George Thorne

[AdiSalisbury]

Hmmm, Andy...you've missed that little but ***** word 'if' out I fear. You actually referred to 'normal business, if not in football'...i.e...not sure about the football world but ditching someone who has been injured as a result of their employment is normal practise.
I'm sure it isn't, at least not without serious amounts of compensation and Adi's example only refers to redundancy due to illness not to injuries sustained in the course of employment.
.

It is normal, very normal. Dismissal on grounds of ill health was the link I posted - redundancy is where your role is no longer required, which is a very different scenario. Swale is posting his usual opinion dressed as fact, perhaps he has an anecdotal reason for the opinion, but it is inaccurate in terms of reality, except his 1st sentence is correct so I'll give him that.

[ramAnag]

It is normal, very normal. Dismissal on grounds of ill health was the link I posted - redundancy is where your role is no longer required, which is a very different scenario. Swale is posting his usual opinion dressed as fact, perhaps he has an anecdotal reason for the opinion, but it is inaccurate in terms of reality, except his 1st sentence is correct so I'll give him that.

But Swales' first sentence is the whole point Adi. That is the scenario we're talking about. Accept your correction over my use of the term 'redundancy', but surely you introducing 'dismissal on grounds of ill health' is the 'red herring'. Being 'dismissed' as a result of an injury sustained at work is not 'normal' is it?

[AdiSalisbury]

Yes it is.

The morality is up to debate, but the reality is very normal, and the correct procedure to follow. If the injury is as a result of negligence, then the insurer will pay compensation for the injury (no different to the claim you'd make if you injured yourself whilst slipping up in Sainsburys). But in terms of employment, dismissal is correct, you've no right to be employed if you are not fit to perform your job. The exception is management not knowing legislation and being scared of doing so, or making assumptions like Swale is.

[ramAnag]

Yes it is.

The morality is up to debate, but the reality is very normal, and the correct procedure to follow. If the injury is as a result of negligence, then the insurer will pay compensation for the injury (no different to the claim you'd make if you injured yourself whilst slipping up in Sainsburys). But in terms of employment, dismissal is correct, you've no right to be employed if you are not fit to perform your job. The exception is management not knowing legislation and being scared of doing so, or making assumptions like Swale is.

I'll have to beg to differ on this one Adi. For all I know you might work in HR and this may be your area of expertise.
Personally I don't think Swale has 'made assumptions' on this one but that's his battle not mine. We're talking specifically about GT and people losing their jobs having been injured, through no fault of their own, in the course of their employment. In my - relatively uninformed - opinion, that is not 'normal' practice.

[AdiSalisbury]

For all I know you might work in HR and this may be your area of expertise.

Yes & yes.

[roger_ramjet]

Hook, line and sinker rA.... it always pays to know your adversary's profession and when not to dig deeper! Hence I withdrew comments on the matter once the board expert opined.

[ramAnag]

Hook, line and sinker rA.... it always pays to know your adversary's profession and when not to dig deeper! Hence I withdrew comments on the matter once the board expert opined.

Lol...somewhere in the dim and distant I'm sure he said he was a music teacher. Anyway I stand corrected...sort of ...but will return to just hoping GT gets and stays fit.

Adi, can we sack Blackman under the trade description act...him claiming to be a footballer 'n all?

[AdiSalisbury]

Lol...somewhere in the dim and distant I'm sure he said he was a music teacher. Anyway I stand corrected...sort of ...but will return to just hoping GT gets and stays fit.

Adi, can we sack Blackman under the trade description act...him claiming to be a footballer 'n all?

Yes, that's my little sideline, part time private tuition.

Blackman - I wish! He's that guy we all know in the workplace, who is likeable personality wise, but useless at his job, yet ticks enough boxes to retain his employment. I can't remember when we signed him, but a Tribunal is unlikely to hear an unfair dismissal claim for someone employed less than 2 years, so get shot ASAP if still within this period.

[swaledale]

It is normal, very normal. Dismissal on grounds of ill health was the link I posted - redundancy is where your role is no longer required, which is a very different scenario. Swale is posting his usual opinion dressed as fact, perhaps he has an anecdotal reason for the opinion, but it is inaccurate in terms of reality, except his 1st sentence is correct so I'll give him that.

Your right it should have been retirement due to ill health, as for redundancy being used only when your role is no longer required, not true actually, in a restructure everybody can be put on notice of redundancy and then a process is gone thorough to appoint people to the roles in the new structure, with the unlucky ones being made redundant, even though their actual role hasn't gone - but has changed in some way.

I have to laugh when yet another poster makes an assumption that I'm giving an opinion, when actually its based on actual knowledge and experience whereas you don't seem to have read the link you posted in detail.

Dismissal on the grounds of ill health has to be handled very carefully, as indeed the link you posted says and as for it being normal, well yes it has to be handled commonly but rarely can you simply dismiss someone who cannot work due to illness there is a process to go through which includes an assessment as to whether or not they can do their job again and in what time frame etc. , whether they are classed as disabled etc. etc. Much as I said previously will depend upon the terms and conditions of the employment contract and indeed many employers do dismiss illegally and I've attended many a an employment tribunal where that has cost the employer dearly.

In any case the employment status of a footballer and someone in normal work is not comparable and the contracts are very different and it is rare for a club to simply ditch a player due to his injury record, unless the players contract comes to an end.

However, I'm understand that many on here are happy with broad generalisations and couldn't give a flying **** about reality ho hum!

[swaledale]

But Swales' first sentence is the whole point Adi. That is the scenario we're talking about. Accept your correction over my use of the term 'redundancy', but surely you introducing 'dismissal on grounds of ill health' is the 'red herring'. Being 'dismissed' as a result of an injury sustained at work is not 'normal' is it?

You are correct Anagram, dismissal of an employee is anything but straightforward, classing it as normal is the wrong terminology, it needs to be managed properly and it does happen, because clearly if you have an employee who can no longer perform either the role they were employed to do and there is no other suitable role within the company, then dismissal is an option, but an employer who gets it wrong can and very often do end up in an employment tribunal.

There are however many unscrupulous employers out there who will ignore the law and the process and think that any costs are worth not having the bother of being a reasonable employer and following due process.

Injury whilst doing the job your paid to do and it not being the employees fault is different and would rarely result in dismissal, if it did there are many lawyers who would lick their lips at a big fat payday for them and their client!

All this is of course irrelevant with respect to a professional footballer, who have a very different employment situation and contracts which cover this sort of matter, lets face it they hardly get sacked for being crap at the job they are paid to do!