Work refusing to let me rejoin after certified sick leave

LegacyUser

Not the greatest start to 2021

- Worked at a global company for over a decade in a customer facing role.
- Fell sick and was on illness benefit for a while.
- Doctors and social welfare now state I am fit to return but will require some accommodation, need to be non-customer facing for a while.
- Employer stating that they can't have me back as they can't accommodate and are terminating my permanent contract paying notice.

I must add, this is a global company with offices accross Ireland with over 2/3000 employees.

Surely they "can't accommodate" isn't true. The role normally wasn't heavy customer facing, just known as a "customer facing role". They have advertised a lot of roles which could fit my present condition.

Not sure what I should do as I'm not getting paid illness benefit and can't return to work.

Thanks for reading.

Misguided1

FitEmployeeUnfitEmployer wrote: »

Not the greatest start to 2021

- Worked at a global company for over a decade in a customer facing role.
- Fell sick and was on illness benefit for a while.
- Doctors and social welfare now state I am fit to return but will require some accommodation, need to be non-customer facing for a while.
- Employer stating that they can't have me back as they can't accommodate and are terminating my permanent contract paying notice.

I must add, this is a global company with offices accross Ireland with over 2/3000 employees.

Surely they "can't accommodate" isn't true. The role normally wasn't heavy customer facing, just known as a "customer facing role". They have advertised a lot of roles which could fit my present condition.

Not sure what I should do as I'm not getting paid illness benefit and can't return to work.

Thanks for reading.

I’d have a chat with a solicitor to be honest. Without knowing all the facts, the company doesn’t seem to be making any effort to accommodate you which should be their starting point. If they have roles for which you are qualified, you should apply for them. Speak to HR and advise them of the roles you wish to apply for.

The WRC won’t be impressed with a company of thousands of staff who can’t make what appears to be a simple enough accommodation.

Jim2007

FitEmployeeUnfitEmployer wrote: »

Not the greatest start to 2021

- Worked at a global company for over a decade in a customer facing role.
- Fell sick and was on illness benefit for a while.
- Doctors and social welfare now state I am fit to return but will require some accommodation, need to be non-customer facing for a while.
- Employer stating that they can't have me back as they can't accommodate and are terminating my permanent contract paying notice.

I must add, this is a global company with offices accross Ireland with over 2/3000 employees.

Surely they "can't accommodate" isn't true. The role normally wasn't heavy customer facing, just known as a "customer facing role". They have advertised a lot of roles which could fit my present condition.

Not sure what I should do as I'm not getting paid illness benefit and can't return to work.

Thanks for reading.

Well working in a customer facing role, without interacting with customers, is hardly an accommodation.... it's a fundamental change.

Are you qualified to do any other role?

LegacyUser

Thanks for the responses.

I agree, they aren't even trying to accommodate - just delay tactics and excuses. They just flat out said we can't accommodate. Was too shocked to react.

You missed the point that the role is supposed to be customer facing but in reality it never was a heavy customer facing role... What's changed is that they just need to agree that they suddenly won't make it heavy customer facing just because "they can"...

Frankly, with Covid which professional jobs are actually customer facing? They are just using that as an excuse to not allow me back.

I only stated that the company has 2/3k employees. I've yet to state that it's one of the go to companies to work for... Best places to work and all that... The arrogance(my personal opinion) seems to stem from the fact that they are untouchable and can replace people quickly...

I might have to get a solicitor involved no doubt. But are there any specific employee rights that apply in this case that I can look up?

Thanks

_Brian

A company would be expected to accommodate where possible, but you would need to be qualified for other roles and they would need to have another opening available..

However, if there is no "suitable" alternative and if you are unable to fulfill your original role they are within their rights to terminate your contract.

It all hinges on "suitable"..

You may believe you are suitable for these other roles but that may or may not be the case, they may be looking for skills or experience you don't have.

Jim2007

FitEmployeeUnfitEmployer wrote: »

I might have to get a solicitor involved no doubt.

Well I doubt very much if you'll far with or without a solicitor, unless you can show that you are qualified in some way to take a different role and that they have capacity for you in that role.


You signed up to a particular role, which you can no longer do. It does not matter if the current experience does not necessitate the level of customer interacting defined for the role. You can't expect them to restrict their options down the line by changing the terms for you.


I've seen this kind of accommodation a few times in the past, but in each case the person involved was qualified to do some other role or were willing to get trained up in it. I've never seen a generic role in a big firm, restricted to satisfy the particular person taking that role.

mrslancaster

you're fit to return to work provided the job is changed sounds like you're not fit enough yet. Maybe your doctor needs to say you'll have to stay out sick a bit longer until you are actually fit enough to return to the customer facing role that you are actually employed for.

