Emplyee off sick but I think it is not true

VfM4meplse

ceridwen wrote: »

Then that is harassment with what you are doing V4.

It's well within the HR procedure, and I make it clear that I will want to know how they are later in the day when they call in sick, both out of concern and so their diaries can be managed for the next day. They are also well-acquainted with my caring nature and know that I'm often back-to-back in meetings myself, so calls are often made in snatched moments, and it's not out of character for me to do this.

Uncertain

VfM4meplse wrote: »

They should be contactable at the discretion of the line manager.

I often commit to calling staff at home "later" to find out how they are, without giving a specific time. If they're sick at home, it's no problem. If they have made other plans for the day, then they are confined to their own home.

I'm sorry but that is utterly unreasonable behaviour. Sooner or later it will land you in trouble.

Also, regarding your earlier post, what you think the situation should be is utterly irrelevant, as it what you claim happens in the USA.

What matters is the situation in the UK as it currently is, not as any individual might like it to be.

custardy

VfM4meplse wrote: »

It's well within the HR procedure, and I make it clear that I will want to know how they are later in the day when they call in sick, both out of concern and so their diaries can be managed for the next day. They are also well-acquainted with my caring nature and know that I'm often back-to-back in meetings myself, so calls are often made in snatched moments, and it's not out of character for me to do this.

you never answered
what happens if they dont answer?

VfM4meplse

Uncertain wrote: »

Sooner or later it will land you in trouble

On the contrary, I have organisational support in writing. And as a public sector employee you should be grateful that I am striving to ensure the taxpayer is not untowardly abused.

VfM4meplse

custardy wrote: »

you never answered
what happens if they dont answer?

Hasn't happened...yet

custardy

VfM4meplse wrote: »

Hasn't happened...yet

thats not an answer
what does your "HR procedure" provide for this?

getmore4less

There area number of issues here that are getting all mixed up togehter.

We're not allowed to have any agency workers and the manager doesn't tuck in at all, so it is down to a team of 3 to cover the 24 h business, we're 5 in total, one in holiday and one off sick, it's just happening sooo often that 2 members of staff call in sick when someone else is off, make it even harder ... and it's obviously down to me to cover as the others are most of the time unavailable( which you can't blame, if they made plans). So it's me ending up working 60 odd hours a week, which I do not want to. But this is a different matter, yes, maybe the morale is low in the work place, but I am really trying my best to make fair for everyone


The key starting point is the staffing levels, this is a 24/7/52 environment and looks to be understaffed.

people can only work 46.4 weeks @ say base 40hrs per week so 1856py
(based on 28 days holiday if you get more the hrs are less)

To provide 1 person 24/7/52 you need 8736hrs thats 5 people with cover for 13.6 weeks sick.( 28weeks holiday)

Thats the minimum number for single maning and does not allow for any managment time or supervision on shifts, you need more people.

what re the hours and holidays?

Now the problem with minimum manning is that as soon as there are any issues like sick they compound quickly. this is reflected in the extra hours that people need to do and this begins the spiral of moral decline and more sick and stress and unhappy workers. You need to break the cycle, more workers is the only way or shut the business for some hours to reduce cover required.

You don't say the type of business is but is there room to review the 24hr cover.

You now have unhappy workers that are going sick and can't leave unless they find better jobs or get sacked so they get benifits.

How much are you paying these people and expecting them to do unpaid overtime.

Have you checked your own hours for national minimum wage?


If the type of work lends it then part timers can be a way, 2 part timers filling one position give much more flexability for rotas and cover if they are prepared to do over contract hours, also less stressfull.

The key problem here is you are understaffed and have a poor policies for cover, that's what needs fixing.

As for the lady going sick forget it you just want her out(because thats what she wants) manage her out, and start looking to replace her.

nikki_angel

I just want to second what someone said about you NEEDING to have more contact with HR. You may well find that they have documentation that could help you with this plus possible training opportunities for management.

