Company Sick Pay

littlemissbluenose

Im looking for a bit of help.........I've been with my present company since 15th June 2009 and i went off sick at the end of July 2010 due to stress at work but i've just discovered that this month they have decided to dock my wages saying i went 2 days over the allowance (6 weeks 2 days), my contract states:

entitlement to sick pay increases in line with total continuous service with the company as at 1st January in the current year as follows........ up to 1 year's service 6 weeks
over 1 year but less than 2 years 12 weeks

My question is are they correct because i understand this to read as Im entitled to 12 weeks sick pay, any help would be greatly appreciated

pompeyrich

I would read it that your total continuous service as of Jan 1st 2010 was 5 months, end July 09-Jan10, so 6 weeks for 2010. In Jan 2011 you will have over 1 year and less than 2 so will then be entitled to 12 weeks.

6 weeks is still generous, my company give 14 shifts up to 5 years, then 28 shifts.

heretolearn_2

Agree with above. It goes from your service up to Jan 1st this year, which is only 5 months. Seems clear enough to me.

Uncertain

pompeyrich wrote: »

6 weeks is still generous, my company give 14 shifts up to 5 years, then 28 shifts.

No it is not "generous"!

Your sick pay entitlement is a part of your overall employment package. Some employers offer none (apart from SSP) while others offer 6 months full pay and 6 months half pay.

A wise person who takes a job with little or no sick pay will take out insurance against long term illness.

The important thing is that the OP gets their contractual entitlement.

The arrangement seems very odd. If it IS as the firm and other posters seem to believe then it is most unfair. Two employees with the same length of service could have very different entitlements depending entirely on their start date. Can this be right?

dmg24

littlemissbluenose wrote: »

Im looking for a bit of help.........I've been with my present company since 15th June 2009 and i went off sick at the end of July 2010 due to stress at work but i've just discovered that this month they have decided to dock my wages saying i went 2 days over the allowance (6 weeks 2 days), my contract states:

entitlement to sick pay increases in line with total continuous service with the company as at 1st January in the current year as follows........ up to 1 year's service 6 weeks
over 1 year but less than 2 years 12 weeks

My question is are they correct because i understand this to read as Im entitled to 12 weeks sick pay, any help would be greatly appreciated

Had you had any sickness up until your extended absence? Your entitlement could be worked out on a rolling year basis.

littlemissbluenose

yeah i'd had a few day's off......i was just wondering if indeed i only get 6 weeks or the 12 weeks?

MrRedundant

I hope for your employers sake your on minimum wage

Googlewhacker

Uncertain wrote: »

No it is not "generous"!

Your sick pay entitlement is a part of your overall employment package. Some employers offer none (apart from SSP) while others offer 6 months full pay and 6 months half pay.

A wise person who takes a job with little or no sick pay will take out insurance against long term illness.

The important thing is that the OP gets their contractual entitlement.

The arrangement seems very odd. If it IS as the firm and other posters seem to believe then it is most unfair. Two employees with the same length of service could have very different entitlements depending entirely on their start date. Can this be right?

I would disagree that 6 weeks is not generous, a company is paying someone to do nothing basically for those 6 weeks and they could have just allowed SSP to take over.

I'm not getting your last paragraph, if they have the same length of service then they would have started at the same time and get the same amount of sickness

I can't see why it is unfair, the OP knew the contract when they started.

Uncertain

Googlewhacker wrote: »

I would disagree that 6 weeks is not generous, a company is paying someone to do nothing basically for those 6 weeks and they could have just allowed SSP to take over.

I'm not getting your last paragraph, if they have the same length of service then they would have started at the same time and get the same amount of sickness

I can't see why it is unfair, the OP knew the contract when they started.

Company sick pay is a form of insurance and, as such, part of the overall package as is a company car etc.

I just objected to the word "generous". It is a bit like saying an extra £1K a year is generous. It is not if it just makes the going rate for the job.

As I read the OP as asying the sickness entitlement went up on 1 Jan regardless of the start date. So if somebody joins in November their entitlement goes up sooner than somebody who joined in February.

But maybe I read it wrong?

Googlewhacker

Uncertain wrote: »

Company sick pay is a form of insurance and, as such, part of the overall package as is a company car etc.

I just objected to the word "generous". It is a bit like saying an extra £1K a year is generous. It is not if it just makes the going rate for the job.

As I read the OP as asying the sickness entitlement went up on 1 Jan regardless of the start date. So if somebody joins in November their entitlement goes up sooner than somebody who joined in February.

But maybe I read it wrong?

I think you maybe right actually, that is an interesting way of doling out sick pay if it is the way. I suppose if you have alot of employees it makes it easier to work out who is entitled to what rather than working out each employees sick pay entitlement for every start date.

Still strange.

redcard

littlemissbluenose wrote: »

yeah i'd had a few day's off......i was just wondering if indeed i only get 6 weeks or the 12 weeks?

Damn. I hope you didn't work the 13 months so you could take a 12 week holiday!