Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Work

Chat with other users about all things related to working life on our Work forum.

Flip

Original poster

if you have a lot of time off cos your child is sick

23 replies

nappyaddict · 07/06/2007 15:32

can you get sacked?

what i mean is if your oh stayed at home so if your child was ill you wouldn't necessarily have to stay off work but just did cos you wanted to.

OP posts:

fairyjay · 07/06/2007 15:34

I don't know legally, but if we had an employee who was off when her or his child had a bug, I wouldn't be too impressed. If the child was seriously ill, and the parents needed to support each other, I would fully understand.

mankyscotslass · 07/06/2007 15:39

I think they can follow a disciplinary procedure for absence from work which could ulitmately lead in dismissal...but they would have to follow guidlines and be careful. there is another thread here on a similar topic...most companies have parental leave policies and emergency leave policies, but the emergency leave is short term until other cover sorted. as a company i dont think mine would have been impressed if i took time off while there was alread another carer in place, unless it was serious illness.

Ladymuck · 07/06/2007 15:40

Eventually yes, though the employer wuold have to comply with appropriate procedures.

bozza · 07/06/2007 15:42

I should think so. It is obviously a grey area. Because if the child is seriously ill in hospital the working parent will want to be there. But what happens when the child starts to recover? Obviously just for chicken pox or tummy bug it would be OTT. But where is the line?

Peachy · 07/06/2007 15:43

this is the ACAS guidance on the subject

The answer eally is 'reasonable'- and how they define it.

DH has had some time off when i've been home, on a few occasiona when DS1 (Sn so nobody thiks e's horrid, he's not) has attacked me, and actually he was threatened with dismissal. had it been often they could have used the reasonable against him- but as other posts said, even then there is guidance to follow and you would know it was in the offing and be able to modify the behaviour.

personally unless hospitalisation was involved or a child had SN and wouldnt accept OH (not so in our case) then I wouldnt stay at home, but thats just me I guess.

bozza · 07/06/2007 15:45

I think there is more of a case for staying home if the child's usual carer is ill than the child TBH. Ie if the mother is ill I mean so can't look after child although I know most of us struggle on where possible.

Original poster

nappyaddict · 07/06/2007 16:17

yes obviously for hospitalisation then it would be acceptable (i hope?) but i mean for a normal everyday sort of illness.

although could it be seen as unfair if one person is not allowed time off cos their oh stays at home but someone else is cos both parents work?

OP posts:

Peachy · 07/06/2007 16:22

That's the trhing i think, I think it is unreasonable to take the time off if there is a partner at home who is comepetent to help (so allowing for disabled partners etc, I mean you wouldn't expect Misdee's Dh to be expected to cope would you?).

But where does discrimination kick in?

You'd think hospitalisation wqs obvious but remember a mumsnetter recently whose child was seriously ill in hospital long ettermish ( a good few weeks) saying her Dh wasn't allowed the time off

LilRedWG · 07/06/2007 16:24

I have a friend who's eight month old son was in hospital with pneumococal (sp) meningitus for a week and his employers made him take the time as holiday!

mankyscotslass · 07/06/2007 16:27

Most employers would take it further i think if there was already a capable carer at home. Unless it was hospitilization. Most of the comapanies absence policies would be geared up for allowing a parent time off to sort out alternative leave,not because they just wanted to be with the poorly child although there was someone there who could look after the child. When my eldest was 10mths old i went back to work shifts, dh had him, and it killed me leaving him if he was ill cos i just wanted to give him mummy cuddles...but i couldnt take the time off....

mankyscotslass · 07/06/2007 16:28

sorry alternative childcare

Original poster

nappyaddict · 07/06/2007 16:29

if both parents work and both employers are saying they can't have the time off what are you supposed to do though?

OP posts:

Peachy · 07/06/2007 16:32

that's when the reasonable definition kicks in- one can take a few days off reasonable (ie not every few weeks0 (albeit unpaid) and not be disciplined

According to the ACAS leaflet

Dh and I have found it very handy when these things have loomed before to print off ACAS guidance and leave it in HR's in tray (mind you their HR woman is elderly and singularly incompetent)

bozza · 07/06/2007 16:33

You see I think that that parent should be entitled to the time off if the at home parent was ill rather than if the child was ill. That would be fairer. So if both parents work, they take it in turns if the child is ill. If only one parent works, they can take time off if the other parent is ill.

