Being sacked for having cancer?

[Last Ten]

If the article is correct and the Manager conducted official Isle of Man Government business through text messaging well he or she needs to be suspended and investigated by a select committee of Tynwald as opposed to a departmental senior officer.

 

If this article is correct it makes the Isle of Man Goverment look absolute idiots.

 

LT

[dilligaf]

If the article is correct and the Manager conducted official Isle of Man Government business through text messaging well he or she needs to be suspended and investigated by a select committee of Tynwald as opposed to a departmental senior officer.

If this article is correct it makes the Isle of Man Goverment look absolute idiots.

LT

I wonder sometimes just how young people think that what they read on facebook is always fact.

[oldmanxfella]

If this article is correct it makes the Isle of Man Goverment look absolute idiots.

 

Your point being?

 

These things don't happen that often in the private sector as people tend to do things properly when it comes to managing human resources. This just sounds like two people who think they bloody well know it all slugging out some childish game of tit for tat. Who, assuming they are not a complete idiot, sends texts to staff of that nature? But again who also keeps them and then uses them to go to the press and a tribunal with? It's just typical IOMG child play because they've got too much time on their hands and indulging in child's play is better than just doing your bloody job. Such people should know better - but hey - they're civil servants and they think they fucking well know everything and don't need to anything properly or legally as they're so damn important that people should do as they say. Whether it's right or not.

[muttley]

These things DO happen in the private sector. A lot.

[oldmanxfella]

These things DO happen in the private sector. A lot.

They don't end up on the front page of the newspaper due to someone's apparent overwhelming sense of injustice and/or self entitlement. It's just a childish tit for tat fight. You took me to a tribunal, so I'll get you in the front page of the paper. Yaboo sucks to you! I'm more important and right than you are. Embarrassingly slugging this out in public is much better than working!

[Uhtred]

First I'd like to say that I know nothing of this case, I don't know the person involved, and my comments are my own, and not an official hospital response.

 

Whatever anybody may think of the hospital or wider DHSC management, the fact is that nobody is going to get sacked for getting cancer. That is plainly ridiculous, and I find it incredible that the local rag would publish such rubbish as its headline. When it comes to sick pay, the rules are clear. If you've worked for long enough you get 6 months full pay and 6 months half pay before going on to nothing. There is no limit to sick leave as far as I'm aware, but after a year you're getting paid nothing. That's what income protection insurance or critical illness cover is for.

Well said Wrighty, but for one thing. I don't find it at all incredible that the local rag published such a headline. IOM Newspapers produce abject publications with editorial standards that lie in the gutter and "journalism" that would shame a six year old. Their special metier is a misleading, skewed, one-sided, ill-reported, incomplete mish-mash, designed to deceive the ignorant and embarrass (usually) some arm of public service. In other words, what we have here, I'd venture.

[Loombucket]

 

This is just trying to get your version out there first to influence public perception of what's to come out of the hearing tomorrow.

 

Reading the article, it just looks like she was told to do things and refused, like not turning up to work. Not really sure what else you're supposed to do with an employee who doesn't follow management instruction, no matter how poorly worded it was.

 

 

she comes across as the you're bullying me for asking me do things type. that said a bus driver was also dismissed a few years back while going through the cancer experience so maybe if you aren't high enough up the food chain they don't want to entertain paying you sick pay for a long time anymore and come up with 'reasons' to justify getting rid?

 

That is disgraceful ...

[Rhumsaa]

 

These things DO happen in the private sector. A lot.

They don't end up on the front page of the newspaper due to someone's apparent overwhelming sense of injustice and/or self entitlement. It's just a childish tit for tat fight. You took me to a tribunal, so I'll get you in the front page of the paper. Yaboo sucks to you! I'm more important and right than you are. Embarrassingly slugging this out in public is much better than working!

 

 

Probably because you'd never get another job again in that field of work if you were on the front page of the paper kicking up a fuss and dragging your employers name through the mud

[manxman1980]

I do not work for the IOM Government or in fact any public body so I am commenting from a personal point of view based on my own professional knowledge. I have no knowledge of any of the people involved.

 

Based on the information contained in the article it appears that the headline 'I'm being sacked for having cancer' is inaccurate.

 

The article itself refers to a letter from the Cabinet Office inviting Miss Inglis to a hearing which will consider whether there has been 'an irretrievable breakdown in the working relationship between yourself and your colleagues of whether the implied term of the employment contract to co-operate with your employer to maintain mutual trust and confidence has been fundamentally breached" (sic). The letter also warns Miss Inglis that the outcome of the meeting "could result in your dismissal".

 

None of that refers to Miss Inglis having cancer, or having had cancer, and it is a conduct based "allegation". Essentially they are saying that there has been a breakdown in working relationships to such an extent that it is may be impossible for her to continue working for them. The warning about a possible decision to dismiss is a standard to ensure that an employee knows what the potential outcome/consequences are.

