternity pay) though
OP, what does your contract of employment say? Is there a notice period? If so, then they are contractually obliged to honour that, and they would be in breach of contract if they didn't.
In the company I work for, the notice period is one week until the employee has passed their probationary period. It then increases to 1, 3, or 6 months depending on the role.
You may also be able to claim wrongful termination (note, this is different to unfair dismissal), if the company did not follow its own disciplinary policy.
Comments
As for any further compensayshun (the second time you've asked if you can get any in the second job this year judging by your posts)... nope, you ain't entitled to a dime.
Personally if I had any enduring illness then I would disclose it and be frank about any reasonable adjustment that I'd need - that way no one is surprised.
This has been the case since 2012
An employer can ask health questions once a job offer has been made and then it's for the individual to decide whether or not they do. Refusing, for example, to complete a health questionnaire can cause practical difficulties and raise issues of trust. But there's no obligation to do so.
If an employee completes a health questionnaire and lies or misleads and this is discovered it can lead to the employee being disciplined or even dismissed.
Yay. Is it going to be anything good?
I did make my previous employer aware at interview stage. It was then used against me during a highly dubious home visit where I was told that to have asked about sick pay in the interview (I asked about all benefits) must have meant I was deliberately planning to have time off sick (I wasn't, just knew it was a possibility)
Speaking as a person with a recognised illness and disability, you really can't win on this one. Be upfront and you don't get the job - tell them afterwards and you're eyed with suspicion for not being upfront!
there's no legal basis of a probationary period. the employer may have this but there are no specific laws regarding it. it's just treated the same in regards to the law as if you weren't on probation
The law overrides any contract.
I'm sorry to read that - seems you're dammed if you do and dammed if you don't
There are parts of a contract that can be unenforceable. For example, if a contract says a person will be dismissed if they become disabled then that would be overridden by the provisions of the Equality Act.
It is a very difficult call, because in essence the employer would have to demonstrate a clear ability issue (or an H&S one) that could not be overcome in any way by reasonable adjustment. They would be arguing on the definition of 'reasonable', perhaps on grounds of cost (ie it would not be reasonable to expect a small family firm to spend £500k on adjustments for an employee).
I believe it could also apply in relation to a very small number of buildings which are Grade 1 listed too. As adaptations may not be possible, it would again in theory be possible to have some clause in the contract relating to that.
I imagine there is something going on here which is not being revealed. Although employment contracts normally set out the right to visit employees off sick at home (and not just to try and catch them out) and the alleged assertion that the OP had asked about benefits at the interview, that would not be sufficient to dismiss.
I suggest if the OP is not currently well enough to carry out a f/t role,taking a p/t role would be a good idea and then perhaps gradually increase the working hours?
They can up to two years
Legally speaking yes it is.
No they are acting within the law. It's unfortunate but if you had previously explained your illness, they may have looked at the situation differently.
Just my opinion, as someone who runs a small business.
Not sure what you mean by this?????
I read it as 'Someone who has an ongoing illness should mention it and not keep quiet, Get the job and then go on the sick to get a wage'
Of course i may be wrong
Would they not just get statutory sick pay? And only after a certain number of days? Which I thought you as an employer could claim back?
Though I have to admit my knowledge of employment law/benefits etc is a bit out of date and never my strongest subject so I could be pretty wrong
imo it's hardly complex for employers, and if it was administered by the JobCentres (for example) would be absolute chaos. Not to mention no cheaper for the employer, as their taxes would be paying for the staff to do it.
Well let's wait for the person who wrote it to come back.
SSP reclaim has pretty much stopped. but employers could normally only reclaim SSP if the SSP was 13% or more of the NI bill, meaning typically only very small employers could do it
you can claim back 92% of SMP (statutory maternity pay) though
In the company I work for, the notice period is one week until the employee has passed their probationary period. It then increases to 1, 3, or 6 months depending on the role.
You may also be able to claim wrongful termination (note, this is different to unfair dismissal), if the company did not follow its own disciplinary policy.
Have they given you a written termination letter?