discretionary company sick pay scheme

pippaaaaaaa

is a company allowed to operate a discretionary sick pay scheme on the basis that, during absence that meets the company rules, they may or may not continue to pay an employee some or all of their salary at their discretion, with no further clarification in the employment contract?

i'm a bit confused as i've never worked anywhere with a policy like this - there's no firm stated restrictions (e.g. the usual you must be employed for x time before you are entitled to company sick pay, or you are only entitled to x weeks' company sick pay etc) and it's really confusing me because it seems to essentially state that they can pay whoever they want, whatever portion of their salary they want, for as long as they want? which seems a little iffy to me as without clear guidelines you don't know where you stand and it could differ from person to person, surely. a colleague of mine was off work for a similar amount of time to myself and received company sick pay for two weeks, whereas i did not. this person has been employed there longer than myself, which i did think might be the reason, but having gone through the absence/sick pay scheme sections of my contract there is absolutely no mention of needing to be employed for x amount of time to receive it; simply that it is wholly at the company's discretion, full stop, with no clarification as to how they decide. i understand discretionary sick pay in the context that they can choose to pay company sick pay on occasion when someone has been absent but not met the company rules with regard to absence, but i wasn't aware that it could also apply in the context of meeting the absence rules as set out in the contract, but it still being their decision as to whether or not you get sick pay. i also understand that they can refuse sick pay if they think absence is unjustified, but there has been absolutely no mention of this & HR accepted my fit notes.

if this clarifies anything further, i am well past my probationary period, i have received SSP for the absence, and i have provided certification for it as well.

i know i will most likely need to talk to my employer about this, but i'd appreciate any information provided just so that i understand where i stand before i do so. unfortunately there have been previous issues with vagueness of contracts in my workplace (with other people, not myself) so i am a little wary of blindly trusting them!

SueC_2

Paying SSP is their only legal obligation UNLESS they they also offer contractrual company sick pay. In this case, the contractual company sick pay is discretionary, so yes, they can do as they please (over and above SSP) -so long as you can't prove that the reason you were treated differently to anyone else was discretionary (ie. because of your age, sex, race, disability, religion or belief or sexual orientation).

You may not feel it's fair, but it is legal. And the only way you can "know where you stand" is to not go off sick. Or, if you do go off sick, presume you'll only get SSP - that way, anything extra will be a bonus should you get it.

pippaaaaaaa

SueC wrote: »

Paying SSP is their only legal obligation UNLESS they they also offer contractrual company sick pay. In this case, the contractual company sick pay is discretionary, so yes, they can do as they please (over and above SSP) -so long as you can't prove that the reason you were treated differently to anyone else was discretionary (ie. because of your age, sex, race, disability, religion or belief or sexual orientation).

You may not feel it's fair, but it is legal. And the only way you can "know where you stand" is to not go off sick. Or, if you do go off sick, presume you'll only get SSP - that way, anything extra will be a bonus should you get it.

thank you for the swift answer

for what it's worth, i don't feel it's unfair, just confusing as there don't seem to be any criteria as to why it can vary from person to person (which seems a bit illogical, but hey ho, this is why i don't work in hr as i can't get my head around it!) . "know where i stand" referred to wanting to have all the information (such as whether or not this was possible & clearing up my confusion) so that i could know how or if i even needed to raise it with my employer, as i have never had to take sick pay before & therefore have never had to consider this, rather how you seem to have interpreted it about knowing the financial implications before deciding whether or not to go off sick? but i do appreciate the quick & clear answer nonetheless.

Uncertain

The short answer to your original question is yes.

As SueC has stated, within certain legal limits, they can set whatever terms they like.

Personally I think this should be made illegal as it is rather like an insurance company saying "if your house burns down and you have kept to all our terms and conditions then we may or may not pay out"!

It could be argued that a prudent person with a job that only pays SSP will take out private insurance in case he is off sick long term. At lease he knows where he stands.....

pippaaaaaaa

Uncertain wrote: »

The short answer to your original question is yes.

As SueC has stated, within certain legal limits, they can set whatever terms they like.

Personally I think this should be made illegal as it is rather like an insurance company saying "if your house burns down and you have kept to all our terms and conditions then we may or may not pay out"!

It could be argued that a prudent person with a job that only pays SSP will take out private insurance in case he is off sick long term. At lease he knows where he stands.....

thank you

now that i know that it is possible, on a purely curious basis (rather than anything pertaining to my situation), does an employer have to use a set of criteria to consider whilst using this discretionary power? or is it literally with no internal guidelines? is it just a get out clause?

as i say, from my (limited) understanding, it seems that person a could be off & receive company sick pay at the company's discretion and person b could be off work & not receive it at the company's discretion, when (if i understand it correctly) there could be no major difference in their situations? is that right? because it wouldn't be discrimination surely unless the situations were absolutely identical with different results/outcomes (the chances of which are ridiculously small) or you had proof of discrimination on the grounds suec mentioned?

idk, the whole concept of discretion in something like this is baffling to me :huh:

KiKi

pippaaaaaaa wrote: »

is it just a get out clause?

Essentially, yes.

because it wouldn't be discrimination surely unless the situations were absolutely identical with different results/outcomes (the chances of which are ridiculously small) or you had proof of discrimination on the grounds suec mentioned?

