to be livid DH has to work with D & V?

[ASecretLemonadeDrinker]

We all have it, ds school has it and dh started throwing up last night . Dh isn't allowed any more days off after taking some when I was ill, but he text boss saying the above i.e its v contagious but he's going to work and he replied "ok". There is about 50 odd staff and his co worker has JUST had a heart attack.

SSP is paid by the employer - not the government. see here

This is something my employer put me straight on when we were discussing sick policies etc.

Of course. On Friday I felt that such a ridiculous accusation wasn't worth a defence, but as other have pointed out, I expressed no opinion as to whether anyone should or should not be sacked.

I merely pointed out that it is completely incorrect to say there is any law stating that it is illegal to dismiss someone because they are off sick, and employees are not in fact legally entitled to take as much time off sick as they like without ever getting sacked. I don't know where that myth came from, but it's just not true. Employment law is not that simplistic.

there are 2 issues here - sick leave and sick pay.

the company doesn't have tp pay if you are not there but can't sack you if you don't come in.

why did he take time off when you were ill?

"the company doesn't have tp pay if you are not there but can't sack you if you don't come in"

I'm going to say this one more time, then I'm off.

There is no law saying a company cannot dismiss someone for not coming into work because of sickness. Sometimes doing so would be unfair dismissal, but there are certainly some circumstances under which a company could legally dismiss someone for not coming in due to sickness.

I don't think the OPs DH would come into any of those categories, but it's just not accurate to say a company 'can't' sack someone if they don't come in because of sickness.

Flowery, what kind of situation might see someone sacked for sickness?

I too believed that this couldn't happen. I'm sure you know more about it than me, but am curious to know more!

Yes, a company can dismiss someone for too much sickness.

There are two ways I've seen personally in my current job:

1. The employee is taking repeated periods of short 'unexplained' illness. I.e. D&V with no specific cause etc...

Even with a Dr's note every time... sooner or later, a company will have rid, I'm afraid. It isn't illegal. They will argue that the employee simply isn't meeting the termsand conditions of their contract.

1. Long term sickness... and, yes, this includes cancers, heart attacks etc, it is perfectly legal, after a period of time, to call the employee in (or go to them) hold a meeting and dismiss them.

The argument here is that they are holding a job which they cannot, nor forseeably will be able to in the near future, do reliably.

I think the statute is around 6 months.

Many employers will not do this to a loyal employee if they are diagnosed with something horrible, but they can.

They can't, bear in mind, take on a permanent replacement with someone already in the role and if that role is critical, temp cover sometimes isn't enough to keep the business functioning.

Harsh, but there you go. So, yes, an employer CAN fire you for being off ill too much.

OP, how much time total has your DH had off in the last 12 months, counting everything?

Sorry Dansmommy, didn't come back to this thread then just saw your question in my 'threads I'm on'

Basically if the sickness absence rate means the employee is unable to fulfil their side of the employment contract it may be possible to dismiss them. To do this fairly, an employer should try to make adjustments to the job if that's possible, and seek medical advice to establish that the employee is unlikely to be able to perform their job in the foreseeable future.

It's called 'capability' - the employee is not capable of performing their job, and it's a fair reason for dismissal although should be approached with extreme caution by an employer.

Interestingly the OP mentions that her DH took time off because she was ill. If he claimed he was ill and he wasn't, it would be quite reasonable for that to be a disciplinary issue, however if they were fully aware he wasn't ill and it wasn't sickness absence then that's separate to this.

Seems he took unpaid leave, rather than claiming illness when that would have been a lie.

As for "an employer should try to make adjustments to the job if that's possible" I can only confirm that (with care) that can be a route to ending someone's position.

One of the teachers at my sister's school (when she was a head, prior to her retirement) was off for weeks at a time, would return for a week or two and then be off again. Was costing a small fortune in replacement staff (covered by insurance, but premiums don't go down after claims!).

After months of this, my sister had to review the situation, inviting the teacher (and union rep/ husband if preferred) to a meeting. Eventually ended with the teacher going, as she simply wasn't 'capable' after all the encouragement and assistance (back 1 day a week for a month, then 2 days, etc).

She was insistent to the end that she wanted the job, but her husband and union rep could see how my sister was unable to keep her on, given the uncertainty of whether she would be at work or not for any length of time, and her pupils were the ones most affected by this disruption.

Think for a big firm they have a pretty poor attitude. It would be worth "demanding" (if requesting fails) written policy on coming in with D+V, and situation if HA man became ill. No fun for HA man, and not sure whether firm would be culpable if staff in fear of being off sick even if they have something contagious.

It just does not make sense to go in (glad he went home - was he sent home?)

So yes, YANBU to be livdid with his firm/boss.

If they are big, and you feel you are suitably anonymous, please name and shame them!