Juggling work demands and sick children

Last week I was put in the challenging, albeit not uncommon, situation of trying to juggle looking after a sick child with the demands of work.

Now I can’t bemoan my situation too much. I didn’t have the added stress of being a solo parent, I had excellent colleagues who were only too willing to take up any slack at work, and I was also fortunate enough to have understanding clients.

But as I was sitting down at Southland Hospital with my son (who is now almost back to his normal toddler self) I thought about how hard it is when family must be put first. And as I sat there trawling through news websites I happened upon an article which looked at the very issue of the tension between work and family.

The article discussed the case of a Mr B who, over the course of 230 days’ employment, suffered a five day stint of gastroenteritis, cared for his mother whilst she was in the ICU, and had a wife suffering from ongoing health issues (at the same time as the pair had three kids, under seven, at home).

Over the 230 days, the issues with Mr B’s own health, and that of his family members, led to him taking 30 days’ leave. Whilst this may sound like a lot it is worth pointing out that all but five of those days were unpaid.

During all this, and leading up the end of Mr B’s employment, the employer issued two warnings to Mr B for the fact he took sick leave (when he was genuinely ill) and for taking leave to care for his wife.

Mr B was told that if he took any more time off for sickness he would be fired.

In the end Mr B handed in his resignation, went on to raise a personal grievance and had his claim heard in the Employment Relations Authority.

The authority found that Mr B had been ‘‘dismissed’’ (in that his resignation was not given of his own free will). This dismissal, unsurprisingly, was unjustified.

No process had been followed, and there was no substantive justification for the termination.

Now as the readers of this article will know, mistakes like those in Mr B’s case can be costly.

His now ex-employer was ordered to pay $15,000 for the humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to feelings. This was in addition to the 19 weeks of lost remuneration the ex-employer had to make amends for.

Add to this the cost of the hearing, and it was a bad day for Mr B’s ex-employer.

There was one part of the case which stayed with me as I went back to trawling through news website. As in all cases where there is found to be a valid personal grievance, the authority in Mr B’s case considered whether he had contributed to his dismissal, and whether any contribution justified a reduction in the remedies he was awarded.

Now some might think that 30 days leave over a 230 day period was blameworthy conduct, but the authority was not so satisfied. It said the amount of Mr B’s leave really resulted from his having to look after his sick family in circumstances where there was no-one else available to care for them. Hardly blameworthy behaviour.

The main lesson employers can take away from the case is to try and work with an employee who has to take sick leave to look after others.

Remember, if there is a legitimate reason for needing the leave then it isn’t a ‘‘misconduct’’ situation. That said, there will come a point where the business simply can’t run properly with an employee be absent so much.

Where exactly that point lies is the issue, there is no one set of rules for every situation.

And, as is always the case, process is hugely important. A poor process will undermine an otherwise justified action.

Finally, I would like to say a huge thank you to all those at Southland Hospital and Ronald McDonald House who helped in a time of great stress. In particular the night staff, whose checks provided a welcome distraction from the never ending DVD that my son insisted on watching.

Riki Donnelly is a partner in Preston Russell Law