The Bradford formula!

iamana1ias

By the way, because SSP runs weekly (7 days) they could be within their rights to count it that way

DVardysShadow

iamana1ias wrote: »

Can't see how ^ would make a difference though. Assuming a 5 day week the OP's husband has had more than 6 months off. Not many companies can afford to have staff on their books that are off for that long!

As the root of his absence is an industrial injury, perhaps they could afford the damages for loss of employment even less?

jdturk

kittiej wrote: »

In the bigger scheme of things he has been employed by the same employer for the last 12 years and the 3 periods off sick are the only time he has ever been absent. He hasn't even had a day off with so much as a cold prior to this.

It's because the BF only takes into account the last 12 months and not the full employment history which is why I think it's a sham.

No he hasn't had 6 months off he had 3 weeks in the summer and then about 4 months, maybe he should just put in a claim against the company eh seeing as though it was their fault he injured himself in the first place *rolls eyes*[/QUOTE]

tbh the company are probably expecting this but in the long run if your OH can't guarantee his sickness record is going to improve alot then in the long run they will take any increase in their insurance (which is likely to be minimal) to having to pay your OH for the next year or so for not much work

ceridwen

kittiej wrote: »

No he hasn't had 6 months off he had 3 weeks in the summer and then about 4 months, maybe he should just put in a claim against the company eh seeing as though it was their fault he injured himself in the first place *rolls eyes*

Yes...actually..he should. I strongly suggest he gets it in QUICKLY.

jdturk

DVardysShadow wrote: »

As the root of his absence is an industrial injury, perhaps they could afford the damages for loss of employment even less?

if they are insured it won't matter

kittiej

Now I could talk about the last tribunal my company faced but I'd better not lol.

I shall put a letter into personnel for an explanation of the score and what that actually means from the company point of view. They don't normally like to be challenged so that will be fun. Glad I don't work in that office lol.

I shall report back just as soon as I have their figures, I shall ask as well (but not personnel) to see if 1.5 hours out of a 9 hour day is classed as a day in work or a day off sick and see what answer I get.

Thanks everyone, even iams even if it's for the entertainment value.

And turk, yes it does matter

jdturk

kittiej wrote: »

Now I could talk about the last tribunal my company faced but I'd better not lol.

I shall put a letter into personnel for an explanation of the score and what that actually means from the company point of view. They don't normally like to be challenged so that will be fun. Glad I don't work in that office lol.

I shall report back just as soon as I have their figures, I shall ask as well (but not personnel) to see if 1.5 hours out of a 9 hour day is classed as a day in work or a day off sick and see what answer I get.

Thanks everyone, even iams even if it's for the entertainment value.

And turk, yes it does matter

It will count as a days work.

I meant to the company, if they are insured the payout won't matter to much, if they are not they could be a big trouble!

kittiej

Every payment matters to them, no matter how small or how large. Someone will be blamed and they'll disappear overnight. So then they have to go to the trouble of recruiting someone else etc.

RobertoMoir

kittiej wrote: »

Thanks everyone, even iams even if it's for the entertainment value.

You appear not to like iam's "tone" but they are raising valid points - they've given you an employer's perspective, if you like. If you want to beat an employer at the game they are playing then it really does help to know what that game is.

They are looking to manage attendance at work as they presumably consider absence to be very disruptive. From the HR department's point of view, it's probably nothing personal just business and they are probably looking at things in a very similar way to how iams suggests.

If your OH was injured at work then he should definitely pursue his options there. After all, if it's their fault he got injured then it's "nothing personal, just business" same as them, right?

patman99

ALL employers carry insurance to cover injuries in the workplace, they have to by law.

Your oh has 2 years from the time of the accident to start a claim. Speaking as someone who suffered an RSI injury to his elbow through work, and who has started a claim, I know what I am talking about.

Any claim will be a long drawn-out affair (I', on month 10 of mine, and only now do I have an appointment with a medical assessor), but the pay-out will be worth it.