• Please Remember: Members are only permitted to share their own experiences. Members are not qualified to give medical advice. Additionally, everyone manages their health differently. Please be respectful of other people's opinions about their own diabetes management.
  • We seem to be having technical difficulties with new user accounts. If you are trying to register please check your Spam or Junk folder for your confirmation email. If you still haven't received a confirmation email, please reach out to our support inbox: support.forum@diabetes.org.uk

Diabetes, employment and prolonged period of time off due to illness

Status
This thread is now closed. Please contact Anna DUK, Ieva DUK or everydayupsanddowns if you would like it re-opened.
Gail, that was the very short costs judgment (5 paragraphs), when I had to pay ?7,000 for the pleasure of being discriminated against by my employer because I was diabetic?

Please send me an email, and I will post you the documents proving discrimination, as you obviously do not believe me. I will also send you The Equality and Human Rights Commission emails, and then you can post your more researched views back to this thread.

Thanks.
 
Last edited:
question why have you edited your post 3 times. I have tryed to give an honest answer gone back to read your post to check the facts and you have changed it. I have not said I do not believe you i mearly posted that theres more to this than meets the eye. Have attached web email of your appeal. It makes very interesting reading
www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2010CSIH11.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It states that it was redundancy because 2 companies merged and it was decided that your position was redundant.

If this wasn't the case, how is it different?

Rob
 
leak12 said:
Gail, that was the very short costs judgment (5 paragraphs), when I had to pay ?7,000 for the pleasure of being discriminated against by my employer because I was diabetic?

Please send me an email, and I will post you the documents proving discrimination, as you obviously do not believe me. I will also send you The Equality and Human Rights Commission emails, and then you can post your more researched views back to this thread.

Thanks.
Click to expand...

You have now edited your post again to read something different . If you wish to have a sensible discussion on this matter may I suggest instead of editing and changing your posts to say something different why not do another post. If I see legal judgments on the internet that are court judgments Forgive me I will believe them to be true facts and a statement of the law
 
Sadly I'm not an expert in employment law, so I doubt it would help me.

I was made redundant a few years ago and there were plenty who had just walked through the door.

As I understand it, it's the role that becomes redundant and the company has to decide based on future ability to do the job, willingness, adaptability, etc.

Ive never seen it as an even playing field in employmeny, so wouldn't expect any company to see me as a brilliant prospect, in those circumstances, above others who could do the job better or present no other problems.

I realise this is just my opinion and I do wish you luck with the petition and future employment.🙂

Rob
 
I tend to agree with Rob. Employers have a whole arsenal of tricks and methods at their disposal to decide who they want to keep and who should go. If they have used one of these in your situation then they have side-stepped the diabetes issue, which I imagine they were careful to avoid. I do wish you well with your petition, but I wouldn't hold out much hope fr getting 100k signatories on this issue. We have a member here who tried for years to get a petition through the 500 mark (or thereabouts) concerning the dietary advice given to newly-diagnosed Type 2s. He managed it eventually, got a letter saying it had been looked at and basically that was the end of it.

I'm very cynical about these epetitions, I think they are just paying lip service to the notion of people power, unfortunately :(
 
Rob, as I understand it, stating that Diabetes will result in prolonged periods of time off due to illness, is discrimination just for stating it, as it is a stereotypical assumption, ie: presumes that all Diabetics will have prolonged periods of time off due to illness.

Not only that, it is also trying to predict the future, which is a nonsense.

Gail, sorry, but I am walking on eggshells trying to answer previous posts, and being very careful in what I say in writing.
 
Last edited:
Hi Leak,

Did you refuse to carry out part of your job role? (just read the link Gail provided I think)... please correct me if I've read that wrong. But if you did, then they have given you an opportunity to take on the new role with the reorganisation, but if they know you will not carry out the full role, it would be an easy decision who to appoint, and who to let go.
 
Hi imtrying,

No, didn't refuse to carry out any part of my job role.

Did ask them for reasonable adjustments in December 2005 as I was looking after two of the largest contracts, and was made redundant in July 2006.

