What are my rights regarding taking (a long) time off work to care for a sick child?

[FourArms]

I've been in my current job (large nationwide employer) for about 6 weeks. DS2 developed chickenpox a fortnight ago, and 10 days ago developed a condition called ITP which was brought on by the chickenpox. We have been at the hospital every day (except one) for the last 10 days, and the situation isn't improving. I had last week off unpaid, and I already had this week booked off as holiday (we were meant to be in the UAE now ). However, if this goes on, what do I do? DS2 can't be in any form of childcare whilst his platelet count is zero as it's too dangerous for him to have a knock, and also I need to be around for the hospital visits etc.

What are my rights? I don't want to give notice to my employer, as this could resolve in a fortnight, but I probably would if this is going to go on for 6 months (which it could), but unfortunately I don't have a crystal ball.

[flowerybeanbag]

Sorry to hear this, hope he's better soon.

You don't have any rights I'm afraid, especially so early in your employment. You get emergency leave from day one, but this is for a day or two to sort out alternative arrangements, not for long term care.

After a year you can ask for parental leave, but you don't have the right to that at this stage.

How much have you talked to your employer about the situation? I would suggest an open and honest discussion with your line manager and with HR as well if possible, to talk through your options and see how flexible they might be able to be. Keep talking to them about when the doctors think you might have a bit more of an accurate prognosis to see if any big decisions could be postponed for a bit.

[FourArms]

Thanks for that. I feared that was the case.

I have kept them fully up to date with what is going on. There is no way of knowing whether we're in this situation for 1 month or six months, which is very frustrating.

I will probably ring up on Wednesday, and ask them what they'd prefer me to do, as obviously DS2 is my priority, and I can't let myself feel that I've let him down in any way.

[StercusAccidit]

I always thought that if your child is under 14 and you need to take time off work to care for them no matter how long you have been employed by the company, they can't sack you.
Have you tried contacting CAB?

[StercusAccidit]

Here

And

here

They do not state how LONG but it says REASONABLE and unexpected..this may help you, and reasonable is any time for the care of a sick child IMO

Best of luck xx

[StercusAccidit]

The EAT disagreed. In its view, the word ?unexpected? does not involve a time element and when applied to the facts of each case should not be supplemented by adding the words ?sudden? or ?in an emergency? to Section 57A (1)(d).

Sorry about the third post but i thought the above would be useful.. you can not make alternative arrangements.. no one but you will care for a child this ill, ie, the childminder wouldn't.. and you can also say neither would a member of your family in case THEIR kiddies got ill.

Also as a large company, your employer should really allow you this time off, its not like you're skiving to go on a round the world trip is it.

[flowerybeanbag]

I don't think anyone is saying this isn't unexpected, or wasn't to start with at least, but 'reasonable' time off would not be 'any time for care of a sick child'. That could be months, and would no longer be either 'unexpected' or an 'emergency', but would be an ongoing situation.

Emergency leave would usually be a day or two, maybe a few more if absolutely necessary. The OP has already had a week and this may go on for months.

Hope you are able to sort something out with them Fourarms.

[StercusAccidit]

It was an unexpected illness or at least the complications of the original illness though.. and reasonable is until the child is better IMO.

In the current work climate it would be a bugger to lose or give up your job, i am not 100% sure so i would try CAB and they can tell you about the law, i am sure though as i would that if it comes to the crunch with kids, most of us would choose kids over a job, but pretty horrid situation to be in having to choose, and not being in the companys employ for a long time you probably feel guilty.

Sorry you are going through this.. Approach the company you work for in the first instance, they may well be parent friendly and understanding, and then you have worried about nothing

[BetsyBoop]

StercusAccidit - Flowerybeanbag is Mumsnet's HR guru, it's what she does for a living, so you can be pretty sure she is right!

{adds disclaimer for Flowery - she is not an employment lawyer - and waves hello}

Fourarms - hopefully you should be able to get your employer to agree to a period of unpaid leave, most decent employers would do that in such a situation if they were able to (and current economic climate allowing...) I hope you son is soon on the mend {hugs}

[flowerybeanbag]

Thanks Betsy

Stercus the problem with your definition of reasonable time off being 'until the child is better' is that, taken to it's logical conclusion, parents all over the country could therefore expect to take indefinite time off whenever their child is ill and until their child is better. It's simply not reasonable or logistically possible to expect businesses to support the degree of absence that would entail, unfortunately.

Having said that, in these circumstances obviously it is to be hoped that a period of unpaid leave can be agreed, and I agree most decent employers would do that if they possibly can.

