Go home ill an hour early - lose a whole day's pay?

jc808

Am I right in thinking that taking part of a day as sick (ie the last hour) means that technically speaking the day is regarded as a 'sickness absence'

Could be the employer is thinking that as he doesnt get full sick pay entitlement he is not getting paid - ie the company is confusing two things:
- Sick pay entitlment for his grade/ length of service
- The definition of a 'sickness absence'
But forgetting that, irrespective of the day being classed (rightly) as 'sick' he could (depending on the law and what it says in his contract) still be due his hours worked for that day?

See what I mean?

getmore4less

ONe think he should do is make sure he has a written coppy of all the particulars of employment any handbooks etc and go through them in detail for this and other policies.

If part of a larger organization seek clarification from HR what the policies are.

He needs to be clear what the policy is for if they send him home rather than him requesting to leave early.

Are there any sick policys that trigger a investigation, this may be one way to highlight the issue to other people in the organization if he is ever sick enough.

He should also enquire if others have had the same issue and calculate if they are below NMW and keep records.

How are the hours and pay recorded, if there are timesheets then the manager may be falsifying them wonder what the company would think of that.

Southend1

Is your son a union member? If so his shop steward will be able to advise and help sort this out.

DCFC79

What does the contract say about sickness ?

Another_not_new_user

jc808 wrote: »

Am I right in thinking that taking part of a day as sick (ie the last hour) means that technically speaking the day is regarded as a 'sickness absence'

Could be the employer is thinking that as he doesnt get full sick pay entitlement he is not getting paid - ie the company is confusing two things:
- Sick pay entitlment for his grade/ length of service
- The definition of a 'sickness absence'
But forgetting that, irrespective of the day being classed (rightly) as 'sick' he could (depending on the law and what it says in his contract) still be due his hours worked for that day?

See what I mean?

Maybe the manager got confused about this, but no - you are not technically off sick if you worked on that day. The only right to "dock pay" is for the unworked part of the day. He only missed an hour after all... seems harsh even then, but in law they could refuse to pay for that hour.

jc808

Another_not_new_user wrote: »

Maybe the manager got confused about this, but no - you are not technically off sick if you worked on that day. The only right to "dock pay" is for the unworked part of the day. He only missed an hour after all... seems harsh even then, but in law they could refuse to pay for that hour.

Depends on the contract. In my company (large organisation, very hr- compliant) part sickness of any day is regarded as a sickness for disciplinary reasons (ie it triggers bradford factor) but dont think you would have your pay docked.

General_Grant

topaztiger1983 wrote: »

If I leave early then I get paid for the hours I have worked up until then, So if I was in the same situation then I would get paid for 9:30am-7pm and not from 7pm-8pm (The hour not worked), but the extra hour on Saturday would make up for the hour missed on Friday

I think he may have misunderstood the manager, as the manager said he would not be paid for the whole day (e.g. 9:30-8pm), he should however get paid for the hours he did work (9:30am-7pm), it is just the hour he will lose (but he won't as he did the extra hour on Saturday)

I think that he has just mistook that the manager said that he would not be paid at all for that day, which is surely not correct, it will only be the hour he missed that he will not be paid for on that day

I too think there is misunderstanding.

He should be paid for the hours of his regular shift which he worked but it's more than acceptable to say that the hour from 7 pm to 8 pm is not paid.

I do not think that the extra hour on Saturday which he worked as it were to pay back the hour lost on Friday should be paid unless this was worked back having been agreed in advance with his manager. That is unless there is a formal flexible hours policy.

He does need to check what his manager actually meant. If his manager did mean what he thought he meant, then he does need to check with his written particulars of employment and any other documentation in order to take this up with the company.

He must not allow himself to be brow-beaten into submission.

agrinnall

I too would think that a misunderstanding/miscommunication is the most likely explanation.

But not necessarily the only one. My employer has stated during periods of industrial action that if anyone is absent from work to take part in that action, even if it's only for part of the day, they are regarded as being absent for the whole day and will not be paid for that day. Possibly the employer in this case has a similar rule for sickness absence, and does not pay for the first day (or 3 days) of such absence.

Another_not_new_user

jc808 wrote: »

Depends on the contract. In my company (large organisation, very hr- compliant) part sickness of any day is regarded as a sickness for disciplinary reasons (ie it triggers bradford factor) but dont think you would have your pay docked.

No - it doesn't depend on the contract. What is counted as sickness absence under sickness absence policies is determined by the company. The pay you are entitled to is determined by the law.


And being HR compliant wouldn't fill me with confidence. There are some great HR professionals, but as a general rule the only collective that get the law wrong as often as HR are ACAS phone operators.

Marktheshark

Is what they did wrong ?
Yes.
what can he do about it in the real world of Tory Britain 2014.
Nothing except lose his job.
They can sack him for no reason and any tribunal now has to be paid for by the employee which is rather hard with no job.

If he wants to keep his job, put it down to experience, keep quiet, keep his head down and hope it blows over.

Is this "right" of course not, but it is how things are in the real world.

Its a two horse race these days, Job or no job.