Employers sickness review procedure

custardy

busterian wrote: »

As Nessy states above, HR Policies and Procedures have to be applied in a fair a consistent manner. Unfortunately, people who aren't "swinging the lead" and having time off for genuine reasons, do invariably get caught up.

My Fiance works for Royal Mail and does have a genuine condition that flares up every now and again. Last year he was hauled into the Manager's office because he was one day over his "sickness allowance".

We were both disgusted at this because they were genuine sicknesses, covered by medical certificates - in fact one instance involved a short stay in hospital. Other people at his workplace regularly use sickness absence in addition to annual holidays. He has heard people say "oh I can feel a holiday coming on" and the next thing they have phoned in sick.

this is always the case in RM,RM's sickness procedure 'stages' are triggered automatically
you will be taken for a meeting to 'discuss' the absences but its simply going through the motions.

i myself am on a stage 2 with RM. all through genuine illness.this is part of RM's attendence procedures.
its a crazy system where you are better off not having 1 day off sick but taking a few days
RM also usually leave the next stage to the end of the stage period.eg i went over my allocation in the 1st 6 months of my stage 1,they issued the stage 2 on the final week of my stage 1.had they issued it when i went over i would have had 8 months of sick free days completed.

13. MEASUREMENT AND REVIEW
Royal Mail and CWU are committed to this process which will be reviewed on an Area by Area basis. The effectiveness of this approach will be monitored at the quarterly strategic area review meeting. It is a process for reviewing trends and identifying opportunities for improvement.With employees new to Royal Mail it is important to establish quickly a clear understanding of the need to maintain appropriate standards of attendance. Attendance may be regarded as warranting formal action if an employee who is on trial has:

Stage 1: 2 absences or 7 days in a 6 month period
Stage 2: 1 absence in the next 2 months
Stage 3: 1 absence in the next 2 months
No triallist should have his/her appointment confirmed whilst under this procedure.

2. MINIMUM NATIONAL ATTENDANCE STANDARDS - EMPLOYEES NOT ON TRIAL
Employees who have successfully completed their trial period are still required to maintain a high standard of attendance. Attendance may be regarded as warranting formal action if an employee who is not on trial has:

Stage 1: 4 absences or 14 days in a 12 month period
Stage 2: 2 absences or 10 days in any 6 month period during the next 12 months
Stage 3: 2 absences or 10 days in any 6 month period during the next 12 months
In deciding whether these standards are met for employees whose trial was recently confirmed, attendance during the whole of employment is considered, not jut from the date trial is confirmed. An employee whose trial has been confirmed following an improvement to the required triallist standard will be put back to the previous stage of the Attendance Procedure but the criteria appropriate to a non-triallist will then apply.

[Deleted User]

Llyllyll wrote: »

Unfortunately this is the way these inflexible policies work now and there is very little room for local management discretion.

The best thing to do as an employee is take sick leave (only when you are genuinely ill) but to ensure that you only go back when you are completely recovered. You will not get reward or recognition for "not wanting to let anyone down", indeed as you have stated, you are often/always penalised for returning early and then going off again.

As others have already stated, get the union involved. They may also be able to provide legal advice/guidance about the time that she broke her hand in work on a faulty door (hopefully your wife entered this in the accident book so there is a record of it).

Its so sad that you're forced to play this game though rather than just do as a reasonable person would do and make a best effort to attend work....

Its funny how someone could potentially take 6 months off work with a broken toe or something, but someone with a reoccurent virus could go back when they think they're better and have two strikes against them...

[Deleted User]

custardy wrote: »

this is always the case in RM,RM's sickness procedure 'stages' are triggered automatically
you will be taken for a meeting to 'discuss' the absences but its simply going through the motions.

i myself am on a stage 2 with RM. all through genuine illness.this is part of RM's attendence procedures.
its a crazy system where you are better off not having 1 day off sick but taking a few days
RM also usually leave the next stage to the end of the stage period.eg i went over my allocation in the 1st 6 months of my stage 1,they issued the stage 2 on the final week of my stage 1.had they issued it when i went over i would have had 8 months of sick free days completed.

