Advice on temporary contract rights

[evh5150]

One of my collegues/friends had worked as a postie on a 6 month renewable contract for 18 months or so. Her manager is a bit of a c..k to put it nicely and has times made silent threats to not renew her contract due to time off to care for her severly disabled son. I might add she has either took the time off unpaid/worked the hours back or taken days in lieu to cover her absences. There has been cause for her to speak to the union on previous occassions due to her manager.
At the moment she is in hospital awaiting major abdominal surgery, she was admitted at the weekend and they have kept her in since. The recovery could take up to 3 months and she is terrified that her manager will see this as an opportunity to not renew her contract ( there is no love lost between them). She has just called me from her hospital bed worrying about whether or not she is still going to have a job at the end of it!!
I do not know where she stands on this so I said I would ask for her, I am sure there is nothing he could do under the circumstances but I would rather have something concrete to tell her so she can just concentrate on getting better.
Any info would be much appreciated.

[fishtank]

She has exactly the same protection as a permanent member of staff in that she cannot be dismissed or not have her contract renewed purely on the grounds of attendance unless she has reached the dismissal stage of the attendance procedure.

This is covered by The Fixed-term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2002.
In order for her contract not to be renewed Royal Mail would have to give genuine business reasons to show that she was no longer required.
Even if they could it would still be considered a redundancy and the union would want to know why the MTSF and Job Security Agreements were not being followed.
To do this while she is recovering from an operation would be playing with fire from Royal Mail's point of view and it would take an incredibly stupid manager to attempt it.
She is as safe as she can be in that situation,as safe as any of us would be and should concentrate on getting better,not worrying about lowlife managers.

[evh5150]

Thankyou very much Fishtank, much appreciated!! I will call her and let her know :)

[tomangoe]

Tell her to concentrate on getting well. Caring for her disabled son is also covered by the Equality Act so she should not be discriminated against for this. I've forgotten off hand what it comes under but threats not to renew your contract are a form of harrassment in that it is "a threat to your livelehood".

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Tell her to concentrate on getting well. Caring for her disabled son is also covered by the Equality Act so she should not be discriminated against for this. I've forgotten off hand what it comes under but threats not to renew your contract are a form of harrassment in that it is "a threat to your livelehood".

http://www.stammeringlaw.org.uk/discrim ... iation.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; Employment: Discriminaton by association

The European Court of Justice has held that under the Framework Employment Directive direct discrimination and harassment can be illegal even if they are against someone associated with the disabled person, e.g. the carer of a disabled child. This has been implemented in Equality Act 2010.

European court ruling, and Equality Act 2010

In Coleman v EBR Attridge Law (July 2008) the European Court of Justice (ECJ) decided that 'discrimination by association' can be illegal in the workplace under the Framework Employment Directive.

National legislation must comply with this directive. Accordingly direct discrimination and harassment are prohibited even if they are not against the disabled person himself.

The mother of a disabled child could claim for discrimination if her employer treated her less favourably - or harassed her - because of the child's disability.

These were the facts alleged in Coleman v EBR Attridge Law.

Before Equality Act 2010, tribunals held that the DDA could be reinterpreted to comply with the European decision. However, from 1st October 2010 discrimination by association is now in any event illegal under the wording of the Equality Act 2010.

From the Employment Code, para 3.19:
A lone father caring for a disabled son has to take time off work whenever his son is sick or has medical appointments. The employer appears to resent the fact that the worker needs to care for his son and eventually dismisses him. The dismissal may amount to direct disability discrimination against the worker by association with his son.

The Coleman case and the Directive only apply in areas related to employment. However, the Equality Act extends the same rule to other areas such as provision of services and education. Harriet Harman commented that this "is in keeping with the aims of the Equality Bill to simplify and strengthen the law" .