• Replies 17 replies
  • Subscribers 11 subscribers
  • Views 2629 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Related

17

Heart problems non disclosure and disciplinary

Lyndsey Hancock

| 0 Posts

22 Mar, 2024 08:42

Hi.

Long winded and one sided information from the spouse of the employee so please bare with....

Friends partner has a disciplinary today he's worried sick he's going to get sacked (not good with heart problems)

He was taken to hospital some months ago with chest pains. Told work what and why over phone and followed with a message. Was put on a waiting list for a minor non emergency procedure that is happening in a month or 2 (letter just been received with date) 

Employee told work about upcoming appointment when he heard about it and is now having a disciplinary meeting. For not disclosing serious health issue/ withholding the information as if he's been purposely deceiving them and shouldn't be driving for his job.

Dvla has not problem with driving until after op (then will need to be cleared before driving again)

Dr not advised light duties or not to drive. Consultant not advised can't drive until after op.

No return to work meeting after the absence due to chest pains and no OH involvement. No long term absence. 

Causing lots of stress for them both. 

Would this be unfair dismissal or similar if they do dismiss? (I can't imagine that's what will happen) I'd like to offer them some reassurance. 

Has been there over 2 years. 

Will likely be unable to drive 4-6 weeks after op. This is a new medical condition he wasn't able to disclose when starting the job... 

2629 views
  • Sophie

    | 0 Posts

    22 Mar, 2024 09:05

    Honestly, I'm thinking there has to be more to this story that he potentially hasn't disclosed - because the alternative that this is true and is exactly how an employer is behaving is so shocking!

    From what you've said, there is no reason that he had to even declare the condition at all, as it sounds as though it doesn't impair any part of his job. If it could impair, it sounds like he declared it as soon as he knew about it anyway - so I'm not sure what this could be based on. I would be thinking it's a discrimination claim waiting to happen...

    Presumably there has been an investigation prior to the disciplinary, which he should have the notes and results of - I'd be reading those carefully to ensure it is fully based on his "non-disclosure" and why the company feels that is a disciplinary offence.
  • Lyndsey Hancock

    | 0 Posts

    22 Mar, 2024 13:37

    In reply to Sophie:

    He had the meeting about the "investigation" however he wasn't told thats what it was. He was then invited to the disciplinary meeting the day before... it has been "adjourned" while they "investigate further" . Both him and his wife had told work he was in hospital for investigation and they are still claiming they didn't know- phone records are being checked. There was no return to work interview completed and no OH involved. I think this is all going to be dropped.
  • Elizabeth

    | 0 Posts

    22 Mar, 2024 14:28

    In reply to Lyndsey Hancock:

    Presumably your friends would have a record of phone calls made if the company is in any doubt. Hopefully it will all be resolved soon as I imagine it's the last thing they need on top of heart problems.
  • Sophie

    | 0 Posts

    25 Mar, 2024 12:17

    In reply to Lyndsey Hancock:

    Glad it sounds like it will be dropped as it feels like a mess from start to finish. I think your friend has grounds for a grievance following it for unfavourable treatment related to disability...
  • Robey

    | 0 Posts

    26 Mar, 2024 10:59

    In reply to Sophie:

    the alternative that this is true and is exactly how an employer is behaving is so shocking!

    This is, in my experience, extremely normal, especially in businesses with no organic HR or where HR is essentially amateur (classic example being where the CPO is the owner's partner, with no qualifications or experience).

    First, they panic about their liability. Then they decide that the safest thing to do is to sack the person. Then they come up with a fig leaf justification for gross misconduct. Sometimes this is underpinned by the fact that the employee in question was already problematic but no one had ever actually bothered to do anything about it.

    It's good that Lyndsey things this is going to be dropped because that, too, is quite normal and usually happens when someone in authority finally thinks to ask a professional for their opinion and hears the words "unlimited damages" where dismissal arises unfairly on discriminatory grounds.
  • Sophie

    | 0 Posts

    26 Mar, 2024 15:06

    In reply to Robey:

    It's just scary, isn't it! And frustrating that the employee will still have been put through this process and the effects that come with it, to have it just...dropped... because it should never have been started
  • Lyndsey Hancock

    | 0 Posts

    27 Mar, 2024 10:12

    In reply to Robey:

    unfortunately they were sacked due to gross misconduct!
  • Tracey

    | 0 Posts

    27 Mar, 2024 12:04

    In reply to Lyndsey Hancock:

    I am hoping the Gross Misconduct was linked to something else and he wasn't dismissed for being ill
  • Robey

    | 0 Posts

    27 Mar, 2024 13:03

    In reply to Lyndsey Hancock:

    Well, all I can say is that if I were in the same situation I would (1) appeal, and (2) get a good solicitor.
  • Steven

    | 0 Posts

    27 Mar, 2024 13:09

    In reply to Lyndsey Hancock:

    Now is the time for them to write everything down, contemporaneous notes can be extremely valuable.
  • Lyndsey Hancock

    | 0 Posts

    27 Mar, 2024 13:46

    In reply to Tracey:

    Unfortunately no. (now EX) employer saying they shouldn't have been driving and have put the company at risk if they had a crash. (DVLA and DR have said fine to drive and procedure is non emergency) no return to work interview after they were off having been in hospital for chest pains and tests, no OH involvement.
  • Lyndsey Hancock

    | 0 Posts

    27 Mar, 2024 13:47

    In reply to Robey:

    Thank you, appeal is going in tomorrow.
  • David Perry

    | 0 Posts

    27 Mar, 2024 19:15

    In reply to Lyndsey Hancock:

    If that doesn't work and you can't find an employment lawyer or simply don't want to because of the cost, you could always do what I did:-

    My grandson was asking me how his holidays and pay etc., should be worked out. He told me that his employer doesn't do it that way and I explained how it should be calculated. He was being cheated. Off he went to work and mentioned what he'd been told by me. The employer wouldn't listen and clearly thought they could get away paying him less.

    So off I went to the PC, designed myself a nice bit of headed notepaper with, "HR/Employment Law Consultant" on it and spelt out the law clearly and succinctly, and mentioned that I'd have no hesitation in taking them to court if they didn't pay him correctly.

    They paid him correctly along with back pay but were clearly annoyed.

    For optional extra points, I went along to where he worked and got him to serve me. I then asked him to get his boss - but not to tell them who I was. I congratulated his employer and told him how lucky he was to have such a pleasant and hardworking employee.............. :-)

  • Sophie

    | 0 Posts

    28 Mar, 2024 10:46

    In reply to Lyndsey Hancock:

    This is just shocking... :(
  • Lyndsey Hancock

    | 0 Posts

    10 Apr, 2024 10:35

    Update: appeal for gross missconduct dismissal underway. What happens if they overturn the dismissal? Surely he's a marked man?!