# No work, employer suggesting going sick?



## boogaloo (18 Dec 2008)

Hi, 

This is for a friend of mine (honestly!).

Situation is that she is on maternity leave, due to go back to work after Christmas.
Problem is that due to the downturn, there is no work there for her to do.  
Her employer does not want to make her redundant (both for financial reasons and also because they want to keep her on their books for when times might change).

Employer has suggested that she 'go sick' for a while until business hopefully picks up again.

This girl has always been above board in all her dealings, and doesn't know what to do now!  Can she force her employer to pay her redundancy?
If she refuses to apply for disability benefit, then she is back to looking for a new job and right now is not a good time for that.

What are her options?  Obviously she will need to get some money in each week once her maternity leave finishes.  Can she claim unemployment benefit or job seekers allowance straight away?  What if her employer refuses to admit that there is no job there for her and says that she left of her own accord?  Obviously that will prevent her from claiming anthing for a few weeks.

She is getting v stressed out with all of this, employer just keeps insisting that she consider 'going sick'.

Help!


----------



## iggy (18 Dec 2008)

She should report back to work on the date she finishes her maternity leave....she is still employed!
The problem is now her employers.


----------



## jhegarty (18 Dec 2008)

Simple solution is to turn up for work next week. An employer can't make you "go on the sick".

Is there valid reasons why she has been picked as the person surplus to requirements ?


----------



## boogaloo (18 Dec 2008)

But the employers do not want to deal with the problem, hence their suggestion that she basically lie & say she is sick.
If she turns up for work on 5th January, they will just send her home and say again that there is no work for her.  They are saying they do not have the money to pay her wages.


----------



## jhegarty (18 Dec 2008)

boogaloo said:


> But the employers do not want to deal with the problem, hence their suggestion that she basically lie & say she is sick.
> If she turns up for work on 5th January, they will just send her home and say again that there is no work for her.  They are saying they do not have the money to pay her wages.




They can't do that. 

Their choice is :
1) Pay her
2) Give her notice of redundancy (showing valid reason why she was selected)


----------



## iggy (18 Dec 2008)

An employer cannot act in that way.
If there is no work for her they must make her redundant.


----------



## iggy (18 Dec 2008)

Sorry...my posts crossing with jhegarty`s, were singing from same hymn sheet...I`ll leave it to you J.


----------



## boogaloo (18 Dec 2008)

They are saying they can't either pay her or pay redundancy.  She is not the type to go to a lot of hassle & aggro with these people.  Thing is, she is going through more stress now than she would be if she were working


----------



## jhegarty (18 Dec 2008)

boogaloo said:


> They are saying they can't either pay her or pay redundancy.  She is not the type to go to a lot of hassle & aggro with these people.  Thing is, she is going through more stress now than she would be if she were working




They can say anything they want , it's not something they can legally do.


----------



## MentalNote (18 Dec 2008)

See here for some info on redundancy.
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/c...and-redundancy/redundancy/redundancy-payments
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/c...and-redundancy/redundancy/redundancy-payments

The employer gets most of it back anyway:



> In the first instance it is up to the employer to pay the statutory redundancy lump sum to all eligible employees. The Social Insurance Fund (SIF) finances the 60% redundancy rebate payment to employers who pay their eligible employees their full statutory redundancy entitlements. However, where the employer is unable to pay or refuses or fails to pay, the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment steps in and makes a payment from the SIF.


----------



## Purple (18 Dec 2008)

What the employer is proposing is nothing short of theft from the exchequer. 
She should turn up for work the day she is due back as suggested above.


----------



## brid1977 (18 Dec 2008)

Has her employer suggested what she 'go sick' with? Or made any suggestions on how she fake an illness to her doctor? This is social welfare fraud that her employer is suggesting.


----------



## MaryBe (18 Dec 2008)

brid1977 said:


> Has her employer suggested what she 'go sick' with? Or made any suggestions on how she fake an illness to her doctor? This is social welfare fraud that her employer is suggesting.


 
And they wonder why our economy is in the state it is!!!


----------



## stevo (18 Dec 2008)

How many employees in the organisation ? And, how many other employees are being told that "there is no work" for them? 
Who was covering for her while she was on mat leave? 
If someone were seconded into her role while she was on mat leave but is still being kept on, then that person should revert to their old position, leaving your friends position ready for your friend to step back into. 
If a temp were hired to cover for her mat leave, then the temp should be let go, and your friend given her job back. 

If your friend is the only member of a group of employees who is now being made redundant, she would need to consider very strongly whether she has been chosen because she is on mat leave. This of course would be illegable. 

Bottom line, the company is obliged to return your firend to her old position, or, if that is not available, a position of similar work/stature in the company. She cannot legally end up worse of SIMPLY because she took her maternity leave. 

If I were her, I would speak with my employer to discuss the questions above. Otherwise, I would inform them that I would be returning to work as scheduled. And, I would follow up with a letter. Hopefully she has complied with all the legal notification requirements around informing her employer of her intentions regarding returning to work. If so, then it is the employer who becomes obliged to find a solution for the problem . If there is genuinely no work for your friend and others, then redundancy is the order of the day.


----------



## roro123 (18 Dec 2008)

She should do everything by the book. Who knows... this could be a ruse by the employer to avoid paying redundancy by having the employee fake illness and sack her for faking illness. I'm sure none of these suggestions were put in writing and were suggested to her verbally. Never trust an employer no matter who they are - especially during difficult times. They'll never give you the full story behind their crazy ideas. She should take note of all details and conversations in relation to the approaches and if anything occurs down the line in relation to her employment she can always mention to the employer about the time they instigated a conspiracy to commit fraud.


----------



## allthedoyles (19 Dec 2008)

Looks to me , that there are many employers in serious trouble .

This country is on a serious down-turn , due to overspending 

If her employer operates a sick pay scheme , why not go out sick and claim full pay for 6 months ? ( is'nt work-related stress an illness )


----------



## Complainer (19 Dec 2008)

If the employee comes under undue pressure, she could always blame the doctor and say that the doc refused to give her a cert.


----------



## Welfarite (19 Dec 2008)

The employer is asking the employee to commit fraud. This will have no adverse effect on the employer if it is found out, only on the employee. They are the ones that will be prosecuted for SW fraud. If this happens, they could lose entitlements to ALL future SW schemes by being disqualified from recieving them, and have to repay the monies. They will be using up valuable entitlements to benefits that they may need down the road. The employer could 'temporarily' lay them off due to lack of work, and they should then claim Jobseeker's Benefits. That is the correct option.


----------



## boogaloo (19 Dec 2008)

Ok, so the correct option is to put the employee on temporary lay off & she can then claim unemployment benefit?  But technically she probably willl not be 'seeking' a job?


----------



## jhegarty (19 Dec 2008)

Lay off only has to last for 4 weeks before you can insist on redundancy. 

The employer would again need to prove a valid reason for selection for temporary lay-off.


----------

