Hello beautiful people

I have no experience of this particular issue so I was wondering if you could point me in the right direction or alternatively please do say to me "Forget It!"

My client has been sanctioned for 26 weeks for leaving his job voluntarily. He says he was depressed that's why he failed to show up for work several days in a row. His GP refuses to certify that he was depressed as he failed to make contact with him around that time.

What next? If we appeal against the length of sanction, what arguments would we use? What case-law is there on the considerations that a DM should follow to decide the length of a sanction?

Thanks for all your help.

Bea

See CJSA/ 1703/ 2006 – 26 weeks is the maximum sanction, not the starting point. The correct approach is to start with the minimum of one week and adjust the length of sanction according to all the mitigating and aggravating factors. Look at all the circumstances – for example what were the reasons for your clients depression - was it connected with the job? Did he ask for help or support and not get it? Also, the sanction shouldn’t be longer than the job was likely to last, so temporary or insecure employment, should be taken into account. A 26 week sanction should only be imposed for the worst cases, so any arguments to mitigate your clients actions will help.

I take it that you have conceded on the point that you are not going to be able to show just cause - after all, health reasons are among the things that need to be taken into account. I know it would be difficult as he was not engaging with his doctor, but that is typical of depression

Has he engaged since? Is he on medication? Is there any previous hsitory of mental health issues? Was there anything in his life at the time (including but not limited to his job) that set off the illness? Do you believe him? Is there any corroborative evidence of his story?

In my experience you could well get a reduction in the sanction period at Tribunal if the judge thinks there is something in it but he didn't act as sensibly as he could.

R(U) 8/74 and R(U) 4/87 both deal with the period of disqualification being determined by exercising a “sensible discretion”.

In R(U) 8/74 a tribunal of Commissioners considered the approach taken in R(U) 17/54. In the latter decision it was held by the Commissioner, applying the insurance principle, that normally the maximum period of six weeks disqualification should be imposed and that a heavy burden lay on a person to establish that a lesser period was appropriate. The Commissioners, at paragraph 18 in R(U) 8/74, held that this approach was erroneous. “The correct approach is to regard each case as one in which a sensible discretion has to be exercised in such manner as the justice of the case requires”, (paragraph 20).

In R(U) 4/87 the Commissioner, endorsing R(U) 8/74, noted that decision makers were not following the latter decision. He noted “If cases that have come before the Commissioner since then are any guide I should infer from what I have seen of them that this latter decision has had practically no effect on the practise of insurance (now adjudication) officers imposing disqualification. They still seem to impose the maximum period of disqualification in practically every case.”

Although these are not recent decisions, the principles still apply.

Thank you so much for your replies. They really help. I was completely in the dark as to what considerations should be taken into account in deciding the length of the sanction and there wasn't much at all in the CPAG handbook.

Unfortunately the job was permanent, so no chance of a reduction in the sanction on grounds he would have finished the job sooner anyway.

I am (emphasis added) conceding that there was not "just cause". I read the questionnaire that the DWP sent the employer when he applied for JSA. He simply didn't show up for work three days in a row. The employer tried to contact him and he didn't return the calls. He had a disciplinary hearing where he was unable to justify his absence (he didn't even say he suffered from depression). So he was let go. Talk about shooting yourself in the feet!

He did not make contact with his GP at all. The depression was caused by him splitting up with his partner, not work.

I have read somewhere that appeals against sanctions have a good chance of success at tribunal. I guess I'll have to use your arguments and hope that the tribunal are more sympathetic to his circumstances than the DWP!

A BIG BIG THANK YOU TO ALL OF YOU!