 

The part that actually relates to her health and cancer treatment appears to have been dealt with in an acceptable manner. You have to read between the lines a little but it would appear that her employer has taken advice from a medical practitioner and agreed a phased return to work which includes light duties. This is not uncommon where an illness and/or treatment may have affected an employee physically.

 

I would not expect an employee to be on-call during such a phased return to work as that implies they would be expected to deal with an emergency situation and in that case the employer would not have control over the duties involved. If the employee was required to do anything other than light duties and suffered an injury or set back in recovery as a result then you can guarantee that the employer would be blamed as they had agreed to light duties. Whether or not the employer agreed to Miss Inglis being on call is impossible to tell from the article.

 

The text messages from her line manager were inadvisable at best.

 

The final point to note is that the suspension is "precautionary - not disciplinary". A suspension from employment is never a disciplinary action. It is always to remove an employee from a situation whereby they may cause disruption to an investigation or tamper with potential evidence or the allegation is such that they cannot continue to work until the matter is resolved.

 

There is, however, another form of suspension which is made on medical grounds and is typically used where an employee presents themselves as fit for work but the employer does not think they are. The employer may then choose to suspend the employee pending an investigation or exploration of the health concerns. If there are concerns over her health to perform her full duties and comply with the agreed phased return to work then perhaps this is the route that has been used.

 

Both forms of suspension are on full pay.

 

It is difficult to comment further but certainly the headline of the article is hugely misleading.

[Mr. Sausages]

The headline's got quotation marks around it. Very tabloid-esque, but if you're daft enough to go to the paper and say stuff like that I guess they'll use you / it to sell papers.

[notwell]

I do not work for the IOM Government or in fact any public body so I am commenting from a personal point of view based on my own professional knowledge. I have no knowledge of any of the people involved.

 

Based on the information contained in the article it appears that the headline 'I'm being sacked for having cancer' is inaccurate.

 

The article itself refers to a letter from the Cabinet Office inviting Miss Inglis to a hearing which will consider whether there has been 'an irretrievable breakdown in the working relationship between yourself and your colleagues of whether the implied term of the employment contract to co-operate with your employer to maintain mutual trust and confidence has been fundamentally breached" (sic). The letter also warns Miss Inglis that the outcome of the meeting "could result in your dismissal".

 

None of that refers to Miss Inglis having cancer, or having had cancer, and it is a conduct based "allegation". Essentially they are saying that there has been a breakdown in working relationships to such an extent that it is may be impossible for her to continue working for them. The warning about a possible decision to dismiss is a standard to ensure that an employee knows what the potential outcome/consequences are.

 

The part that actually relates to her health and cancer treatment appears to have been dealt with in an acceptable manner. You have to read between the lines a little but it would appear that her employer has taken advice from a medical practitioner and agreed a phased return to work which includes light duties. This is not uncommon where an illness and/or treatment may have affected an employee physically.

 

I would not expect an employee to be on-call during such a phased return to work as that implies they would be expected to deal with an emergency situation and in that case the employer would not have control over the duties involved. If the employee was required to do anything other than light duties and suffered an injury or set back in recovery as a result then you can guarantee that the employer would be blamed as they had agreed to light duties. Whether or not the employer agreed to Miss Inglis being on call is impossible to tell from the article.

 

The text messages from her line manager were inadvisable at best.

 

The final point to note is that the suspension is "precautionary - not disciplinary". A suspension from employment is never a disciplinary action. It is always to remove an employee from a situation whereby they may cause disruption to an investigation or tamper with potential evidence or the allegation is such that they cannot continue to work until the matter is resolved.

 

There is, however, another form of suspension which is made on medical grounds and is typically used where an employee presents themselves as fit for work but the employer does not think they are. The employer may then choose to suspend the employee pending an investigation or exploration of the health concerns. If there are concerns over her health to perform her full duties and comply with the agreed phased return to work then perhaps this is the route that has been used.

 

Both forms of suspension are on full pay.

 

It is difficult to comment further but certainly the headline of the article is hugely misleading.

Good post.

In addition it looks to me like there has been an ongoing separate issue around getting on with colleagues. Numerous "allegations" which have been, ultiamtely, unfounded.

 

The texting aspect is pathetic. Having said that if one needs to communicate something it may or may not have been possible on the phone and whereby text may have been used before in general communication then perhaps it's not unreasonable to reinforce an important message via a method someone has been happy to use previously.

She has no excuse for going in to work when told not to and already being on a phased return to work.

The illness aspect is of course unfortunate but this isn't the reason she may be getting hoofed. Far from it by the look of it.

[Rhumsaa]

The main issue with texting is that it can be saved and used against the sender. Text is terrible for tone as well.