Masala

I can't see why you would expect the company to change to suit you cos your doctor gave them a note!!

Its like say a Fireman who comes back to work after an injury with a note 'no more working with fires'!! So if all he is trained to do is fire-fight you cant expect the company to bring him back and pay him for sitting around.

They dont have to 'make' a role for you.... you cant expect to just given another role.

ED E

mrslancaster wrote: »

you're fit to return to work provided the job is changed sounds like you're not fit enough yet. Maybe your doctor needs to say you'll have to stay out sick a bit longer until you are actually fit enough to return to the customer facing role that you are actually employed for.

Reading between the lines it sounds a little like the OPs issue is mental health related. If I'm right there may not be a clear timeline for when they can take up the old role.

_Brian

Many very large companies will facilitate an employee for a short time of suitable work is available, what goes unsaid is the employee needs to be a team player up to that point. I’ve seen plenty of empty vessels think they can paddle their own canoe, and then expect the company to bend over backwards when they want that. Its not an entitlement.

mrslancaster

ED E wrote: »

Reading between the lines it sounds a little like the OPs issue is mental health related. If I'm right there may not be a clear timeline for when they can take up the old role.

If that was the case then there must be some obligation on the company to support their employee - I didn't think it was possible to terminate someones employment due to illness but open to correction on this.

Jim2007

mrslancaster wrote: »

If that was the case then there must be some obligation on the company to support their employee - I didn't think it was possible to terminate someones employment due to illness but open to correction on this.

He is not being terminated due to illness. His doctor has certified him fit for work with limitations. The company can't meet these limitations it seems....

_Brian

mrslancaster wrote: »

If that was the case then there must be some obligation on the company to support their employee - I didn't think it was possible to terminate someones employment due to illness but open to correction on this.

If for whatever reason you are no longer to complete the work you were hired to do, amd the company have no other alternative suitable work then they are indeed allowed to terminate your employment.
They would need to have a decent watertight case, bit it does happen.

Lux23

My partner had a similar issue with his employer; he wasn't looking for a new role but there needed to be a few tweaks to the job description to help with a disability. The employer refused and offered him a redundancy package, which was pretty generous, but my partner said no and engaged a solicitor. They backed down and agreed to make the changes, and it has worked out fine. This is a huge multinational, but I think the line manager decided to say no to suit themselves!

1hnr79jr65

You could go back to social welfare and inform them that your employer is wanting to fire you as they cant/wont accommodate a return to work with changes to your role. They would have a vested interest to keep you in employment and could assist in dealing with your workplace to find suitable accommodation as they said you could also return to work.

No guarantees it will work but nothing lost by attempting this route.

Augme

OP based on a recent decision in the supreme court in relation to reasonable accommodations, you'd have a very strong case to take to the WRC of they didn't find another role for you.

LegacyUser

Wow. I actually wonder if some responses are coming from HR of the said company! "You don't have a case", "they are within their rights", "they don't have to accommodate", "can't expect the company to change", etc...

Are most posters even based in Ireland and know the laws here? I have a watertight case. As someone said, this is being done to suit the manager.

I liked how everyone started speculating... Where did I state I am a "he"?

Thanks to the posters who provided reasonable advice (correctly!). And also thanks to those who appear to jump to the employer's defence (ignorance is bliss!), as I managed to see both sides of the argument.

FYI - An employee is presumed sick unless and until they return to work, even if only for a day. In this case the employer didn't give the employee a chance to return. So in their eyes said employee isn't "fit for work"... So termination is illegal. It's pretty simple. The doctor can state the patient is fit, if employers have doubts they can subject an employee to a medical exam.

A lot of clueless posters.

Jim2007

Augme wrote: »

OP based on a recent decision in the supreme court in relation to reasonable accommodations, you'd have a very strong to take to the WRC of they didn't find another role for you.

The case in no way, removed the requirement that an employee must be able to execute the fundamental tasks of the role. Not being able to perform client facing tasks in a client facing role is fair fundamental.

listermint

Lux23 wrote: »

My partner had a similar issue with his employer; he wasn't looking for a new role but there needed to be a few tweaks to the job description to help with a disability. The employer refused and offered him a redundancy package, which was pretty generous, but my partner said no and engaged a solicitor. They backed down and agreed to make the changes, and it has worked out fine. This is a huge multinational, but I think the line manager decided to say no to suit themselves!