The Lawyers and Barrister concocted some story about me having a unique role, despite having the same job title as the other 14 members of the team. There never was any other role, I was doing the same role as the other 14.

All of these things are irrelevant however, as it doesn't explain why my diabetes was brought up, and stated that it would cause future sickness absences.

In any situation that is wrong, and any of the Tribunals/Courts should have deemed that as direct discrimination, which it is.
 
leak12 said:
Please support the following epetition entitled ?Diabetes, employment and prolonged period of time off due to illness? by clicking this link http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/21871 and signing this epetition.

Please help to get 100,000 signatures so that this epetition can be debated in Parliament, by doing some or all of the following:

* Ask friends and family to sign this epetition.
* Tweet followers to sign and Facebook friends to sign.
* Email or text friends and family to sign.
* Post on other forums.
* Contact local Diabetes groups for their members to sign.

This will help to get the UK Government to re-examine discrimination laws that allowed an employer to fire a Diabetic because Diabetes will result in prolonged periods of time off due to illness, despite the Diabetic only having two days absence in two years.

Your help is greatly appreciated.

Thank you.
Click to expand...

Have signed your petition..x
 
I'm still confused as to what aspect of existing law you would change that would have stopped your employer making you redundant.

As far as I can see it, at best, your employer has got away with sneakily making you redundant by using underhand methods and the tribunals being hoodwinked by them.

That doesn't equate to the existing law being insufficient. It just means that your employer has, as I say, 'got away with it', which, if this is the case, is wrong, but doesn't require any changes to the law or for anything other than your own case to be re-examined.:confused:

ROb
 
leak12 said:
Hi imtrying,

No, didn't refuse to carry out any part of my job role.

Did ask them for reasonable adjustments in December 2005 as I was looking after two of the largest contracts, and was made redundant in July 2006.

I assume that you dumped smaller contracts you looked after, and passed the smaller contracts over to other work colleagues to look after, so in theory they could have ended up having a greater workload faffing around with lots of small contracts.

The Lawyers and Barrister concocted some story about me having a unique role, despite having the same job title as the other 14 members of the team. There never was any other role, I was doing the same role as the other 14.

Having the same job title doesn't always mean that you perform the same role/duties. You've already said that you were in charge of the two largest contracts, so your role would have been more specialised than colleague who were covering a greater diveristy of contracts.

All of these things are irrelevant however, as it doesn't explain why my diabetes was brought up, and stated that it would cause future sickness absences.

It seems that your diabetes wasn't brought into the frame until after the decision that you were the one or one of the ones that would be made redundant in the merger/reorganisation. so it's sort of irralvant really

In any situation that is wrong, and any of the Tribunals/Courts should have deemed that as direct discrimination, which it is
Click to expand...

It could be said that you and your lawyer cohorted together to find a way to get a appeal hearing?

The judge is inpartial, he/she reads the facts of the case and the transcript, conciders the point you and your lawyer has pointed, and makes a determings whether the law on those points been breached!

The law has to be fair to all, both the employee and the employer...

And believe me I have had the problem of tacking team members who are unfairly pulling the discrimination act for all the wrong reasons.. And I've also been in the position of defending myself from being unfairly sacked by an old manager..
 
Hi Ellie,

Wow, what did I do to you.

Ask yourself this question, why was my diabetes brought up at all, if, as you say, everything was clear cut, and I had a specialised or unique role, and hence was top of the list to be made redundant?

The reason I became top of the list, was because my Manager stated I was Diabetic, and could be off sick a lot in the future. HR bought this, and I was made redundant.

Rob has made a good point, the law is there, so why does it need changed? I would have been of the same opinion, but what happened regarding Diabetes going to be off sick a lot in the future means that either the wording needs to change, or it needs a new subsection, because it aint working, I can vouch for that.
 
Status
This thread is now closed. Please contact Anna DUK, Ieva DUK or everydayupsanddowns if you would like it re-opened.
Back
Top