Sickness as selection criteria

TikkaCleo

I can't get my head around this and am hoping someone can help. There are two big queries at work (we are going through restructure) and I will post them separately.


The first is about selecting people out for redundancy by use of a matrix. One of the criteria is attendance - the amount of sickness that has been taken over 3 years. (Other criteria are performance and discipline - no problem with those)


The issue is whether the nature of the sickness can be considered. I know all about disability related sickness etc.


At the moment we have someone with many years service, no sickness until last year when she suffered a car accident and had 10 days off with a broken arm. She has lost her job because there is someone else with nine days off, all of which were 'sore throat' 'cold' or 'stomach upset'.


Now this is not to say those minor ailments were not genuine, but it seems grossly unfair to penalise the car accident lady.


On the other hand - can it really be acceptable for HR or management to decide whose sickness is more important than others? I would be interested in hearing views. Thank you very much!


Cleo

Rob50k

Sadly as rough as it sounds it is perfectly fair and reasonable in the legal sense. Many employers find it hard to select criteria that is clear cut and attendance is a very easy numbers exercise and isn't subjective. As long as everyone has the same criteria applied to reach the decision then they are correct. No less of a bummer for those effected.

Dilly

Yes I'm afraid this is acceptable. Some companies only use self assessment sickness as criteria, if you are signed off you have a more severe illness and I presume they see it as genuine
The worse thing you can do is keep going to work when you are not properly better. This results in many absenses and just makes it worse for you, if sickness is used as a selection criteria. Even if the Company are short staffed and you feel you should go in get something in writing about it not not being used, if you can. Which is highly unlikely

pmlindyloo

TikkaCleo wrote: »

I can't get my head around this and am hoping someone can help. There are two big queries at work (we are going through restructure) and I will post them separately.


The first is about selecting people out for redundancy by use of a matrix. One of the criteria is attendance - the amount of sickness that has been taken over 3 years. (Other criteria are performance and discipline - no problem with those)


The issue is whether the nature of the sickness can be considered. I know all about disability related sickness etc.


At the moment we have someone with many years service, no sickness until last year when she suffered a car accident and had 10 days off with a broken arm. She has lost her job because there is someone else with nine days off, all of which were 'sore throat' 'cold' or 'stomach upset'.


Now this is not to say those minor ailments were not genuine, but it seems grossly unfair to penalise the car accident lady.


On the other hand - can it really be acceptable for HR or management to decide whose sickness is more important than others? I would be interested in hearing views. Thank you very much!


Cleo

Many employers use a system such as this http://www.iom-world.org/sicknessabsence/summeas.htm

as part of their selection process.

Basically a period of absence which is for a straight number of days is marked in a different way than frequent short absences.

I am not an expert but if you are a member of a union it might be worth contesting the way the redundancy selection used this criteria in your case.

If you are not a member of a union then an employment specialist at a CAB might be able to help.

TikkaCleo

Thank you all for your help and advice. I think it's time to go back to the employer and discuss the revision of this matrix.


Very useful.