Absence/sickness policies.

AllSpent

I have been given a formal warning for a period of short, self-limiting absence while already on an informal stage. I was warned that further absence would lead to the case beng referred to the upper-management in the company, which could result in possible dismissal. We are not talking high levels of days off.

It seems grossly unfair that the policy sets such narrow parameters, and doesn't take into account what the absence was for, and in what context.

In essence, I am now going to worry for a number of months in case I need more time off for a cold/flu/injury.

How easily can employees be dismissed for small amounts of sickness such as those which are unpreventable, and self-limiting?

Phil_68

This will be governed by your contract and sickness policy. Of course it has to be fair for it to be enforceable but as you are already in the process in the informal stage, you would expect that any further 'events' would cause an escalation to the next stage.

Having a cold / flu in many industries is not really a valid reason for time off sick.

Why not have the discussion with your manager to see why they feel the need to raise their warning from informal to a formal? You have every right to disagree, but not a right to be right

As for how easy it is to dismiss - very easy if they follow the correct procedures and you don't.
Phil.

AllSpent

Thanks for your reply.

Unfortunately, they will not entertain any dialogue (at least, no meaningful conversation) and I have no right to appeal.

The 'upgrade', if you like, to a formal, is because of a breach of the targets set at the last encounter. No more than 'x' number of days off.

Even with a medical cert, it seems to make no odds.

My main concern is, if I were to need time off again, even a few days. I would effectively have to come in to work for fear of further penalty. Like most, I can't afford to lose my job, but I certainly feel like I am being nudged toward to the door, even if they are following all their policies and procedures.

Is it worth getting legal advice in case this eventuality occurs, or do I just face the fact that in reality, I can't do a thing about it?

blckbrd

How long has the policy/procedure been in place?

AllSpent

Informal stages last 12 months, with 3 monthly reviews. I was 6 months into it when I had my time off.

polgara

AllSpent wrote: »

Is it worth getting legal advice in case this eventuality occurs, or do I just face the fact that in reality, I can't do a thing about it?

legal advice would only be useful if you could demonstrate that the policy and its implementation is discriminatory

getmore4less

How much time are you having off?

What you think is reasonable many would not.

ILW

Think you lost the argument when you referred to a cold as a reason for needing time off.

blckbrd

I'm recorded on here as being no fan of ill health procedures that make genuinely ill people feel that that must go in to work. That being said, I can see the legitimate business need for such.

You have to roll with it. While I have always taken sick leave when too ill to work, I have also been subject to these procedures. If the presence of such procedure meansyou believe you're well enough to work then you're well enough to work.

When someone comes in spreading their germs - make a big deal of it. Some people are prone to catching stuff some aren't. I'm in the latter group. However, if I have the snots, the squits, the yacks or something else short lived, I'm really not going to take it into work. You'll most likely know when it's over indulgence as opposed to the plague.

If you have a condition that flares up then highlight this to management and be prepared to provide private certificates to confirm.

It really isn't personal as much as it feels as if it is.

AllSpent

I was signed off with a chest infection. I have had less than thirty days in the last three years. There are long periods where absences do not occur. I feel the policy is being implemented very robustly.

Also, as I work with in public health, and have contact with patients, so some minor ailments require time off; patients have to be considered with things like norovirus, etc.

Takeaway_Addict

AllSpent wrote: »

I was signed off with a chest infection. I have had less than thirty days in the last three years. There are long periods where absences do not occur. I feel the policy is being implemented very robustly.

Also, as I work with in public health, and have contact with patients, so some minor ailments require time off; patients have to be considered with things like norovirus, etc.

If less than 30 days is it (about average) it means you shouldn't have any issue but its in place to move on as quickly as possible those that are unreliable.

If the company didn't start this now and then you became unreliable it would take that much longer to move you on.

There are protections for disabilities under the equality act but it doesn't make them bulletproof