[RibenaBerry]

Stercus,

I am really sorry, but the EAT has disagreed with your definition of 'reasonable' in a couple of cases.

Flowery was using the shorthand reference to this type of leave as emergency leave because that is always how it used to be interpreted and this is when it almost always applies. True, RBS v Harrison made it clear that emergency wasn't a free standing requirement, but often the situation is an emergency. I guess the shorthand has stuck because there's no easy and conveient name for the leave otherwise.

Harrison didn't consider the length of leave, but other cases have. Qua v John Ford was one where the EAT said:

"The right to time off to ?? provide assistance? etc in subsection (1)(a) does not in our view enable employees to take time off in order themselves to provide care for a sick child, beyond the reasonable amount necessary to enable them to deal with the immediate crisis. Leave to provide longer-term care for a child would be covered by parental leave entitlement if the employee has responsibility for the child and is entitled to parental leave (that is, has at least one year?s service). "

Similarly, in the O'Toole case the EAT said that it was not reasonable for a father to request "a month or two" off under these provisions.

I really feel for FourArms, but sadly Flowery is totally right and I am afraid that EAT do not agree with your view on what a reasonable period of leave is...

[StercusAccidit]

It wasn't my view lol i was just trying to maybe help the OP did say further on up there ^ to contact the CAB as i didn't know.. i'm no guru and i am not HR or a solicitor or owt but i did have this with my last employer.. My DS had no childcare throughout the whole of the six week holidays and i was told i couldn't be sacked.. for taking time off to care for a dependent under 14 ..

I simply posted links but i haven't pretended to know it all or made out i'm something i'm not

Was also not definitively stating that reasonable time is any amount of time off until the child is better, i said 'IMO' which is as good a disclaimer as any.



TBH, if my kids were ill, and my employers were not willing, able, or whatever to allow me the time off i needed, i would either
Tell them to stick their job if they were nasty about it
Or tell them thank you for being (however polite they were about the situation) but i am going to have to resign my position.

No job would come before my LO's but its a damn shame to have to make that decision

Hope your DS gets well soon OP

[RibenaBerry]

Stercus - sounds like your employer were really good about things if they let you have six weeks off under this rule (they almost certainly didn't legally have to let you have that long and could have made you come back or disciplined you). I hope that the OP's employer are as helpful and agree with your comments about it being horrible being forced to choose.

I do appreciate that you made it clear that you were only giving your opinion, but since the courts have said the opposite, I wanted to let the OP know. The more help someone can get in this situation the better, eh?

Good luck OP and hope your DS gets better soon.

[StercusAccidit]

Thsts true
Sorry wasnt trying to appear rude or covering my own ass lol

Yes, i find most employers are good as long as the cards are on the table, most of them will have kids, have had kids, or been a kid once (even the nastiest of bosses) lol

I agree with the more help the OP gets ect.. when i posted the first, i thought ooo i haven't been v helpful, so started googling.



I really hope the OP's employers are good about this .. there should be a way of praising good employers who go the extra mile for their employees because if they fall foul of the law everyone gets to know about it, but they don't see the good things some employers do.

Mine offered to hold my job open for 3 months once while i dealt with my DD who was in foster care, to try and get her back.. it never happened in the end but the offer was there..bless em.

That was a local car parts company and it was only a medium sized business, the boss was a father so i think that swayed it
I hope the OP gets that kind of treatment
Fingers and toes crossed for you OP x

[flowerybeanbag]

Interestingly, Stercus although your employer was very generous when set against what their actual legal obligations are, in fact it was probably a very sensible business decision as well.

In circumstances like the OPs, where clearly the individual is going to take the time off regardless, the decision is either to allow it or to dismiss the person. In those circumstances, assuming you otherwise value the person, it will usually be cheaper and less disruptive to get a temp for 6 weeks than to dismiss the person altogether and to recruit someone new.

Obviously in fourarms' situation the length of time may be much longer, and it's not as clear, but you can see why, if possible, most employers would be more generous than required, both to be nice to their employee but also for their own benefit.

[flowerybeanbag]

I just read my post back and it didn't quite come across as I meant.

Obviously I don't mean that every parent with an ill child may as well take the entire duration of the illness off because it won't be worth their employer's while sacking them.

What I do mean is that in the case of a valued employee where it is clear there is absolutely no choice, and particularly where it is a case of a few weeks, indicating something more serious, then most employers would prefer to sort something out rather than lose the person.