Question about how number of absences from work are calculated
BadBehaviour
Posts: 302 Forumite
In my workplace you can get dismissed after 5 absences in a 12-month period.
I even checked the staff handbook and it's not clear when this 12-month period starts... as I understood it, it is a 12-month rolling period.
Am I correct in thinking if I had been absent, say, in August 2016, then in May 2017... I would have 1 absence on my record at the moment, right? (it's just an example to understand)
Thanks in advance.
I even checked the staff handbook and it's not clear when this 12-month period starts... as I understood it, it is a 12-month rolling period.
Am I correct in thinking if I had been absent, say, in August 2016, then in May 2017... I would have 1 absence on my record at the moment, right? (it's just an example to understand)
Thanks in advance.
0
Comments
-
Our absences work on a similar rolling basis. Yes, your August 2016 absence is now off the tally; you only have one absence in the last 12 months.:heartpuls Mrs Marleyboy :heartpuls
MSE: many of the benefits of a helpful family, without disadvantages like having to compete for the tv remote
Proud Parents to an Aut-some son 0 -
To be fair though, they only really tend to have rules like that to justify getting rid of people who are excessively off sick, and/or those that they don't particularly like!
If you are off sick 7 times in 12 months with good reasons, and when being a hard worker, they *probably won't* be sacking you!!0 -
Actually, they almost certainly will be, because if they don't their sickness absence policy is challengeable in law. The reason these policies exist is to ensure that people are treated the same way, whether they are "liked" or not. If the employer does not abide by their policy for everyone, then they face an unfair dismissal claim (and probably a loss) every time they use it!stuartJo1989 wrote: »To be fair though, they only really tend to have rules like that to justify getting rid of people who are excessively off sick, and/or those that they don't particularly like!
If you are off sick 7 times in 12 months with good reasons, and when being a hard worker, they *probably won't* be sacking you!!0 -
Policies are rarely that simple. It often depends not just on the number of absences, but also on the length of the absences. To be honest, five absences in a 12 month period is a pretty high level of absence. Are you sure you have read the whole of the policy? I work with local authorities, which are generally considered to be "soft touches", and broadly speaking, sickness absence processes kick in after only about nine days in total or three absences within a rolling year. So five is pretty generous, unless you mean five days absence.BadBehaviour wrote: »In my workplace you can get dismissed after 5 absences in a 12-month period.
I even checked the staff handbook and it's not clear when this 12-month period starts... as I understood it, it is a 12-month rolling period.
Am I correct in thinking if I had been absent, say, in August 2016, then in May 2017... I would have 1 absence on my record at the moment, right? (it's just an example to understand)
Thanks in advance.0 -
When I worked for DWP it was 4 periods of absence or 8 days absence, whichever was the lower, which would trigger the disciplinary process. That was in a rolling year. Assuming the employment period is more than 2 years, they can't simply sack somebody for having 5 periods of absence. There is a process to go through.0
-
stuartJo1989 wrote: »To be fair though, they only really tend to have rules like that to justify getting rid of people who are excessively off sick, and/or those that they don't particularly like!
If you are off sick 7 times in 12 months with good reasons, and when being a hard worker, they *probably won't* be sacking you!!
Would you say thats a fair way to interpret the attendance/sick policy?0 -
Worked for retail company and the rule was 3 absence in a 6 month period you would be asked to a interview and be given a possible warning or if there was an underlying issue that they could help you with. So it wasn't always black and white or as cold and calculated like the OP employers.0
-
Policies are rarely that simple. It often depends not just on the number of absences, but also on the length of the absences. To be honest, five absences in a 12 month period is a pretty high level of absence. Are you sure you have read the whole of the policy? I work with local authorities, which are generally considered to be "soft touches", and broadly speaking, sickness absence processes kick in after only about nine days in total or three absences within a rolling year. So five is pretty generous, unless you mean five days absence.Worked for retail company and the rule was 3 absence in a 6 month period you would be asked to a interview and be given a possible warning or if there was an underlying issue that they could help you with. So it wasn't always black and white or as cold and calculated like the OP employers.
I work for a supermarket.
Yes, it's 5 absences, which can last each for more than a day, not just 5 days. After 3 verbal warning, written warning at the 4th and possible dismissal after 5.0 -
Actually, they almost certainly will be, because if they don't their sickness absence policy is challengeable in law. The reason these policies exist is to ensure that people are treated the same way, whether they are "liked" or not. If the employer does not abide by their policy for everyone, then they face an unfair dismissal claim (and probably a loss) every time they use it!
That's presumably why the policy is "can be dismissed" rather than "will be dismissed".0 -
Actually, they almost certainly will be, because if they don't their sickness absence policy is challengeable in law. The reason these policies exist is to ensure that people are treated the same way, whether they are "liked" or not. If the employer does not abide by their policy for everyone, then they face an unfair dismissal claim (and probably a loss) every time they use it!
Well, my previous employer evidenced it.... But they struggled to retain talent at times which was probably a driving force.
Not saying I disagree with you though! What you say makes perfect sense.
(although one twist is that being so strict in the implementation of the sickness policy means that you could potentially be unfair in regards to people with disabilities; either through being more lenient with the sickness policy for people with disabilities, or through applying the policy to the letter and not really giving them any chance at work).0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 607.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173K Life & Family
- 247.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards