Walking out on a job ...

H

Henny Penny

Registered User
Messages
559
If an employee walks out on a job at lunchtime on a Friday and doesn't return for work on Monday or Tuesday the following week, and subsequently submits a sick cert today (wed) giving work related stress as the reason for absence does the employee have any right to expect her job to be still held for her?
The employee gave no explanation for her absence on Monday or Tuesday. She was the given a verbal warning about her performance on the Friday when she walked out.

The employee has been issued with a contract but refused to sign and return same despite employers insistence. Employee less than 1 year in job.

Any advice for employer very much appreciated.
 
In general an employee has no right under employment law in Ireland to be paid while on sick leave. Consequently, it is at the discretion of the employer to decide his/her own policy on sick pay and sick leave, subject to the employee’s contract or terms of employment.

Under section 3 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 and 2001, an employer must provide an employee with a written statement of terms of employment within two months of the commencement of the employment. One of the terms referred to in this Act, on which the employer must provide information is the terms or conditions relating to incapacity for work due to sickness or injury.

Clear rules should be put in place by the employer where an employee is sick and is unavailable for work. For example, it should be clear that if you are sick and unavailable for work, you must contact a specified person by a certain time etc etc

It basically boils down to what is in an individual employees contract but as your employee hasn't signed their contract and you still kept them employed, I don't know where you stand.

If you a member of IBEC, ring them to find out your rights. If not it might be an idea to contact an employment Solicitor as you may end up facing an unfair dismissal case........
 
Whats in the employment contract about probationary period. I think mine was 1 year.
 
You might want to check with an employment lawyer, but this is the position as I understand it.

If she is employed less than one year, the Unfair Dismissals Act does not apply. So you can terminate her and she can't go to the Employment Appeals Tribunal.

The claim about stress complicates things a bit. She can claim bullying and all sorts of other things. So you have to be careful. She sounds as if she would claim if she could.

Brendan
 
Funny this post should appear today. I was called this morning by a close business associate who does have a similar problem which has occurred a number of times. After the employee concerned took regular periods off work similar to the OP - just didn't return after lunch, not turn up for a few days etc., and then blame it on stress, he (the employer) decided to research the person himself. Basically what has transpired, is he has given a number of verbal warnings, and he then .received bullying accusations, is that the employee is a narcotic user (otherwise known as drug user / addict). Whilst the work is been done and no evidence of abuse whilst at work. After many hours of discussion, he told his staff at lunchtime today that the company would be implementing mandatory drug testing on random employees. The employee concerned handed in her notice this evening.
 
What is the policy in the company,you should have some sort of a handbook of rules and what is expected from an employee.Also if this is the first time they have done this then they should maybe given a 2nd chance, But akk should in company handbook and if you have none and nothing written down to state what is expected then you are walking a thin line with unfair dismissal,
 
Henny Penny said:
If an employee walks out on a job at lunchtime on a Friday and doesn't return for work on Monday or Tuesday the following week, and subsequently submits a sick cert today (wed) giving work related stress as the reason for absence does the employee have any right to expect her job to be still held for her?
The employee gave no explanation for her absence on Monday or Tuesday. She was the given a verbal warning about her performance on the Friday when she walked out.

The employee has been issued with a contract but refused to sign and return same despite employers insistence. Employee less than 1 year in job.

Any advice for employer very much appreciated.
Click to expand...

Odds are, if she gets a good lawyer, you will get caned if you dismiss her.
 
mercman said:
Funny this post should appear today. I was called this morning by a close business associate who does have a similar problem which has occurred a number of times. After the employee concerned took regular periods off work similar to the OP - just didn't return after lunch, not turn up for a few days etc., and then blame it on stress, he (the employer) decided to research the person himself. Basically what has transpired, is he has given a number of verbal warnings, and he then .received bullying accusations, is that the employee is a narcotic user (otherwise known as drug user / addict). Whilst the work is been done and no evidence of abuse whilst at work. After many hours of discussion, he told his staff at lunchtime today that the company would be implementing mandatory drug testing on random employees. The employee concerned handed in her notice this evening.
Click to expand...

You may not be out of the woods yet, she has 6 months to put case against company ...
 
crumdub12.Not my problem, a Business Associate's problem. The person left of her own accord and will be paid all monies and holidays due tomorrow.
 
Merc,


Have seen people leave, and come back stating they were forced out, tell your mate to cover his bases.
 
Doesnt a verbal warning need to be followed by furthrer/written warnings before dismissal? Was the person in question allowed a witness to the verbal warning? Are they on probation or have they completed probation? If she has been out on stress related issues maybe she wasn't to contact work until she did (too unstable perhaps?)
 
My understanding of the problem is this (perhaps I've got it wrong)

1/ The employee does have protection, and whilst still within the probabation period,
the employee does have grounds for unfair dismissal.

2/ Under no circumstances let it be known that you know about the employees drug problem. You are then legally obliged to help the employee, ditto for alcoholics. Try to avoid this if you can. It's a lose lose situation.

3/ The fact that the employee was so quick to parry with a bullying accusation, would suggest to me that, the employee has been planning this for some time.

4/ Try to determine if the employee has been protocoling his/her work, so that if they do get unfair dis.mis. they may get paid for unrecognised OT.

Perhaps they were sitting at their desk surfing, they could still get paid for this.

I know, that's crazy, but the labour courts fall 75% in favour if employee, and 25% in favour of employer.

Sine e
 
SirMille said:
2/ Under no circumstances let it be known that you know about the employees drug problem. You are then legally obliged to help the employee, ditto for alcoholics. Try to avoid this if you can. It's a lose lose situation.
Click to expand...
Can you expand on how an employer accomodating an employee with an addiction problem becomes a 'lose lose' situation?
 
4/ Try to determine if the employee has been protocoling his/her work, so that if they do get unfair dis.mis. they may get paid for unrecognised OT.
Click to expand...
I don't understand this? Can you explain a bit more?
 
We have done this for employees a number of times over the years (drink, not drugs). Most of the time the addiction is one of many problems and the employee ends up leaving but I don't see how it is a lose/lose situation. The help usually involves helping them to get counselling, talking to the bank to sort out debt problems (or in one case guaranteeing their mortgage) and generally letting them know that there is someone to talk to.
If an employee has worked hard and loyally contributed to your business then they should be helped when they are in need. If they are taking advantage and attempting to use laws that are intended for something else to bully their employer then they should not be supported. It's about both parties being honourable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top