Absence/sickness policies.

Cooper18

The NHS is a frustrating place to work. Trusts have sicknesses policies that allow managers to use their discretion with individual staff. Some managers are idiots however. Some apply the rules to the letter of the law, others are more relaxed. There is no consistency. I can imagine employees being "forced" out by an over exuberant application of the policy, while others get to stay even with worse absence records. I don't care what anyone says, if they want rid of you they'll get rid of you. They'll find a way.

In my Trust 3 periods of absence in a rolling year triggers a visit to OH. Or one period of longer than 2 weeks. Or 2 totally 10 days. A colleague recently got smacked in the face by a patient and has just been told she will be sent to OH because of her sick record. One day off six months ago when a V&D bug struck during a long weekend. Policy says you must be 48 hours free of symptoms - so she HAD to take one day. And now she has a broken nose, several loose teeth and two black eyes. Her nose requires surgery, and the teeth have had her at the dentist 3 times. So she's been off a few days. This is a ridiculous application of the policy, but her manager is a pig.

katejo

Phil_68 wrote: »

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.

Someone with genuine flu is not going to be able to go to work. What use would it serve if they did? I prefer not to take time off with a cold but sometimes it is necessary. Do employers really want you to cough and splutter over everyone else?

elsien

Fire_Fox wrote: »

Just get yourself into work whatever state you are in and let them send you home OR get a certificate from your doctor EVERY time for EVERY day of each sickness absence.

Just wanted to pick up on this one - there is nothing more guaranteed to rile me than if an employee comes in drooping all over the place, being all long-suffering and telling me they really shouldn't be here but they've dragged themselves in to do me a favour. If you're in work I expect you to do the job properly. If you're genuinely not well enough to do the job properly then don't come in. But don't flop all over the place, expect me to send you home and for it not to be counted as a sick day because that's not going to happen.
It may sound harsh, but I generally find that the people who try that tactic are the ones who aren't actually that ill in the first place.
And have you tried getting a doctors note for one day of sickness lately? I'm told by someone who's tried it that it takes several days to get an appointment, then they won't give you a note because under 7 days you can self-certificate.

Cooper18

If I send someone home sick then although it isn't counted as a sick day it's recorded in my diary and more than 4 periods of this in a rolling 12 months triggers a visit to you know where......

AllSpent

I think Cooper18 highlights the point well. The application of a rule/policy could be considered just if it is applied correctly, and if it follows the correct procedures. This to me is just one side (the legal side) of the coin. The fact it may be applied robustly, or dare I say, unfairly, is neither here or there. The ET only deal in facts, not whether you think,or feel your employer/manager is being a bit of pig. On paper, they are right, I have little case if it went that far. The reality is a different matter. But then, I would say that, wouldn't I.

Carrot007

ILW wrote: »

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

A "cold" is actually quite a bad illness. However 99% of people who have a bit of the sniffels call it a cold so it is generally regarded as nothing.

No idea how it is relevant here but beliove me if you had a cold you would not be going to work.

hcb42

ILW wrote: »

Is 10 days per year off sick actually average?
Or is that just for the public sector?

unfortunately in my industry we don't pay any sick and the average per year is way way lower than this.

but yes policy will be triggered on absences, so as long as it is clear, then the employee...just has to accept it, if it is fair, which it seems it is here, even serious illness does not mean the employer has to ignore absence for ever, and 30 days is pretty shocking to me too.

FBaby

The problem stems the same old natural effect. The NHS has historically been very 'supportive' to its staff when it comes to sickness. It still does in comparison to other employers. This has gradually resulted in culture of sickness that has shift where staff consider it acceptable, and even desirable to be off sick. What triggered the need to review this culture is the evidence that has finally be gathered of the impact of sickness level on service delivery and the fact that commissioners are now keeping a much closer eye on it. It is all part of the saving initiatives that the NHS operates under currently.

It is not aimed in any way at individual circumstances, but on the need of stability of services and reducing the costs (employing bank staff) to achieve it. However, it can only be tackled by targeting individuals by tightening policies.

Managers ARE expected to look at individual circumstances and take seriously reviewing reasons for sickness and offering support to manage it. It is not easy though as many employees will take this approach as a personal affront (and then risk having to deal with grievances), or they know it is a waste of time because that person does consider it acceptable or their right to be off sick when they just don't feel right rather than truly too ill to be at work.

The difference in attitude towards sickness within my team is quite extreme. You will have those who will come to work, clearly struggling, but who see it as part of working life and just get on with it as best as they can, whilst others keep an eye on them out of concern, and then the others who will go home after an hour just because of a sore throat (but also refuse to take pain killers because they are not good for them...). You have those who twist their ankles and could possible come to work, but have no trouble getting into Tesco to do their shopping (one specific recent instance).

In the end, Trusts now have targets set on staff sickness with regular monitoring, and even the possibility of funds being withdrawn from the contract if the Trust doesn't do anything about significantly under achieving these targets.

skintandscared_2

Most HR departments now use the Bradford scale when working out sickness. It's the number of instances of sickness that cause the higher scores, and reaching a certain figure will trigger a warning.

The formula is S x S x D
where S = instances of sickness and D = days off sick.

In one 52 week period, if you were off for 10 days straight (one instance), your score would be: 1 x 1 x 10 = 10

If you had been off 5 times, 2 days each, you still would have had 10 days off sick but the score would have been: 5 x 5 x 10 = 250

If you had had 10 single instances of 1 days sick (so still just 10 days off over the year) the score would have been: 10 x 10 x 10 = 1000

You can see how its the instances of sickness that make the difference!

Triggers are set off with HR at certain point levels. The more instances of sickness, the quicker you reach those levels.

Going4TheDream

skintandscared wrote: »

Most HR departments now use the Bradford scale when working out sickness.

This was implemented in to the company I used to work for, and I had to apply it to my staff when they were off. I saw the good and bad sides but it was totally despised and considered a derisory tool by many staff.

Mainly the ones who realised that throwing a sickie on a Monday or on a pay day, that kind of thing was no longer an option

Also people who would have only had one or two days off for a mild illness often took the week off

Overall though it very quickly improved short term absence and the impact it was having on our operation, which was a 24/7 operation and staffed to a certain number of headcount at any time of day. Having one or two people off really affected the workflow and the other staff who were in as it was not always possible to cover one day off at short notice, which did affect staff moral