Bradford factor

ohreally

maddymoo71 wrote: »

my letter says in "normal circumstances" I would have a verbal warning !

This may suggest the outcome of a disciplinary hearing is being pre-judged. Is there a trade union presence in the workplace?

ILW

3 weeks off for a pulled muscle?
Are you a premiership footballer?

marybelle01

ILW wrote: »

3 weeks off for a pulled muscle?
Are you a premiership footballer?

On these threads you seem to regularly question diagnoses of sickness absence which are, by their nature, supported by a doctors statement.

Are you calling the Posters or the GP's liars? Because if you are doing neither, it really isn't any of your business. And if you are saying they are, perhaps you should state on what basis you are qualified to come to such a conclusion.

The OP wasn't asking for your opinion of their sickness - they were asking a question about the use of policies relating to sickness.

Errata

maddymoo71 wrote: »

had it started from July 2013 I would have 15 points for having 3 continous weeks with a sicknote for a pulled muscle.
They have taken it from January I had 5 days with sinusitis and 2 days with D&V before July so this makes 198 points including the 3 weeks the trigger is 99 but my letter says in "normal circumstances" I would have a verbal warning ! I went back earlier than I should have with my pulled muscle as not getting paid and still suffering am now terrified of having any time off.

Bradford Factor or not, 22 days sick leave in 10 months warrants a discussion.

ILW

marybelle01 wrote: »

On these threads you seem to regularly question diagnoses of sickness absence which are, by their nature, supported by a doctors statement.

Are you calling the Posters or the GP's liars? Because if you are doing neither, it really isn't any of your business. And if you are saying they are, perhaps you should state on what basis you are qualified to come to such a conclusion.

The OP wasn't asking for your opinion of their sickness - they were asking a question about the use of policies relating to sickness.

Ever wondered why many employers prefer to give the jobs to Easter Europeans? Trouble is these attitudes affect those that are hard workers.

marybelle01

ILW wrote: »

Ever wondered why many employers prefer to give the jobs to Easter Europeans? Trouble is these attitudes affect those that are hard workers.

And these attitudes are straight out of Charles Dickens. Being prepared to work through sickness is not a virtue; and neither are not qualifying for sickness benefits, being exploited and exploitable because you don't know your employment rights, and being conned into thinking that you are self employed because you don't know any better - all of which are ALSO reasons why SOME employers prefer Eastern Europeans.

I do not support or collude with the whole "pulling a sickie" concept - but nor do I feel it is appropriate to beat people up for the simple fact that they are sick or have a disability. I accept that employers have a right to question sickness absence. I also accept that there must be a balance between attendance at work and legitimate absence. But a society which advocates that workers have no right to be sick, and that workers do not have the right to recovery and recuperation from sickness, is a retrograde society which simply uses and abuses people. Hard workers also get sick, and never being sick does not equate with working hard.

You know nothing about the OP, their work or their injury, but their medical doctor has issued a fit note telling then to refrain from work. That is a professional medical judgement based on the fact that the doctor DOES know these things. As it happens, the OP has actually said that they went back to work earlier than advised by the doctor because the could not afford to be off sick any longer. They have also said that they are terrified of having any more sickness. Nice world we live in when people are too frightened to be sick.

OP, your question was about the sickness absence policies being applied. As I read this, the letter says that "in normal circumstances" you would receive a verbal warning for this level of sickness absence. That comment suggests that right now you will not be getting a verbal warning. Since the reason for your absences does not affect your score, it would make sense to assume that this is a "warning shot" and that you are heading for the verbal warning if you have further time off sick in a twelve month period. But if you want to be sure about what it means and how the scores are being applied, you really should talk to your employer as they are the ones that will be using the system.

I do agree with Errata though that 22 days off sick in ten months warrants at the very least a conversation about the level of sickness absence. But assuming that this is just an unfortunate blip, everyone has them, and whilst you need to exercise caution, nobody is going to turf you out on your ear for having had a single bad year of being less than 100% well.

jc808

well done that company, imo

jetplane

A neighbouring local authority has started to use this system taken over a 3 year period. They introduced it last year for redundancies in April 2012 and it was retrospective.

Although the redundancy process stated that a decision was made on more than one factor, the only true measurable indicator was absence. All of the others had variables. I do know that in 2 departments the people with the highest sicness score were made redundant.

If any of the absences were related to a disability covered under the Equality Act then those absences were not counted. There has since been a rush to OH by workers requesting to be exempt under disability.

maddymoo71

I am still having problems with my injury for the relevant peoples interest it was a very serious injury. I am normally fit and healthy and work very hard I do not take time off unless I have no other choice my job involves lifting babies and it would not have been possible and is still a struggle, my GP advised me not to go back and the intense pain would last at least 6 weeks which it is. With D&V company policy states we are not allowed in until 48 hrs after last dose.I came on the forum asking for information on the start date of Bradford factor not to be treated so rudely and judged by people who know nothing about me. I have been honest and courteous. I have never had any kind of warning in any employment I have done and getting this letter was very upsetting for me.
Thank you to the people that have tried to help I won't be asking for help again

gadgetmind

Errata wrote: »

Bradford Factor or not, 22 days sick leave in 10 months warrants a discussion.

I don't have that number of days sick in 22 years!