Discrimination is incredibly difficult to prove, despite the fact that many of these decisions will be based on subjective opinion. Ie, if your manager likes you, you get it. If they don't, you're screwed. You would find it incredibly difficult to prove it's because you're female or male, or black or white, or disabled or not.

I personally don't like this way of operating - if you're going to operate a company sick scheme, apply it to everyone with the same rules. If not, don't bother, just stick to SSP. Why don't I like it? It creates division, resentment, a very poor 'psychological contract' with staff, distrust and expectation which won't be fulfilled. Plus, it does of course leave companies open to discrimination claims.

But it's all perfectly legal.

idk, the whole concept of discretion in something like this is baffling to me :huh:

Me too. And I work in HR.

KiKi

SueC_2

Absolutely no pre-specified criteria needed whatsoever I'm afraid. It could be:

Person A has less sick leave than Person B
Person A has a higher productivity rate when in work than Person B
Person A has been employed for longer than Person B
Person A has blonde hair and Person B has brown hair
Big Boss Person likes Person A more than he/she likes Person B

Or it may not even be anything at all to do with Person A, Person B or Big Boss Person. It could purely and simply be that if the company has had a profitable month and can afford to pay sick pay, then it will. But if times are hard and there's no money in the pot, then it's SSP only.

Or it could be all or none of the above. Discretionary is discretionary and there is absolutely no need for rhyme or reason to justify it.

For what it's worth, discretionary is also a complete nightmare for the average manager - not knowing when to grant or not to grant, and constantly being challenged with "but that's not fair, so and so was paid...".

ceridwen

I get exactly where you are coming from on this and there really should be pure "objective" rules laid down so that staff know where they stand in this respect.

My assumption is that the basic purpose of this "vagueness" on the company's part is in order to ensure that they pay those who are genuinely sick and do not pay those that are "skiving".

I am sure you were genuinely sick personally and should therefore receive the due salary I have to add....

Personally....and one CAN only speak personally...in a situation like that I would write them a letter (copy kept) stating that I noted I had not been paid sick pay for the period x to y and that company sick pay policies were as follows "......". However, I was "puzzled" as to what way I had "not met the criteria applicable" to receiving sick pay and could they please let me know in which way I had been "deemed to not match the criteria".

The onus is then back on them - and you take it from there (according to what response they give you).

NB: you DO have to be prepared for them to tell you a "pack of lies" which boil down to "Your manager was having a bad hair day - or doesnt like the colour of your eyes" - rather than any remotely objective criteria. I still think its worth asking - at the least they may think twice about docking your pay if you are off work ill again.

pippaaaaaaa

KiKi wrote: »

Ie, if your manager likes you, you get it. If they don't, you're screwed.

thank you! your whole post was very helpful & i especially appreciate the refreshing honesty quoted above

again, because i have zero knowledge of this sort of thing - when you say manager, does that refer to the HR manager or your line manager? who is involved in the decision typically? i'm sure it probably varies from company to company obviously, but if there's a chance my line manager might have been involved i'd be quite hacked off as they actually sent me home for being ill when i tried to return back to work & said they thought i should go to go to casualty (which i have in writing).

KiKi wrote: »

I personally don't like this way of operating - if you're going to operate a company sick scheme, apply it to everyone with the same rules. If not, don't bother, just stick to SSP. Why don't I like it? It creates division, resentment, a very poor 'psychological contract' with staff, distrust and expectation which won't be fulfilled.

couldn't agree more! as a lowly employee, i value openness & honesty more than anything from management. even if you're getting a !!!! deal, i appreciate them being open about that. and i would be a lot happier if they had a straightforward SSP only (or even SSP unless you've worked there 12+ months etc.) so that i would never have to consider the matter!

pippaaaaaaa

SueC wrote: »

It could purely and simply be that if the company has had a profitable month and can afford to pay sick pay, then it will. But if times are hard and there's no money in the pot, then it's SSP only.

thank you i suspect this could actually be a strong factor in it, which is somewhat reassuring in a way, as if this were the case, it at least wouldn't be anything personal.

pippaaaaaaa

ceridwen wrote: »

I get exactly where you are coming from on this and there really should be pure "objective" rules laid down so that staff know where they stand in this respect.

My assumption is that the basic purpose of this "vagueness" on the company's part is in order to ensure that they pay those who are genuinely sick and do not pay those that are "skiving".

I am sure you were genuinely sick personally and should therefore receive the due salary I have to add....

Personally....and one CAN only speak personally...in a situation like that I would write them a letter (copy kept) stating that I noted I had not been paid sick pay for the period x to y and that company sick pay policies were as follows "......". However, I was "puzzled" as to what way I had "not met the criteria applicable" to receiving sick pay and could they please let me know in which way I had been "deemed to not match the criteria".

The onus is then back on them - and you take it from there (according to what response they give you).

NB: you DO have to be prepared for them to tell you a "pack of lies" which boil down to "Your manager was having a bad hair day - or doesnt like the colour of your eyes" - rather than any remotely objective criteria. I still think its worth asking - at the least they may think twice about docking your pay if you are off work ill again.

thank you for the help & advice! i actually might try that, as this is going to bother me, and as i was off work for several weeks and therefore this is a considerable chunk of money to me. i very much doubt anything will change based on previous experiences with the HR department but as you say, it's worth a shot even if nothing changes, all i've lost is five/ten minutes of my time.

can KiKi or SueC (i'm guessing you work in HR too, Sue?) shed any light on whether or not this would negatively impact me if i did so?