Line managers in multinationals don't have the option to say no to suit themselves. They don't even have firing abilities. Every decision like this goes through local and then regional HR. There is an entire process behind it and not some petty grievances. I suggest you don't continue blaming a line manager on behalf of your husband and understand that the hands may have been tied until HR got a legal notice.

Often people make up fantasies in their head to suit their own story, without actually sitting back and thinking about it logically

ibarelycare

FitEmployeeUnfitEmployer wrote: »

Wow. I actually wonder if some responses are coming from HR of the said company! "You don't have a case", "they are within their rights", "they don't have to accommodate", "can't expect the company to change", etc...

Are most posters even based in Ireland and know the laws here? I have a watertight case. As someone said, this is being done to suit the manager.

I liked how everyone started speculating... Where did I state I am a "he"?

Thanks to the posters who provided reasonable advice (correctly!). And also thanks to those who appear to jump to the employer's defence (ignorance is bliss!), as I managed to see both sides of the argument.

FYI - An employee is presumed sick unless and until they return to work, even if only for a day. In this case the employer didn't give the employee a chance to return. So in their eyes said employee isn't "fit for work"... So termination is illegal. It's pretty simple. The doctor can state the patient is fit, if employers have doubts they can subject an employee to a medical exam.

A lot of clueless posters.

Why did you post looking for advice so?

bucketybuck

FitEmployeeUnfitEmployer wrote: »

You missed the point that the role is supposed to be customer facing but in reality it never was a heavy customer facing role...

So why don't you just go back and do the job then? Why do you need the accommodations?

Dav010

Did an employment solicitor tell you that you had a watertight case op?

Masala

FitEmployeeUnfitEmployer wrote: »

Wow. I actually wonder if some responses are coming from HR of the said company! "You don't have a case", "they are within their rights", "they don't have to accommodate", "can't expect the company to change", etc...

Are most posters even based in Ireland and know the laws here? I have a watertight case. As someone said, this is being done to suit the manager.

I liked how everyone started speculating... Where did I state I am a "he"?

Thanks to the posters who provided reasonable advice (correctly!). And also thanks to those who appear to jump to the employer's defence (ignorance is bliss!), as I managed to see both sides of the argument.

FYI - An employee is presumed sick unless and until they return to work, even if only for a day. In this case the employer didn't give the employee a chance to return. So in their eyes said employee isn't "fit for work"... So termination is illegal. It's pretty simple. The doctor can state the patient is fit, if employers have doubts they can subject an employee to a medical exam.

A lot of clueless posters.

Sure .. with a watertight case - away you go then and take the employer to court! Lets us know how you get on after you get the big pay-out!

Jim2007

FitEmployeeUnfitEmployer wrote: »

A lot of clueless posters.

Oh you mean like your statement:

FYI - An employee is presumed sick unless and until they return to work, even if only for a day.

Well for your information, you're fit for work when the doctor certifies you so and he did. Just not your previous job.


But since you seem to already know it all, I'm sure you'll work it out. Just don't know why you felt the need to ask at all....

Fol20

FitEmployeeUnfitEmployer wrote: »

Wow. I actually wonder if some responses are coming from HR of the said company! "You don't have a case", "they are within their rights", "they don't have to accommodate", "can't expect the company to change", etc...

Are most posters even based in Ireland and know the laws here? I have a watertight case. As someone said, this is being done to suit the manager.

I liked how everyone started speculating... Where did I state I am a "he"?

Thanks to the posters who provided reasonable advice (correctly!). And also thanks to those who appear to jump to the employer's defence (ignorance is bliss!), as I managed to see both sides of the argument.

FYI - An employee is presumed sick unless and until they return to work, even if only for a day. In this case the employer didn't give the employee a chance to return. So in their eyes said employee isn't "fit for work"... So termination is illegal. It's pretty simple. The doctor can state the patient is fit, if employers have doubts they can subject an employee to a medical exam.

A lot of clueless posters.

So the people that agree with you are reasonable and knowledgable and the people that disagreed with what you are trying to achieve are ignorant???

I think most people don’t know the answer you are looking for as it’s all subjective and not factual. If you believe that you are being unfairly dismissed or you are being unfairly treated with your request, speak to an employment law solicitor. They are the only people that will truly answer your question.

There’s no point bashing either side as both are doing their best to give you advice and if you are not open to other trains of thought why bother even asking the question.

_Brian

I can’t understand what’s going on here.

OP has been certified fit to work, but not at the job they were hired to do.

Yes if an employer has alternative suitable work they would be expected to take OP back.

