Penalised for Phased return to work?

peachyprice

My OH has been off work with a bad back, which is a reoccurance of an injury at work.

First week he self-certified, but didn't get paid because it was straight after a weeks holiday. Seems according to policy they can do this, but rarely do.

Second and third week he was signed off by the doctor. During this time he received calls from work, from his line manager, store manager and HR and was put under pressure to return to work ASAP.

4th & 5th week he got a phased return cert from the doctor and did 3 days the first week 4 days the second week.

He got paid today, but only for the hours he's worked. This seems highly unfiar, they pressured him into returning but aren't paying him for his 'sick' days. He would have been better off being signed off for another 2 weeks, which his doctor was happy to do.

He has 12 weeks full sick pay and has only used 2, is there anything he can do, or is this and unfortunate loophole with these new forms that favours the employer over the employee.

We really can't afford to write of over £600 without a fight.

Any comments greatly received, even if it's just to tell us we were stupid to think a phased return to work would be a fair process

TIA

DVardysShadow

I think it is pure hypocrisy on the part of the employer to apply pressure for a return to work, and then when there is a phased return to work, to cut from full sick pay to reduced hours. It is hardly an incentive and if his back feels worse, then I would not blame him for going back to the doctor.

Judas

The other side of it is why should an employer pay an employee who isnt working? If the OP was fit to work part of the week he shouldnt be signed off and should work part week and get paid for what he works.

Would a consumer pay for a service they couldnt receive for circumstances? Of course they wouldn't.

Sick pay is going to become more and more rare.

C_Mababejive

Its just too bad but an employer is not obliged to employ someone who is no longer capable of doing their job.

In this case,it appears to be short term absence unless he has previous form?

Has he made a claim for SSP?

Some employers dont have a sick pay scheme at all.

peachyprice

Judas wrote: »

The other side of it is why should an employer pay an employee who isnt working? Because he's entitled to sick pay. If the OP was fit to work part of the week he shouldnt be signed off and should work part week and get paid for what he works.

Fair enough if he'd run out of sick pay, he wouldn't have been expected to be paid for the 'sick' days and would be grateful for the hours he did get paid for, but I still find the situation ridiculous that he'd have been better off being signed off completely for another 2 weeks on full pay.

peachyprice

C_Mababejive wrote: »

Its just too bad but an employer is not obliged to employ someone who is no longer capable of doing their job.

In this case,it appears to be short term absence unless he has previous form?

Has he made a claim for SSP?

Some employers dont have a sick pay scheme at all.

It is a relatively short term absence yes, the prior accident at work, which may be the root cause of this, was in March 2009, he hasn't had any time off since.

No he hasn't made a claim for SSP, his HR person gave no indication that he would get sick pay and didn't advise he should claim. perhaps he should have been advised to?

DaisyFlower

Try and look at the long term view. From their point of view, he was actually well enough to work so therefore being signed off sick was wrong. Paying him for the days he actually worked is fair, why should others staff work the other days for the same pay?

Far better to show willing and return part time for a couple of weeks than stay on long term sick (four weeks is a hefty amount of time) - at least he's showing he wants to work. If he simply keeps signing off when actually able to do some work then he would be first in mind if they need to lose staff.

peachyprice

DaisyFlower wrote: »

Try and look at the long term view. From their point of view, he was actually well enough to work so therefore being signed off sick was wrong. Paying him for the days he actually worked is fair, why should others staff work the other days for the same pay?

He isn't actually well enough to work, he went back on phased return because he was pressured to and wanted to do the right thing.

I'll be honest, I've never had back pain and can't comprehend the pain and have been very short on sympathy for him (hey how bad can it be?) and have probably been putting as much pressure on him as his employers to get back to work, but seeing him so much pain at the end of the day I realise he really shouldn't be working.

AnnieG

Hiya
Your OH needs to get a copy of the company's sickness management policy, which should clearly explain his entitlements. In the case of a phased return, historically (in my experience, have worked in HR for 10 years) companies would pay the individual as though they had returned to work full time. However, as organisations are under increasing pressure to reduce sickness absence because of the cost and the loss in productivity, many places are changing their policies to say that on a phased return you are paid for the hours that you work and can take the time off as either sick days or annual leave. I would recommend that you OH asks for a meeting with someone from the HR department to talk through the policy and ask for an explanation for his entitlements, particularly during a phased return. It may be that he can take annual leave or sick pay (some companies only pay this after the 1st 3 days, so it woldn't work in these circs), but he needs to find out what the company's position is.

HTH

peachyprice

Thanks Annie, I'll get him to get a copy today.

C_Mababejive

If his employer does not operate a sick pay scheme then he needs to submit a claim for SSP.

He wont get paid any time soon but eventually,it will filter through.

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/BenefitsTaxCreditsAndOtherSupport/Illorinjured/DG_10018786