"Informal action" re sickness absence

SarEl

LittleVoice wrote: »

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.

I didn't mean that you were stupid - I meant that if you have had so little sick leave over such a long period then you aren't the sort of person to be taking a day off sick at the drop of a hat - or a few too many pints. On that basis I seriously doubt that a manager has ever had to speak to you about sickness absence in any form, and they wouldn't have ever expected to do so. Not all employees have such exemplary records.

Yes, it is "odd" to have have an informal stage like this - but not uncommon amongst good employers who want to give someone a chance to correct a situation without a first formal stage - which is equivalent to a first warning under disciplinary procedures. So which would be better - a formal warning on sickness absence which can be reflected in references, or an informal chat to see if there is something underlaying this (or the person is just swinging the lead) which never goes into references?

SueC_2

SarEl wrote: »

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.

And there-in lies the crux of the matter. This 'informal' process is actually no different to the one used in the 'olden days', ie. it's a concilliatory attempt at deflecting a problem before it actually occurs, and without any actual disciplinary action being taken.

But, for better or worse, we are no longer in the olden days, we are in the 'cover your @rse' days. Everything has to be documented to ensure that there is a recognised process, that the process was followed, and that every time it was followed it was followed in a similar and correct manner.

Strange as it seems at times, this is about fairness to the employee!