Sickness Record Resulting in Disciplinary Action

lakes17

I agree with Marybella but also wish to add that it isn't only down to the previous Employer regarding disclosing sickness absence, as some potential employers ask for these details i.e. how many sick days has x taken over the last 2 years as part of their referencing procedure.

barbarawright

lakes17 wrote: »

I agree with Marybella but also wish to add that it isn't only down to the previous Employer regarding disclosing sickness absence, as some potential employers ask for these details i.e. how many sick days has x taken over the last 2 years as part of their referencing procedure.

This is true. A friend was recently offered a local authority job and then had the offer withdrawn when references revealed he had taken 11 days sickness in 2 years. Obviously not all authorities do this but your girlfriend should be aware of the possibility

BillJones

starrystarry wrote: »

I think most employers would feel that 5 periods of sickness in one year is excessive.

As a point of comparison, staff in my office average about a day every three years. We are not super-human, we just go in unless we really physically cannot.

Five times in a year does seem to be a lot, and at least worthy of discussion.

Racheldevon

It's certainly worth checking the absence management policy (or similar) which should outline the triggers for different levels of absence meetings. Where I work a member of staff is referred to Occupational Health on reaching each trigger point, and any recommendations actioned and reviewed regularly with clear expectations regarding future absences outlined to the employee. Further action can be taken in line with the capacity policy under the terms of ill health. It really depends on the policies and procedures of her place of employment.

t0rt0ise

If someone is really genuinely sick often then they could ask to be checked out by an immunologist to see if there's an immune deficiency. Some GPs will say it can't be checked or treated but this is not true. Look up Primary Immune Deficiencies or CVID on google.

fiisch

Oh the irony.... Since my last post, I've been stricken with the dreaded manflu. Fortunately, it was over the Xmas period so my sickness record is still 100% intact, but I've been terrified of passing it on to my other half - so much so we've had to sleep in separate bedrooms, I've not handled anything in the fridge/kitchen cupboards etc....! Given it's the first time I've been ill in about four years, I'm not exactly the best patient....

Her work are seemingly in agreement to let her postpone the hearing, but as ever they seem to make a hash of handling things i.e.: no formal response, very non-committal, unsure of correct procedure etc. which would support the advice on here to follow the policy wording and keep referring to that.

If they give her a final written warning, does one have the option to reject? I.e.: "I refuse to sign that"?

sniggings

fiisch wrote: »

Oh the irony.... Since my last post, I've been stricken with the dreaded manflu. Fortunately, it was over the Xmas period so my sickness record is still 100% intact, but I've been terrified of passing it on to my other half - so much so we've had to sleep in separate bedrooms, I've not handled anything in the fridge/kitchen cupboards etc....! Given it's the first time I've been ill in about four years, I'm not exactly the best patient....

Her work are seemingly in agreement to let her postpone the hearing, but as ever they seem to make a hash of handling things i.e.: no formal response, very non-committal, unsure of correct procedure etc. which would support the advice on here to follow the policy wording and keep referring to that.

If they give her a final written warning, does one have the option to reject? I.e.: "I refuse to sign that"?

of course, your signature is your own, they can not make you sign anything.

They will just mark it as refused to sign, which matters little really.

As you are seeing, they have very little reason to follow procedure, as the comeback if they don't is hardly anything to worry about, they know the chances of an employee taking them to a tribunal are very slim, and even if they were the chances of them winning are only around 5% and even if they do win the award will be around £4k , so hardly a reason for them to be concerned with procedure.

The best thing an employee can do is work for a company that respects it's employees and has a excellent complaints procedure, to rely on the Government giving protection to employees is wishful thinking.

dm1983

Is there a union in her place of work?