Complicated sick pay issue

Engeroosi

I am an employee who has a position where I get paid a salary for 100 x 12 hour days. These days are as and when throughout the year. I work for a service company in the oil industry. This means I can be away 14 days one month and 3 days the next month then 18 days the next month and so on and so forth. Once 100days has been reached I then get paid a daily rate for any extra days worked on top of my salary for that month. For example in December I have already worked 100 days in that year but am required to work 7 more I get paid 7 days work in addition to my salary.

Now here comes my problem.

Say I'm off sick for 6 weeks. I get paid my salary the same as I recieve "sick pay" but my total days worked is still the same as when I went if sick 6 weeks prior therefore I have still to work for my "sick pay"

Is this normal practice? I believe that days should be added to total days worked at pro rata of roughly just under 2 days per week or is this unreasonable. Otherwise I don't receive any sick pay just get the period I'm sick as time off.

Would appreciate opinions and also professional advice if possible.

tomtontom

Your company should have a formal policy on this, but I've seen it done two ways:

* You are credited with the allocated hours for the period of absence. If no hours have been allocated then you are allocated an average of your working hours over the past year/ other specified time period.

* You are credited with an average of your hours for the whole period.

I've not previously seen an example where you are credited with no hours, but my experience is not in the oil industry. Is your employer UK based?

Undervalued

Are we talking about statutory sick pay or company?

Although it has to be paid by the company (assuming you qualify) the rules for SSP are laid down by the government.

Anything over and above that is a contractual matter. That said, these days it is becoming rare for company sick pay to be a hard a fast contractual entitlement. Generally there is a clause somewhere making it "discretionary" which means, within a few limits, they can pay it or not as they please.

Engeroosi

They are paying my salary every month. That is not an issue. The issue is that potentially I still have to work the full 100 days. So in a year I could be off sick for 3 months. Work a 100 days. And still get paid the same as another year where I was not off sick and work 100 days. This means in fact there wouldn't be any sick pay.

For information it's a Norwegian based company but I would be keen for any examples or opinions no matter where from. Trying to figure out if I'm being reasonable to expect some days of the 100 to be deducted when I'm off on sick leave.

tomtontom

I've given you examples from the oil industry above. Ultimately your employer will have their own policy for annualised hours and that is what matters.

sangie595

Engeroosi wrote: »

For information it's a Norwegian based company but I would be keen for any examples or opinions no matter where from. Trying to figure out if I'm being reasonable to expect some days of the 100 to be deducted when I'm off on sick leave.

I am afraid that it has nothing at all to do with being reasonable or not. As explained, your sick pay is either statutory or occupational (established by the contract and better than statutory). And that is all that matters. Your opinion (or our opinion) has no relevance.