Sacked mother who took time off to care for son wins tribuna

[TrueBlueTerrier]

http://news.stv.tv/scotland/north/20098 ... -tribunal/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Royal Mail worker Alison Balch wins £8,700 after being sacked from Dyce office.

A mother who was sacked after she called in sick seven times to care for asthmatic son during a six-month trial working for Royal Mail has won her case at an employment tribunal.

Employment Judge Chris Lucas awarded Alison Balch £8705.36 after hearing that she had received no formal warning over her attendance before being given one weeks notice.

Ms Balch, who sorted and delivered mail at the company's Dyce office on a part-time basis, claimed unfair dismissal against Royal Mail at the tribunal in Aberdeen.

As a new employee, Ms Balch was on a six-month trial period and should have been given a performance review after three months by her line manager, the tribunal heard.

A document - dated October 5, 2009 - was written up by Ms Balch's line manager but she didn't get to see it until she met him for a six-month review in December.

At that meeting she was presented with her three-month trial report and a six-month report dated December 20, 2009.

The first report stated that she had "fitted into her role reasonably well but her attendance is a concern I have discussed this with her and she agreed she would get something in place".

The six-month report said that she was "not achieving the attendance standards".

Ms Balch explained that her five-year-old son suffered from asthma and was often suffered health problems but she was given a letter confirming her dismissal, at a further meeting on January 5. The letter said that she was being sacked "on the grounds of failure to demonstrate your suitability for employment in particular regarding your poor level of attendance".

A subsequent appeal was refused.

The tribunal heard Miss Balch's contract of employment, the company's attendance procedure document and attendance standards document fails to address or mention "time off for dependants" as mentioned in the Employment Rights Act.

In a written judgement, employment judge Lucas said: "The tribunal has found, that the reason or principal reason for the Miss Balch's dismissal was that she had taken time off work in order to take action which was necessary to provide assistance on occasions when a dependant - her son - had fallen ill."

"Ms Balch is entitled to a finding of automatic unfair dismissal."

[not me]

another management failure
they cant even sack people properly (and i should know

[Godric]

another management failure
they cant even sack people properly (and i should know

our office employs 1 guy who is lucky if he has worked 1 year in the past 2 1/2 years of his employment, he knows every trick in the book and still he hasn't recieved the sack

[fishtank]

A document - dated October 5, 2009 - was written up by Ms Balch's line manager but she didn't get to see it until she met him for a six-month review in December.

Sure it was.... .....or more likely it was written up at the same time as her six month review when they decided to give her the boot and realised they hadn't done a three month review.

[clashcityrocker]

It means that office will be lapsing another duty to make the savings to pay for the award.

[liverpoolbaby77]

yes it was crap the way i was treated by my manager. his granddaughter worked in the same office and got of we coming in pissed days of here there and everywere. i only recieved letter in december not dated october. must think i was born yesterday. so i made sure i took it all the way. "time of for dependants"

[Lounge Lizard]

Three month review, six month reveiw, i didn't have either. but I'm still employed.

[liverpoolbaby77]

aye its crap like as i enjoyed my job. but if ur facey fits. or more to the point if ur family works we ur manager u get of we blue murder.

[POSTMAN]

Well done,for winning,but shame you lost your job.
Good luck for the future.