ChatterBank60 mins ago
A bit of advice please
6 Answers
A family member has just been made redundant, and was chosen based on his attendance record. He received very high marks in all other aspects of his work.
The reason that he did not score so well on his attendance was due to two spells of absence that spanned a few weeks, both of which were caused by work related incidents. The first was due to whiplash that he obtained in an accident, when he was a passenger in the vehicle that was being driven by a colleague.
The second was due to a hernia operation that he had to have, due to having to lift heavy equipment on and off the van - equipment that is so heavy that the manufacturers advise that it is lifted by two people, or a ramp. He did tell his employers on several occasions that it was damaging his back, but was told to just get on with it. Eventually, they did concede that he needed a ramp on the van, so provided one, but his manager took it and put it on his own van instead!
Over time, his back problems worsened, and it was also discovered that he had a hernia, and needed an operation. This meant that he was off work for four weeks.
The company were paying half his chiropractor fees, which implies that they realised that his back problems were caused by the heavy lifting. However, while he was off work after the hernia operation, they only paid him statutory sick pay.
He never had any intentions of taking the company to court but now that he has been made redundant based on his attendance record, he feels that they have gone too far, and he would now like to know whether has grounds to sue them. He isn't asking for too much, but would like, at the very least, his normal pay for the four weeks that he was off after his hernia operation, and a better redundancy payment than what they have offered, which is less than a months pay.
Does anybody have any advice as to whether he should pursue this or not, and if so, can
The reason that he did not score so well on his attendance was due to two spells of absence that spanned a few weeks, both of which were caused by work related incidents. The first was due to whiplash that he obtained in an accident, when he was a passenger in the vehicle that was being driven by a colleague.
The second was due to a hernia operation that he had to have, due to having to lift heavy equipment on and off the van - equipment that is so heavy that the manufacturers advise that it is lifted by two people, or a ramp. He did tell his employers on several occasions that it was damaging his back, but was told to just get on with it. Eventually, they did concede that he needed a ramp on the van, so provided one, but his manager took it and put it on his own van instead!
Over time, his back problems worsened, and it was also discovered that he had a hernia, and needed an operation. This meant that he was off work for four weeks.
The company were paying half his chiropractor fees, which implies that they realised that his back problems were caused by the heavy lifting. However, while he was off work after the hernia operation, they only paid him statutory sick pay.
He never had any intentions of taking the company to court but now that he has been made redundant based on his attendance record, he feels that they have gone too far, and he would now like to know whether has grounds to sue them. He isn't asking for too much, but would like, at the very least, his normal pay for the four weeks that he was off after his hernia operation, and a better redundancy payment than what they have offered, which is less than a months pay.
Does anybody have any advice as to whether he should pursue this or not, and if so, can
Answers
1 to 6 of 6
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by daffidazey. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Sorry, not read it all - too much there.
That said, at the begininning, you say he was "chosen".
Redundancy is not about the person but about the job - if the job still exists, he wasn't made redundant. If they have said he has, and it still exists, then I would think he could have some grounds to investigate further.
That said, at the begininning, you say he was "chosen".
Redundancy is not about the person but about the job - if the job still exists, he wasn't made redundant. If they have said he has, and it still exists, then I would think he could have some grounds to investigate further.
Companies have the right to use whatever criteria they like. The old "last in first out" rule rarely applies now. My company is currently having redundancies. I have worked for 18 yrs but I am leaving before someone who has only been there 2 years. It was based on skills. The other person's skills are needed longer than mine.
As long as your relatives job has been made redundant then I wouldn't think he could sue.
My company started redundancies with volunteers first,then absence,then skills.
As long as your relatives job has been made redundant then I wouldn't think he could sue.
My company started redundancies with volunteers first,then absence,then skills.
Regarding Mailmutt's response- yes, it's jobs that are redundant, but what often happens is the job remains but the number of posts is reduced. So the firm may choose to reduce the number in a role from 10 to 5, for example. It then employs selection criteria to decide which 5 will go- or it may seek volunteers or ask them to reapply. So this seems on the face of it to be a valid redundancy situation.
Buildersmate is the best person to advise on the fairness of the application of the criteria used here regarding the absences
Buildersmate is the best person to advise on the fairness of the application of the criteria used here regarding the absences
Sorry, the other half wrote out the question, it is a bit long winded!!
Basically, family member got a letter saying that one of the staff would have to be made redundant as the company was being made smaller and who would go would depend on several factors to do with their work. He was called to a meeting and was told he would be the one to go due to his attendance record, but the only time he took off was due to work related injuries.
He wasn't keen to pursue it while working for them but now he has left he would like to look into it further. And also, is the fact that they were paying chiropractor costs like them admitting liability?
Basically, family member got a letter saying that one of the staff would have to be made redundant as the company was being made smaller and who would go would depend on several factors to do with their work. He was called to a meeting and was told he would be the one to go due to his attendance record, but the only time he took off was due to work related injuries.
He wasn't keen to pursue it while working for them but now he has left he would like to look into it further. And also, is the fact that they were paying chiropractor costs like them admitting liability?
1 to 6 of 6
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles102 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles123 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles171 mins ago
Christmas In The Good Old Days
ChatterBank177 mins ago
Elementary Particle In First Half Of...
Crosswords235 mins ago
