NHS managers or others please comment re sickness abscences

lollol

Can you be dismissed for these?

Our trust recently started having meetings to manage sickness if one went over a certain number of days.
I must say that they are now using what they call a rolling year? in the past i understood that sickness was counted within a set year ie april to march?

I know a few people who have had more than 10 episodes of sickness but they are still working. I had about 3 episodes in total about 10 days off sick in the last 2-3 years

LillythePink

Can't comment on NHS, but the rolling year issue is used in our company - although this is more for uncertified sickness and not when it is signed off by the dr.

Excessive sickness is then investigated be it uncertified or certified

chanie

Yes, you can be dismissed for poor attendance. Obviously, they will have to give you warnings first. You are paid to work and whilst many organisations do accept that staff do get ill, there is a point where it becomes unacceptable.

Its not just the NHS, you'll find that many organisations have procedures for this.

I haven't heard of companies using set monitoring periods before. Where I work (and have worked) they use a rolling 12 month period for calcuation. SO, if you have a lot of absence in say March 2010, it won't 'fall' off until March 2011.

I work in HR and just before CHristmas, I gave warning to three members of staff who had poor attendance. Not a month went by where they weren't of with various ailments. Anyway, since giving them warnings, none of the three have had one day off this year. I'm not saying they were malingering, but it is amazing how a warning can change that. In meetings I often hear employee's say that they were ill but didn't seek medical attention and as soon as you give them a warning, they start taking care of themselves more and getting help if they are unwell.

birkee

In many public systems, 'unaccounted for sick time' was getting looked on as 'perks of the job'.
All the public services suffered far higher absences than private ones, what does that tell you?

dmg24

My old NHS Trust has used a rolling year for at least six years.

Jinx

The company I work for use a rolling year too. 3 occasions or 1 occasion of more than 7 days triggers an absence review meeting. Actions following that can be no action, a warning or improvement notice. Since last year anyone with more than 5 occasions in one year for absence will not get paid for their absence (get SSP of course). Funnily enough some of the repeat offenders are no longer sick as frequently......And absence is a disciplinary matter too which can lead to dismissal. Sounds harsh to be honest; but the absence was getting ridiculous.

The_Unready

birkee wrote: »

In many public systems, 'unaccounted for sick time' was getting looked on as 'perks of the job'.
All the public services suffered far higher absences than private ones, what does that tell you?

I'm not sure what that tells you, but it's not quite as simple as that, is it?

Check this link:

Sickness rates overall are higher in the public sector than in the private sector.

Sickness absence is higher amongst women than amongst men in both public and private sectors.

The public sector employs proportionally more women than men than does the private sector.

Ergo, it can be argued that it's not because it's the public sector per se that there's more sickness absence - it's because the public sector employs more women than men.

(Altough it should also be noted that the report shows that there is a marginally higher sick rate amongst men in the public sector than in the private sector).

It's obviously not a clear cut issue, and I'm sure that there are lot more factors at play, but one shouldn't necessarily believe everything one reads in the Daily Mail.

The Unready

C_Mababejive

Theyve only just started doing this?

My..many private sector companies have done this for decades and indeed,most if not all will have a sickness reporting/absence policy plus return to work interviews blah blah blah..

Some one i know who works for NHS says its almost impossible to get sacked.

custardy

lollol wrote: »

Can you be dismissed for these?

Our trust recently started having meetings to manage sickness if one went over a certain number of days.
I must say that they are now using what they call a rolling year? in the past i understood that sickness was counted within a set year ie april to march?

I know a few people who have had more than 10 episodes of sickness but they are still working. I had about 3 episodes in total about 10 days off sick in the last 2-3 years

RM used the exact same set up

13. MEASUREMENT AND REVIEW
Royal Mail and CWU are committed to this process which will be reviewed on an Area by Area basis. The effectiveness of this approach will be monitored at the quarterly strategic area review meeting. It is a process for reviewing trends and identifying opportunities for improvement.With employees new to Royal Mail it is important to establish quickly a clear understanding of the need to maintain appropriate standards of attendance. Attendance may be regarded as warranting formal action if an employee who is on trial has:

Stage 1: 2 absences or 7 days in a 6 month period
Stage 2: 1 absence in the next 2 months
Stage 3: 1 absence in the next 2 months
No triallist should have his/her appointment confirmed whilst under this procedure.

2. MINIMUM NATIONAL ATTENDANCE STANDARDS - EMPLOYEES NOT ON TRIAL
Employees who have successfully completed their trial period are still required to maintain a high standard of attendance. Attendance may be regarded as warranting formal action if an employee who is not on trial has:

Stage 1: 4 absences or 14 days in a 12 month period
Stage 2: 2 absences or 10 days in any 6 month period during the next 12 months
Stage 3: 2 absences or 10 days in any 6 month period during the next 12 months
In deciding whether these standards are met for employees whose trial was recently confirmed, attendance during the whole of employment is considered, not jut from the date trial is confirmed. An employee whose trial has been confirmed following an improvement to the required triallist standard will be put back to the previous stage of the Attendance Procedure but the criteria appropriate to a non-triallist will then apply.

as long as you stay within a Stage 1 its okay,but hit a Stage 2 then you could have 2 1 day absences in a 6 month period and b up for dismissal. worse for trialists (staff with less than 12 months service)

Lyncroft

Quite tightly monitored in the Civil Service dept I work in. Done on a rolling year and all computerised. I think it's a total of 11/12 days uncertified sick or over 4 individual instances over a rolling year and a warning is issued. You're then in the system! People still pull flankers such as coming in, saying they feel sick and go home after 2 hours which doesn't count.

I remember working in Personnel when I joined the CS in 1988 and all sickness was paper based. No way could you keep on top of it.

Just read the above on the Royal Mail and it's not too different. We also have a 3 stage process. I don't think our stage 2/3 parts are quite as strict but it's true that once you're in the system you have to be very careful. Also I think if you're in stage 2, then clear the subsequent 12 month period you don't then go back to Stage 1. You go straight Stage 2.

birkee

The_Unready wrote: »

I'm not sure what that tells you, but it's not quite as simple as that, is it?

Check this link:

Sickness rates overall are higher in the public sector than in the private sector.

Sickness absence is higher amongst women than amongst men in both public and private sectors.

The public sector employs proportionally more women than men than does the private sector.

Ergo, it can be argued that it's not because it's the public sector per se that there's more sickness absence - it's because the public sector employs more women than men.

(Altough it should also be noted that the report shows that there is a marginally higher sick rate amongst men in the public sector than in the private sector).

It's obviously not a clear cut issue, and I'm sure that there are lot more factors at play, but one shouldn't necessarily believe everything one reads in the Daily Mail.

The Unready

Good post!

I seem to be developing the 'one level' thinking of many of the posters on this site, when I put my two pennorth in.
(Don't read the Daily Mail.)