I understand that you are stuck between a rock and a hard place but the employment laws and regs are there to protect you as well as your staff. If you can 100% say that you have followed each step correctly with regards to sickness then you know your backside is covered. If this employee in the OP is that desperate to leave/be sacked then she may well be playing on the fact that you don't know truly the path you should be following and is hoping you trip yourself up and then she can claim constructive dismissal.

Please, for your own sake if no one else's, protect yourself. Knowledge is power!

Uncertain

VfM4meplse wrote: »

On the contrary, I have organisational support in writing. And as a public sector employee you should be grateful that I am striving to ensure the taxpayer is not untowardly abused.

No, what you mean is that as a part of a huge organisation they have decided on this way of "managing" staff absence. The bigger the organisation the more they can look at the overall picture and the more the law of average will apply.

From time to time this approach WILL land you on the wrong end of a claim. They will devote a certain amount of resources to fighting it and if it doesn't go away settle with some money in exchange for a confidentiality agreement. Overall they take the view that this cheaper and more efficient and they are probably right - in cash terms at least.

That is totally different to the situation here. We have a "manager" in a small business trying to deal with a situation with one of a handful of staff. It is clear that he has little or no support or resources, such as HR and legal departments, to call on. Doubtless he will personally get it in the neck from the owner if this ends badly. The way he is going about it that is exactly what is going to happen.

purcel

getmore4less wrote: »

There area number of issues here that are getting all mixed up togehter.

We're not allowed to have any agency workers and the manager doesn't tuck in at all, so it is down to a team of 3 to cover the 24 h business, we're 5 in total, one in holiday and one off sick, it's just happening sooo often that 2 members of staff call in sick when someone else is off, make it even harder ... and it's obviously down to me to cover as the others are most of the time unavailable( which you can't blame, if they made plans). So it's me ending up working 60 odd hours a week, which I do not want to. But this is a different matter, yes, maybe the morale is low in the work place, but I am really trying my best to make fair for everyone


The key starting point is the staffing levels, this is a 24/7/52 environment and looks to be understaffed.

people can only work 46.4 weeks @ say base 40hrs per week so 1856py
(based on 28 days holiday if you get more the hrs are less)

To provide 1 person 24/7/52 you need 8736hrs thats 5 people with cover for 13.6 weeks sick.( 28weeks holiday)

Thats the minimum number for single maning and does not allow for any managment time or supervision on shifts, you need more people.

I have asked and due to labour cuts, I cannot have anyone else, I have to be on shift on my own and do not have any spare time for supervision.

what re the hours and holidays?

Now the problem with minimum manning is that as soon as there are any issues like sick they compound quickly. this is reflected in the extra hours that people need to do and this begins the spiral of moral decline and more sick and stress and unhappy workers. You need to break the cycle, more workers is the only way or shut the business for some hours to reduce cover required.

You don't say the type of business is but is there room to review the 24hr cover. No, not really, we have to be open 24h/day

You now have unhappy workers that are going sick and can't leave unless they find better jobs or get sacked so they get benifits.

How much are you paying these people and expecting them to do unpaid overtime.

Staff, including me, are paid per hour and the contract says the amount of hours we do is in relation with the needs of the business.

Have you checked your own hours for national minimum wage?
Paid hourly


If the type of work lends it then part timers can be a way, 2 part timers filling one position give much more flexability for rotas and cover if they are prepared to do over contract hours, also less stressfull.

We are 2 full timers, and 3 part timers, the problem is that one is in holiday, so everyone does extra shifts when this happens to make up.

The key problem here is you are understaffed and have a poor policies for cover, that's what needs fixing.

We are part of a huge company, labour cuts and minimum working staff to maximise revenue. If I knew it will be like that when I've accepted the job...Too late now.

As for the lady going sick forget it you just want her out(because thats what she wants) manage her out, and start looking to replace her.

Like I said I am following the employment policy for non performance, she has got 3 weeks left to improve.