Do you always get a payout if you are dismissed on Ill health grounds

[Tellmemore85]

Or is this only done when polices haven’t been followed correctly?

Why would you get a payout

Not regarding me regarding my dh. It’s just what I’ve heard that company’s often offer a pay out when they dismiss an individual.

In most cases payouts only happen if the person is dismissed unfairly,

For example: Cherie discovers she has HIV, her colleagues discover that one day and she is literally discriminated against to the point that she feels she can no longer work to her beat ability and her work quality skips. She is then dismissed, she is able to go to tribunal for unfair dismissal against her employer. (A similar example to the film Philadelphia)

Ugh, *best and Slips, damn autocorrect

No. Every company reacts differently. There is no guarantee and should be no expectation of a pay out. Dismissing someone because they are unable to do their job is potentially fair dismissal. It depends on the facts.

Do you mean as in too I’ll to do the job? Like a settlement?

www.moneywise.co.uk/health-insurance/work-family/your-rights-ill-health-dismissal

Usually only if the company has messed up procedures or there’s justification for a settlement agreement- I work in HR so it’s treated as a dismissal with notice so unless the criteria is dodgy it’s relatively low risk dismissal compared to others hence no payout. If he’s part of a pension that may make a payment if he meets the criteria for that.

Nine times out of ten, a “payout” (ie more than notice period) happens when the dismissal is potentially slightly shaky legally.

Otherwise there’s no reason to do it other than to be nice, and although that does happen sometimes, it’s not often!

Yes I mean like a settlement. Seems it’s not as common as people make out though.

So much terrible advice. It completely depends on his job, his pension terms etc.

In the public sector this is very common and is certainly not "dodgy"

You’d only get justification for making a payment if there’s a risk, so no settlements are not as common as some might think. As Flowery said it’s where there’s a legal risk that the employer wants to mitigate or eliminate.

Hi OP, I work in HR for the civil service - if people are dismissed due to medical inefficiency we pay 1 weeks pay per year in employment, up to a maximum of 12 weeks. The amount awarded is based on a percentage scale so if prior to the illness or accident that has triggered the dismissal sick was generally good, they might get 100% of this, but iT goes down in degrees based on this. Has nothing to do with us being on dodgy ground.

Er whitesoxx I am in public sector and it’s really hard to get approval for a settlement, we have to have tried everything before it’s even contemplated and then has to have extremely senior level sign off.

I assume you’re referring to pension ill health retirement which is common in public sector but is not a settlement, that’s retirement.

he’s only been with the company three years so I’m assuming if he is able to get a pay out it won’t be a very big one.

Probably just his pilon. Either statutory, or contractual if applicable.

Uncommon in my view. If you have continued I'll health and are unable to attend work, dismissal will come sooner or later in the private sector.

We'd pay notice, outstanding holiday and that's all. Will he be able to claim benefits iif he's dismissed? Sorry to hear he's too unwell to work.

My mum got a pay out when she was finished on ill health, she had a job that involved standing for long periods and heavy lifting and had surgery on her knees that meant she could no longer do it and her work couldn't make appropriate adjustments to her daily tasks so it was agreed she would leave which she was happy about. I don't know the ins and outs of it though

Is there an ill health or capability policy? That’s your starting point if the company does pay out routinely.

I’m intrigued about where Taco works as we have to have Department Minister and Treasury sign off on any settlement but it sounds more routine there. I’m in a government agency.

I've only known one person in the nhs get a settlement and I suspect the fact she got it may have been related to the fact she'd only worked for the nhs for about 18 months so the payout wouldn't have been a lot. Maybe I'm just being cynical.

We wouldn't pay a settlement for a dismissal due to ill-health if the correct procedure had been followed. Why would we?

I have frequently seen directors and senior managers intervene to make sure unwell staff are retired with a payout. Usually it’s when they’ve had a long service and it’s clear they’re not going to be able to work again. But it’s totally discretionary and not everywhere does it, and certainly aren’t obliged or expected to

Some companies will pay for an ill health early retirement, if the person is so ill they would not be able to work again, but the criteria for meeting this is usually very high.
Most companies I imagine would only pay outstanding holiday, notice period.
Unless there was potentially some fault on behalf of the company, but then you would usually need to start a personal injury claim, which they may choose to pay out/settle rather than end up in court over (and therefore avoiding the negative publicity). That quite a rare/specific scenario though, and most companies would fight any claim unless the evidence against them was pretty solid.

If you’re prevented from doing the job due to ill health, why would the company have to compensate you for that? Of course they don’t...

I’ve just received a substational pay out (public sector) but that was because they discriminated against my disability and my union threatened them with legal action. So in this case they did offer it to stop me taking the matter further.