Looks very similar to my wifes employers sickness policy...

Would be interested to see if an employer would take this all the way to termination, just based on the no of sickies or whether they would exercise some degree of common sense depending on the person/sickness pattern.

At the very least, its a good way to scare your employees into limiting sick days...

Having had some time off sick myself, I'm pleased that my employer does not operate a similar policy. Instead, chosing to trust the employee has some degree of professional integrity with regards to sick days.

custardy

[quote=[Deleted User];25944317]Looks very similar to my wifes employers sickness policy...

Would be interested to see if an employer would take this all the way to termination, just based on the no of sickies or whether they would exercise some degree of common sense depending on the person/sickness pattern.

At the very least, its a good way to scare your employees into limiting sick days...

Having had some time off sick myself, I'm pleased that my employer does not operate a similar policy. Instead, chosing to trust the employee has some degree of professional integrity with regards to sick days.[/QUOTE]

RM have sacked many through sickness
i have even seen someone hit a stage 2 while off getting chemo
leave your common sense at the door with RM sickness

MrsX_2

I'm a nurse and work part time and as a result of the shift pattern I dp I can only have two days a year off sick before I "trigger" the policy.

Because of the environment I work in I inevitably take at least two or three days a year off with coughs/colds and am constantly under sickness review and have been since the policy began a few years (as in fact have most of my colleagues).

My boss has tipped me the wink and said in no way would she be prepared to lose me for the sake of a few days off with a cold every year, but it is quite stressfull and at least it keeps human resources staff and hospital managers something to do.

Llyllyll

[quote=[Deleted User];25944197]Its so sad that you're forced to play this game though rather than just do as a reasonable person would do and make a best effort to attend work....

Its funny how someone could potentially take 6 months off work with a broken toe or something, but someone with a reoccurent virus could go back when they think they're better and have two strikes against them...[/QUOTE]

Indeed it is, but reasonableness goes out of the window with many of the larger organisations.

There is always the hope that you will be managed by someone with some common sense and they do as stated by MrsX, however even those managers are often fearful of their jobs if they don't adhere strictly to policy and therefore there is the chance that they themselves will be disciplined in some way.

Policy and procedure rule in big organisations…

Uncertain

It is important to remember that the main purpose of these policies is to make it slightly easier for an employer to get rid of a person who regularly takes short periods of uncertificated sick leave, often without good reason.

When somebody is ill long term they will obviously have certificates from their GP. It is the GP's job (and not anybody else's) to decide if the person is too ill to be at work. When this is the case the firm has to tread with far more care if it wants to terminate the employment. Yes, it can be done, but ultimately it would be for a tribunal to decide if it was fair and legal. Just because the absense exceeds some procedure the firm has laid down is not in itself enough.

Vader123

The NHS's sickness policy is the best out there and the envy of other companies.

After a qualfiying period you get 6 months full pay. Add in the annual cost of living payrise, heavy union membership, being recession proof*, its not a bad deal.

Vader

(* = to a degree)

david39

Take the case of an employee who milks the system and takes repeated days off every year for no medical reason.

When sacked because of it, unless the employer has a policy that includes warnings over repeated sickness, the response will be to take the employer to a tribunal for victimisation because other (genuinely multi-sick-period) employees were not given warnings.

The warnings have to be given to all, irrespective of whether they are genuine sickness days or not. Presumably, a caring employer will find ways to not escalate the genuine employee to the final sacking stage.

A tough policy, but understandable.

Uncertain

david39 wrote: »

.

A tough policy, but understandable.

No, not really.

Where do you draw the line with this type of approach. Search everybody leaving the building incase one or two are thieves?

I can understand the need to keep an eye on staff taking many short periods of uncertificated sick leave. However, once it has been certified by a doctor then a totally seperate procedure should apply.