"Informal action" re sickness absence

LittleVoice

I'm working in an organisation with a sickness policy which is trying to manage sickness absence.

If someone is away for "persistent absence from work for intermittent short periods" then Informal action is to be taken. This includes the person's line manager arranging a "confidential informal meeting" with that person and sending them a copy of the policy document before the meeting. The manager is to make notes of the meeting and send written confirmation to the staff member. The staff member is to be advised that if attendance does not improve, the formal procedure will begin.

Whilst a work colleague or union representative can accompany the staff member if there is a meeting in the "formal" procedure this right to be accompanied is categorically excluded for the "informal" meeting.

Is it really possible to say that this so called "informal" meeting (as described above) is not part of the disciplinary procedure and so the employee does not have the right to be accompanied?

SarEl

Yes, it is. It is similar for investigatory meetings - there is no right to representation at them.

stuckinmyflat

i have to agree with sar, the same policy operates in my work. If its only an informal meeting do you really need one ? they will basically ask you why you have this pattern of absence, what can you or they do to improve the situation, and probably tell you not to be off in the say 6 or 12 mths or you will get taken to a formal .

LittleVoice

Thanks.

Seemed rather "formal" to me - sending the policy document, advising the person that they will be referring them to OH, stating that things must improve within a given timescale and what happens if not, writing notes, sending written confirmation to staff member, writing again if there is an improvement.

stuckinmyflat

i think its quite common though, to keep everything documented keeps everyone right, for your sake are theirs. Do you work in the public sector ??? because everything in the NHS is documented like that its just routine, nothing to get worried about, just dont have another sickness if you can avoid it.

SarEl

LittleVoice wrote: »

Thanks.

Seemed rather "formal" to me - sending the policy document, advising the person that they will be referring them to OH, stating that things must improve within a given timescale and what happens if not, writing notes, sending written confirmation to staff member, writing again if there is an improvement.

It sort of is "formal" - but this is actually excellent practice if it is any consolation! Probably not from the sounds of it. But it is formal in the same way that getting told off for something in a supervision meeting with your manager is "formal" - it's a "don't do this again or we will have to have words that probably neither of us want to" sort of thing. And preferable to going straight into sickness absence procedures!

I recall many years ago a member of staff who was sick about every third Friday. Then he was sick every other Friday. Then it was every other Friday and the occasional Monday. Then it was ... you get the drift? This had gone on for a year and nobody had said a thing about it - to his face anyway, although all the staff used to take bets on whether he would be in or not. It came as something of a shock to him to find a new manager in place who applied the sickness absence procedures!

Regular short term absences are often - but not always - indicative of someone swinging the lead. But equally they may indicate that there is something underlying the pattern of absences and an informal discussion may highlight ways in which such things can be managed or dealt with.

CFC

As Sar El says. It's not part of the formal disciplinary procedure; it's a meeting advising that a formal disciplinary procedure will be invoked if the situation continues as it is. It is also an opportunity to document a fact find re OH and any underlying issues, to ensure that any escalation to disc. is on a fair and knowledgeable basis. Why do you feel that this could be construed as part of the formal procedure LV?

LittleVoice

CFC wrote: »

Why do you feel that this could be construed as part of the formal procedure LV?

I suppose my view of the meaning of "formal" is different, that's all.

It's not affecting me (unless I have to be the person arranging the meeting and sending the policy document). I'm past retirement age and have had only two occasions in my entire working life when I needed a doctor's note and self-certified about twice too.

SarEl

LittleVoice wrote: »

I suppose my view of the meaning of "formal" is different, that's all.

It's not affecting me (unless I have to be the person arranging the meeting and sending the policy document). I'm past retirement age and have had only two occasions in my entire working life when I needed a doctor's note and self-certified about twice too.

You probably don't "get" it then. These are the odd days here and there that don't require doctors notes and are never serious enough for a doctors note. They may be a bout of food poisoning, a 24 hour bug - but are often, particularly in some places, a hangover, "can't be arsed getting up", or something of that nature. In terms of the latter they can quickly get out of hand from both the employers and the employees point of view - it's easy for employees to "get away" with it (or think they have) and do it again next time they fancy a day off. Pretty soon it amounts to 2 or more weeks off work!

In the old days it would have been dealt with by a swift "You are taking the p!!s, don't be doing it again or you will be collecting your cards mate" and everyone would know where they stood. That isn't deemed acceptable in law any more, so hence you have these policies.

There are genuine reasons why people need time off sick, and I don't think that many people would significantly quibble when an employer has to terminate a long term absence (provided it is done fairly and alternatives have been explored). Other than those cases many employers used to just go with the flow on sickness - if people were sick they were sick. But I am afraid that finances and too many people taking sick leave as an alternative to holiday have caused a crack down, and it catches everyone in the net.

LittleVoice

SarEl wrote: »

You probably don't "get" it then.

I'm obviously thick! What is it that I don't "get"? [Is it just because I haven't taken much sick leave myself and therefore you think I can't understand what happens?]

A series of short absences triggers the taking of the "informal action". So there is already a problem which is being addressed.

I quite understand that organisations need to tackle the situation you described. I'm not disputing the need to take action, only the validity of calling it "informal".

My view is that if the organisation has to write a policy about it and stipulate virtually the words that the manager has to read out and notification that without improvement the next "formal" step will be taken, then it is rather strange to describe this as the "informal action" part of a continuing procedure where the next step becomes "formal" but has no greater requirement as far as arranging meetings, providing documents in advance, keeping records and providing written confirmation is concerned.

Any way, I'm obvously on my own in holding this view! I'll not waste more of our time on it.

CFC

I thought that perhaps you were about to do battle with the rest of your HR department having just got a new job or taken on process policy, LV, which is why I was interested in why you felt that it should be counted as part of the formal disciplinary process!