Confusing HR talk in relation to sick pay entitlement

Concerned2016

Hi Folks,

I've only just been advised that I'm no longer eligible for sick pay as of 22/09/16 after having an unfortunate long term absence from work. As I understand my contract I'm eligible to be paid sick pay at full pay for 6 months and then half pay for 6 months. As I've been getting paid full pay I'd assumed I'd not hit the half pay quota as yet only to have the following very confusing email from our HR department today. The first I was informed of no pay from, September was late last week.

I am a full time employee. Any advice very much appreciated:

========================================================================
Full time employees are allowed sick leave on full pay for not more than 6 months (182 days) during any rolling period of 12 months, and thereafter 6 months (183 days) on half pay subject to an overriding maximum of 12 months, paid and unpaid, in any rolling period of 4 years or
less. Saturdays, Sundays, Public and Privilege holidays or scheduled rest days occurring within a period of sick absence are included and reckoned for as part of the absence, however these days are not included or reckoned for as part of the absence if occurring at the beginning or end of a period of sick absence.

To calculate half pay:

Your sick absence commenced 13/05/16, therefore we go back 1 year to 14/05/15 to calculate your half pay date.

As you had 180 days absence during 14/05/15 - 13/05/16 we would deduct the 180 days from your entitlement of 182 days, thus leaving 2 days in which you are still entitled to sick leave at full pay.

Add 2 days onto 13/05/16 (absence start dale), making your full pay end date as 15/05/16 and half pay start date as 16/05/16.

Drop out period: For this we go back one year from the half pay start date above to 17/05/15 and deduct the number of days sick absence during the period - 14/05/15 (start date used for half pay calculation above) - 16/05/15 (drop out start date). As you had 2 days absence during this time then the half pay date is extended by 2 days, resulting in your half pay date being amended to 18/05/16.

We repeat this calculation until no more sick absence dates can be dropped out this results in 23/08/16 being the date you will go onto half pay.

To calculate no pay:

Go back a 4 year period to 14/05/12 and count no of days absent between 14/05/12 - 13/05/16. As you have had 233 days absent then we deduct the 233 days from your entitlement of 365 days, thus leaving 132 days in which you are still entitled to sick leave at half pay. Add 132 days onto 13/05/16 (sick absence start date), making your half pay end date as 21/09/16 and no pay start date as 22/09/16.

Drop out period: For this we go back 4 years from no pay start date 22/09/16 to 21/09/12 and deduct the number of days sick absence during the period 14/05/12 (start date used for no pay calculation) - 21/09/12 (drop out start date) . As you had 0 days sick during this time, then the no pay date remains as 22/09/16
========================================================================

Undervalued

Concerned2016 wrote: »

Hi Folks,

I've only just been advised that I'm no longer eligible for sick pay as of 22/09/16 after having an unfortunate long term absence from work. As I understand my contract I'm eligible to be paid sick pay at full pay for 6 months and then half pay for 6 months. As I've been getting paid full pay I'd assumed I'd not hit the half pay quota as yet only to have the following very confusing email from our HR department today. The first I was informed of no pay from, September was late last week.

Are you sure you have an absolute hard and fast contractual entitlement to this amount of sick pay or is it in any way "discretionary"?

Such schemes do still exist although they are becoming increasingly rare.

How long have you been employed? It is not uncommon to need a significant number of years service to qualify for this level of company sick pay.

You need to check all of your employment documentation very carefully.

Assuming there are no ifs and buts then write back to them questioning it and ask for a full explanation if they still disagree.

Concerned2016

Hi Undervalued,

Thanks for your reply. I very much value you.

I appreciate that I've been very lucky to have so much time to recover but it is correct.

I was just hoping that someone could help me make sense of the HR talk that was used to explain it to me.

I'll consider going back to them for more information.

Thanks again,

Andy

NeilCr

Looks like one of the old public sector rules

You are not receiving sick pay because you have had 365 sick days in the last four years (these are rolling years).

That's an extra rule to the 6 months full pay 6 months half pay ones

Hope you are soon better!

Undervalued

NeilCr wrote: »

Looks like one of the old public sector rules

You are not receiving sick pay because you have had 365 sick days in the last four years (these are rolling years).

That's an extra rule to the 6 months full pay 6 months half pay ones

Hope you are soon better!

Quite possibly or could be one of the long established universities (i.e not red brick)!

Also possible that the OP has been there long enough to qualify for six months full, six months half but this is no longer offered to new employees. If so it is probably a case of some HR minion acting first then checking the details later. Sadly not uncommon!

NeilCr

Undervalued wrote: »

Quite possibly or could be one of the long established universities (i.e not red brick)!

Also possible that the OP has been there long enough to qualify for six months full, six months half but this is no longer offered to new employees. If so it is probably a case of some HR minion acting first then checking the details later. Sadly not uncommon!

Sorry it's been a while since I worked in public sector HR - at that time I think we lobbed unis in with the rest -Civil Service - local government etc!

From what I remember the calculation looks correct - assuming the OP has had the sick days described. By the look of it that is an automated letter

theoretica

As I read it, you had had quite a bit of sick before this latest period. Is this correct?

You get up to a year of sick pay in any 4 years - if this is taken in one lot it will be 6 months full pay, 6 months half. If it is taken in more than one lot then more than 6 months may be full, leading to less than 6 months on half pay. So because of the sick pay you have had, before this occasion, the amount of half pay you get is less than 6 month

For instance, imagine someone who needed 5 months off - Jan to May - one year. Year 1 - 5 months off - all on full pay. Then 2 years later they go off in January again - this would be on full pay for the first 6 months as HR only look at the last year for this. Then after 6 months on full pay they drop to half pay - but how much leave has happened in the last 4 years now matters - which is 6 months from the latest lot, plus 5 months two years before, so they can only give 1 month on half pay.

Does this seem to fit your case?

bod1467

Undervalued wrote: »

If so it is probably a case of some HR minion acting first then checking the details later. Sadly not uncommon!

Indeed not ... and not restricted to just HR minions. When I was being made redundant* 9 years ago the HR manager presented me with my compromise agreement. With just a quick read I spotted 5 errors but she was adamant it was correct. Within 30 minutes she finally accepted that the 10 errors were indeed errors and that they'd used a standard template for new employees, not one that was adjusted to account for my own contractual T&Cs.

* In the end the redundancy was withdrawn ... I found another role within the company, by my own efforts and with no help from HR. In fact I even negotiated a pay rise.