However. If the company doesn’t have alternative suitable work, and OP is now unfit to undertake the work they were hired to do, the employer is legally allowed terminate employment.

It shouldn’t be their first move, they should suggest longer time off work or return on reduced hours etc.

But if OP will not be to return to their original role and no other suitable alternative is available then termination is the next step.

I’m not sure what water tight case OP suddenly feels they have, like many threads were only hearing one side of the story.

Masala

_Brian wrote: »

I can’t understand what’s going on here.

OP has been certified fit to work, but not at the job they were hired to do.

Yes if an employer has alternative suitable work they would be expected to take OP back.

However. If the company doesn’t have alternative suitable work, and OP is now unfit to undertake the work they were hired to do, the employer is legally allowed terminate employment.

It shouldn’t be their first move, they should suggest longer time off work or return on reduced hours etc.

But if OP will not be to return to their original role and no other suitable alternative is available then termination is the next step.

I’m not sure what water tight case OP suddenly feels they have, like many threads were only hearing one side of the story.

Good summary!!!!!!

Any other responses from the OP is going to be trolling at this stage. But I'll stay subscribed for the moment until the popcorn runs out

Augme

Jim2007 wrote: »

The case in no way, removed the requirement that an employee must be able to execute the fundamental tasks of the role. Not being able to perform client facing tasks in a client facing role is fair fundamental.

It stated that there is no reason why the redistribution of work tasks, even ones deemed essential, should not be considered a reasonable accommodation and should be allowed as long as it doesn't place a "disproportionate burden" on a company.

Given the OP stated that they work in an organisation of 2-3,000 people then I would very much assume that the bar for "disproportionate burden" would be extremely higher for an organisation of that size.

LegacyUser

Well, I won't say much as I'm been pre-warned it will be considered trolling...

So, I posted on boards first. It took a while to get responses, in the meantime spoke to GP, directed to welfare officer.

FYI, you can be fit for work but not be able to do certain things... It's in the welfare form. So GP says fit but, employer says no here is your P45... That was the wrong thing to do.

I'm not looking for payout, just return work. So option for employer is to get their medical examination conducted and accommodate or state why they can't...

It isn't as complicated as it seems... We just had too many responses taking this is multiple directions and a lot of hearsay...

Employers will try to take the easy way out, employees need to understand their rights.

I posted here to ask if I had any rights. Employees do, but a few posters think it's unfair on the employer... Unfair and legal are two different things... Doing the legal thing might actually be unfair for a company as far as their profits margin goes, but that's why there are laws to protect employees...

It's ironic that people complain if someone stays on welfare but also complain if they try to get back to work needing accommodation... So employees are either sponging the state or the employer...

I never had a sense of "entitlement" I want to work but need time to adjust that's all...

FYI - I'm a fully qualified professional trained for 4.5 years and two level 9s, 10+ years qualified experience... So I wasn't talking about working in McDonalds and not being able to manage the till...

Mrs OBumble

Augme wrote: »

It stated that there is no reason why the redistribution of work tasks, even ones deemed essential, should not be considered a reasonable accommodation and should be allowed as long as it doesn't place a "disproportionate burden" on a company.

Given the OP stated that they work in an organisation of 2-3,000 people then I would very much assume that the bar for "disproportionate burden" would be extremely higher for an organisation of that size.

I guess it depends on what the accommodation required is.

For instance, it may be that the worker cannot deal with situations where there is conflict, and so would need a role where there is none. I'd imagine most companies would struggle to accommodate this.

1hnr79jr65

FitEmployeeUnfitEmployer wrote: »

I'm not looking for payout, just return work. So option for employer is to get their medical examination conducted and accommodate or state why they can't...

Employers will try to take the easy way out, employees need to understand their rights.

I posted here to ask if I had any rights. Employees do, but a few posters think it's unfair on the employer... Unfair and legal are two different things... Doing the legal thing might actually be unfair for a company as far as their profits margin goes, but that's why there are laws to protect employees...

Just on these particular points, i would put forward a defense of others who mentioned these things. Unfair for an employer might also be unfair for another employee as they may have to take work from another employee to fulfill your request. This could affect said employee with hours cut, or feeling like they are not competent so they lost work or other such reasons.

It is not always down to company profits or inflexibility, however can be of practically. As you have identified you are a trainer, are there other trainers who can pick up your slack or that you work with? Or if there are other trainers could you perform some of the admin work for them, compiling decks/training modules, assessing exams and such and spread the load this way and means the training team continue with minimal disruption while potentially not affecting another employee?