 

However we are in a texting age - how long before it becomes as acceptable as letter or email correspondence?

 

My top tip is if you're going to be arsey to employees do it verbally.

[dilligaf]

 

I do not work for the IOM Government or in fact any public body so I am commenting from a personal point of view based on my own professional knowledge. I have no knowledge of any of the people involved.

 

Based on the information contained in the article it appears that the headline 'I'm being sacked for having cancer' is inaccurate.

 

The article itself refers to a letter from the Cabinet Office inviting Miss Inglis to a hearing which will consider whether there has been 'an irretrievable breakdown in the working relationship between yourself and your colleagues of whether the implied term of the employment contract to co-operate with your employer to maintain mutual trust and confidence has been fundamentally breached" (sic). The letter also warns Miss Inglis that the outcome of the meeting "could result in your dismissal".

 

None of that refers to Miss Inglis having cancer, or having had cancer, and it is a conduct based "allegation". Essentially they are saying that there has been a breakdown in working relationships to such an extent that it is may be impossible for her to continue working for them. The warning about a possible decision to dismiss is a standard to ensure that an employee knows what the potential outcome/consequences are.

 

The part that actually relates to her health and cancer treatment appears to have been dealt with in an acceptable manner. You have to read between the lines a little but it would appear that her employer has taken advice from a medical practitioner and agreed a phased return to work which includes light duties. This is not uncommon where an illness and/or treatment may have affected an employee physically.

 

I would not expect an employee to be on-call during such a phased return to work as that implies they would be expected to deal with an emergency situation and in that case the employer would not have control over the duties involved. If the employee was required to do anything other than light duties and suffered an injury or set back in recovery as a result then you can guarantee that the employer would be blamed as they had agreed to light duties. Whether or not the employer agreed to Miss Inglis being on call is impossible to tell from the article.

 

The text messages from her line manager were inadvisable at best.

 

The final point to note is that the suspension is "precautionary - not disciplinary". A suspension from employment is never a disciplinary action. It is always to remove an employee from a situation whereby they may cause disruption to an investigation or tamper with potential evidence or the allegation is such that they cannot continue to work until the matter is resolved.

 

There is, however, another form of suspension which is made on medical grounds and is typically used where an employee presents themselves as fit for work but the employer does not think they are. The employer may then choose to suspend the employee pending an investigation or exploration of the health concerns. If there are concerns over her health to perform her full duties and comply with the agreed phased return to work then perhaps this is the route that has been used.

 

Both forms of suspension are on full pay.

 

It is difficult to comment further but certainly the headline of the article is hugely misleading.

 

Good post.

 

In addition it looks to me like there has been an ongoing separate issue around getting on with colleagues. Numerous "allegations" which have been, ultiamtely, unfounded.

 

The texting aspect is pathetic. Having said that if one needs to communicate something it may or may not have been possible on the phone and whereby text may have been used before in general communication then perhaps it's not unreasonable to reinforce an important message via a method someone has been happy to use previously.

 

She has no excuse for going in to work when told not to and already being on a phased return to work.

 

The illness aspect is of course unfortunate but this isn't the reason she may be getting hoofed. Far from it by the look of it.

I agree, but with regard to the "texting", very rarely can the tone be shown .

The "final warning" could easily have been said with a smile and a wagging finger.

 

Edit to say I missed Rhumsaa's post above, sorry.

[manxman1980]

Texting is far from an ideal method of communication between employee and employer. I have seen a significant increase in people texting their line manager to say that they cannot attend work due to ill health or personal reasons.

 

My advice to a line manager is always call the employee and speak to them as it establishes a better form of dialogue. It also enables a manager to gain further information on the cause and likely duration of the absence. That allows the manager to plan the work for the rest of the team/department and if necessary arrange cover. They can also identify if there are any important pieces of work that need addressing during the employees absence.

 

Notwell - The breakdown in relationships would cover the issues with other colleagues and would be treated as a conduct matter. As the article does not give any real information then I would just be speculating about what has happened.

[Rhumsaa]

Texting is far from an ideal method of communication between employee and employer. I have seen a significant increase in people texting their line manager to say that they cannot attend work due to ill health or personal reasons.

 

My advice to a line manager is always call the employee and speak to them as it establishes a better form of dialogue. It also enables a manager to gain further information on the cause and likely duration of the absence. That allows the manager to plan the work for the rest of the team/department and if necessary arrange cover. They can also identify if there are any important pieces of work that need addressing during the employees absence.

 

I agree, it's also a lot easier to just text in and "lie" about not feeling well or conversely as an employer or manager it's harder to show empathy and offer assistance via text.

 

However there is a certain amount of momentum shift towards texting or instant messaging and I wonder how long before it creeps into becoming the norm