Although TBH I have only ever taken time off as annual leave when the DC have been ill. Granted some of this has been at no notice whatsoever, eg nursery ringing up to say they have called an ambulance for DS - well I'm outta here. Will book the day off when I get back.

Peachy · 07/06/2007 16:44

You're right Bozza, that would be fairer.

Annual leave is good but lots of companies (DH's included) state no if less than 2 weeks notice given, regardless of reason. So it has to be unpaid emergency. And I suppose lots of people use their AL just to cover childcare for holidays etc.

think if a partner is ill there should be understanding anyway- I remember trying to work out if I should have DH sectioned as if I didn;t go into work he was a risk ( a looong time ago now thankfully, recovered and very well these days) but also if I didnt go in we would lose our single income as he could hardly work himself.

Lolly68 · 07/06/2007 16:52

Where I work we have "dependants leave" and "parental leave". Both are unpaid or paid at employer's discretion. Dependant leave is more an emergency one whereas child is ill and you have no-one else to look after them. However this should only be 2-3 days until you arrange other care.

Original poster

nappyaddict · 07/06/2007 17:03

but what other care is there? when they are ill nurseries and childminders won't have them and some children are ill on and off all the time.

OP posts:

Saggarmakersbottomknocker · 07/06/2007 17:10

I had a lot of time off with my dd - extended mat leave, then a period of paid leave and some unpaid. Also took some sick leave and holidays. It all got very messy and I asked them to make me redundant (there were redundancies taking place at the time). They wouldn't do it. It is a very grey area - I think given the chance they would have sacked me.

In the end we made an agreement to work flexible hours and I eventually did get offered redundancy.

Lolly68 · 07/06/2007 17:11

nappyaddict - I know what you are saying. I work full time and DD goes to nursery. I am allowed "reasonable" time off to care for her if she is ill but it will be unpaid. Employees cannot refuse you time off to look after your sick child that is what I have been told. There is also "parental" leave which you are entitled to - 13 weeks until the child is 5.

bozza · 07/06/2007 19:50

i was just describing my situation peachy. We have to have childcare in the hols atm. No way we could stretch out our annual leave to cover it. Things might change when DD starts school. And I am lucky that I can use my annual leave like that, but it also means less time off as far as the company is concerned.

chocolatekimmy · 08/06/2007 14:14

If you have taken time off for dependents (usually 1 or 2 days is considered reasonble) they CANNOT discipline you under absence.

If you have followed correct reporting procedures in line with their requirements there is nothing they can do.

If you need more than what they consider reasonable (no legal definition on this term) then they should have you in for a meeting each occasion to discuss with you and possibly say that yes you can have the extra time however anything over 2 days will count as an absence against you and therefore subject to disciplinary in accordance with their absence procedure.

There was a famous case that i will have to look at next week at work where a woman was sacked after 17 occasions (from a few hours to a few days) over a year. She was found to be unfairly dismissed as it is a statutory entitlement and she had phoned in etc every time.

Even if you don't phone in and follow procedure, that is a conduct issue to be dealt with seperately to absence procedure

REasonable can only be applied to length of each occasion, not number of occasions in general

mankyscotslass · 08/06/2007 14:51

ooh, that's good to know, does that apply even though in the op there was a carer who was capable at home, but op just wanted to be with her child?

chocolatekimmy · 08/06/2007 22:16

Yes, its not about if someone else is available or not.

They shouldn't really question if there is someone else available to care for the child, if they do then you are under no obligation to answer. Personlly I would answer but it is down to you qualifying for the time off in the first place under the 'sudden or unexpected emergency etc for a dependant, child, partner etc'.

You wouldn't have to prove anything anyway, though they can ask for proof of a TOFD you are not obliged to provide the evidence and they can't do anything about it

Flip