Sick/Injury because of Work, Now They Want to Make Me Redundant, Please Help! DDA

[melody213]

I have been off sick from work for almost a year with depressive illness caused by mistreatment by my management at work, and I have raised a grievance which was not upheld by my employer. I have appealed their decision and am waiting their action.

After raising this grievance, I have only recently been fit enough to meet with them to discuss how to move forward, however having met with them, their agenda was more sinister and was in fact to make me redundant.

The crux of the issue now is that the company's insurer has stopped paying my salary, so my employer (a large global company) has informed me that my role is now redundant and I will be made redundant in 30 days (now less). They said that I will only be removed from the redundancy selection if the insurer resumes paying me or if I get another role internally.

I do not think it is appropriate for my employer to select me. Also, since they are aware that due to medical reasons I would not be able to return to my original role in any case don’t they have a lawful obligation to redeploy me?
If so, since I would be in a new role upon my return wouldn’t their premise to make me redundant be defunct?

It also seems to me that they don’t want to make reasonable adjustments because of my health but instead just want me out. I feel that they are discriminating against my medical condition and possibly victimising me because I raised a grievance. Would this be a reasonable assessment?
Do I have a case for unfair dismissal and disability discrimination?

[factor-fiction]

I'm not clear whether it is redundancy or dismissal on grounds of incapability. If the role is being dispensed with then there is a redundancy situation. Staff can't avoid redundancy just because they are off sick.. Are others being made redundant too?

[buildersmate]

We only have your side of the story and it would interesting to hear their's.
Redundancy selection can be based on a range of criteria and it is perfectly possible that the employer has arranged the criteria to make it easier to include you in the pool. That initself isn't unlawful.
However it is somewhat strange that the redundancy is apparently linked to whether the insurer continues to pay your salary - that sounds a somewhat dodgy criterion - might be useful to have something in writing that implies that.
Disability discrimination applies to those with a registered disability - I assume this doesn't apply to you.
I'm no longer up to speed on the law on making allowances for those with an impairment - it does however depend on whether the condition is expected to improve over time or whether that's it for life.
You can't bring a case for unfair dismissal until after you have had a notice of dismissal. Then you talk to the Employment Tribunal people here.
http://www.direct.gov...nttribunals/DG_176137
You use the ET1 Form.

[waterbabe]

So what are you saying
You had a disagreement at work and it has made you ill for a year
So you want them to give you a different job, will the different job make you better.

[another-view]

If someone had taken a year off from my employment, I too would wish to get rid if such deadwood and employ someone more reliable.

[LoftyLottie]

another view - If you can't contribute with anything constructive then best to not contribute at all. Melody is not asking for approval just advice.

Melody, you need to get in touch with ACAS. They are very helpful.

http://www.acas.org.u...x.aspx?articleid=1410

If the cost of calls is a problem you can phone from your local jobcentre.

Good luck.

[another-view]

All I am saying is that there's usually a reason for these things and you don't need to be Columbo to work this one out.

[LoftyLottie]

Another view. I was once in a similar position of being off sick through stress long term caused through a work situation. Eventually, I gave my notice in. The person who had caused me the stress was dismissed for gross misconduct, the conduct which had caused me the stress. We can't make any judgements on melody.

[melody213]

hi thanks for the answers so far. I will respond to each in order:
1. They are using redundancy as the means with the reasoning that area is to be scaled down. At first they said I was part of the redundancies in Sept 2009 but then they said they had already cut down the necessary numbers and I was an individual case. No one else is being made redundant just me.
2. I have in writing that my area was scaled down and that I was a "low scorer". Although how can they score me if I was sick?
I'm not registered with a disability, but I do have mental health issues, taking medication and my health would deterioate if I returned to the same position. Given this, doesn't my employer have a duty for my well being and to make adjustment such as redeploying me?
3. My health would get worse if I went back in to that role because of the management and the team having some knowledge of the situation.
4. I wouldn't be deadwood if my employer didnt discrimate against me and I didnt get ill because of it.
5. Thank you. I spoke to ACAS briefly about the redundancy meeting but not about the whole story. Its quite difficult to get through to them as well.

[LoftyLottie]

Melody, I am surprised you are having problems getting through to them. Someone in my family has had to deal with them a lot recently and have had no trouble whatsoever. Did you use the number in my link

08457 47 47 47

They are really helpful on all sorts of things.

[factor-fiction]

Are you suggesting those that have been attending work should be put to the top of the list for redundancies and got rid of ahead of those who have not been attending work?
But I agree they should consider you for redeployment... although I can't see managers with limited budgets and targets to meet fighting for your services, sorry.
Maybe the best thing for you is to find a new employer.
I'm not clear what outcome you want.

[joko]

you have stated yourself that you cannot and should not go back to the same role because it would make you ill again....so what are you expecting them to do? create another job for you? i dont see why they would have to do that - you were hired to do a job...one job...not any job going.
they have held your job open an paid you for a year under the assumption that you will get well and return...you are now saying you cant return...sorry but i can only see that you should leave and find another job...
if you cannot an will not return, just how many more years are you expecting them to pay you for work you are not doing?
i am fully aware of how work conditions and treatment from bosses etc can make you ill, and i sympathise - but at some point you have to just say enoughs enough - and leave.

[factor-fiction]

One point that puzzles me here is why the employer says it will remove you from redundancy selection if the insurer resumes paying you. Either your job has gone or it hasn't.

[karenmac60]

I'm surprised you have been paid for a year. My husband was off work for 14 months after having a kidney transplant, a further emergency op, various serious complications and infections and heart attack as a result of all this. He was given full pay for 6 months then half pay for a further 6 and after that he was on his own. He ended up going back to work before he was fully fit because we couldn't pay our bills.

[buildersmate]

Having returned to this a day later, I see that you've had a range of comments, some more helpful than others.
Factor picked up on the same point as I did, and you didn't answer it - what's this business about only being redundant if the insurer won't pay your salary? I said that was dodgy before. I don't see how that can from a satisfactory criterion on which to select individuals.
It is perfectly possible to have a redundancy selection pool of one - unusual perhaps, but possible. I think what I am saying is that an employer who knows and understands the process can find a 'fair' reason (fair in a legal sense, rather than a moral one) for declaring a redundancy.
I'm not passing judgement on your case or your circumstancies, but the employer has probably decided that it no longer wants to employ you and it becomes more of an issue about the terms under which one leaves the employment.
No, the employer is not legally obliged to find you an alternative role.
The difficulty with these situations (from both sides) is that you seem to be alleging a link between previous difficulties at work and your absence. Such difficulties are hard to prove on either side - it isn't like a straight-forward case of a work-related accident.
As Lottie suggested, ACAS are in the best position to provide you with a dispassionate view. But I think the best advice is to think about how to extract the maximum money from leaving the employment.