Sick leave as a criterion

BBen

My workplace are restructuring so redundancy is in the air.


From some research it seems that sick leave is almost always used as a criterion when selecting individuals to be made redundant.


It seems like there are various scenarios for how employers actually use this criterion e.g.:


1. They score you on sick leave


2. They ignore sick leave that's been certified with evidence like a doctors note and score you on self certified sick leave.


3. They ignore sick leave associated with any protected characteristic i.e. pregnancy and maternity, disability, and gender reassignment, and score the remaining sick leave.


I'd be most grateful if anyone could relate their experience of how their employers actually scored their sick leave (especially in the public sector)


Thanks in advance.

Another_not_new_user

Sick leave associated with maternity cannot be counted. That's the law. But only if it is a result of the maternity - so not a cold or the flu!


Disability MAY attract a reasonable adjustment, but is unlikely to be wholly discounted.


All other sickness is sickness - whatever the cause or length, and whether self-certificated or not. Sickness is sickness. Differentiating between the two would be unfair. A doctors note is not "proof" of sickness over and above self-certification.


Other than pregnancy/ maternity, there is no automatic right to ignore sickness associated with any protected characteristic.

dippy3103

If you are in the public sector, then your employers policy is probably available on the intranet where you work

jjlandlord

Another_not_new_user wrote: »

A doctors note is not "proof" of sickness over and above self-certification.

In the real world it is a better proof.
People have been known to call in sick when not sick , you know...

In my view anyone who totals 5+ self-certified sick leaves in as many sittings over the year is either taking the p*ss (relevant for redundancy selection) or has a chronic illness (also relevant for redundancy selection as far as legal).

an9i77

It's difficult to say whether sick leave whilst pregnant is related to the pregnancy or not as many conditions originally unrelated to the pregnancy become so when the woman is barred from taking medication to treat it. When I was pregnant I could not even take a lemsip for a cold, or immodium for an upset tummy. It would be very easy to take time off and say that I would have been able to work had I been able to treat my illness.

an9i77

Problem with using a chronic illness in redundancy selection is that it opens you up to a possible claim of disability discrimination (if it is an illness that is covered). Personally I wouldn't do this, the risk is too great.

lisyloo

My experience in the private sector is that employers avoid it because they are too open to claims of discrimination.

When my employer did do it, they gave extra points to anyone taking more than the average number of sick days. It was harsh on one guy who was generally healthy but got flu that year. That's the problem - you sometimes get results you don't want.

getmore4less

In the real world you(company) pre test criteria just in case they give the wrong result.

If public sector and/or pre agreed it can result in the need to use creative tactics to save people you want to keep.

Prothet_of_Doom

My own redundancy involved a number of criteria, one of which was the number of occasions off sick. So I lost 2 points as 1) I took my son to A&E at 3 In the morning and stayed all day when he was struggling to breathe (Pneumonia) and 2) I had flu over the weekend and took Monday off, but managed to drag myself in on the Tuesday despite still being pretty ill.


That I could have taken a week off with that flu, and still have 1 point, sort of gets to me. Still redundancy was the best thing that happened to my career.

Another_not_new_user

jjlandlord wrote: »

In the real world it is a better proof.
People have been known to call in sick when not sick , you know...

In my view anyone who totals 5+ self-certified sick leaves in as many sittings over the year is either taking the p*ss (relevant for redundancy selection) or has a chronic illness (also relevant for redundancy selection as far as legal).

It really depends on what you think the real world is. The real world I inhabit would make it a legally unfair selection to distinguish between the two as redundancy criteria, and lands the employer in an employment tribunal. In law, sick is sick - medical note or not.


BTW - I was aware that people have been known to call in sick when not sick. I am also aware that some GP's hand out fit notes like candy, and that, in fact, some posters on here seem to consider the first line of a defence on misconduct to be "go to the doctor and get signed off, say you are stressed".


As for your opinion on sickness absence, I don't make generic statements without facts. Especially not about whether 5+ periods of illness are genuine or chronic illness (something also commonly referred to, if over a period of a year, as "disability"). That would be because I am not medically qualified to make such sweeping statements. What are your qualifications in this matter?

LittleVoice

Prothet_of_Doom wrote: »

My own redundancy involved a number of criteria, one of which was the number of occasions off sick. So I lost 2 points as 1) I took my son to A&E at 3 In the morning and stayed all day when he was struggling to breathe (Pneumonia) and 2) I had flu over the weekend and took Monday off, but managed to drag myself in on the Tuesday despite still being pretty ill.


That I could have taken a week off with that flu, and still have 1 point, sort of gets to me. Still redundancy was the best thing that happened to my career.

An employee's Sickness absence is when the employee is sick and absent from work, not when their child is sick.