.............

rjh29992

..........................

Guest101

rjh29992 wrote: »

My employer is a large company and uses the bradford factor to control staff absences, it works by adding up point each time you are ill, using the method Number of absences x Number of absences x number of days absent.

I have had 5 separate absences, all adding up to 15 days off sick. Apart from 3 days of this, all the days off were due to ongoing illness, I was in hospital due to having suspected seizures where I would just pass out and be unconscious for up to an hour, not responsive to pain or anything. My employer has copies of my discharge notes and doctors notes and has been kept up to date about my health. So far nothing has been diagnosed, I have had lots of tests that haven't shown anything and am due for an EEG later this month to exclude the possibility of epilepsy (which none of the doctors think it is).

Because of this, my bradford factor is high. I think 200 is the point where you are no longer allowed to pick up extra shifts and do not get sick pay. Firstly, I was only paid Statutory sick pay for all the time I had off due to my 6 month probation not being completed (not for any fault of mine, my manager just hadn't done it, I've been there for 10 months now) and was told that once this was completed I would be refunded the sick pay, it's almost done now so that sounded all good and I was expecting to get the refund on my next payday (end of this month).

Now I've been told that another condition of the bradford factor is not being allowed to pick up extra shifts, something that a lot of people at my work do often because we are very short staffed and everyone is happy to pick up extra shifts for extra money. I had picked up a lot of shifts which was a good thing for me and my employer. I've now been told I'm not allowed to do them because of my bradford factor which is them shooting themselves in the foot as they now have to cover all these shifts with agency staff who will cost double what I would. AND I've read my contract and it turns out that if your bradford factor is over 200 you don't get sick pay either. So now I'm thinking I might not get my refund which should have been about £600 after tax.

This seems really unfair as I was clearly ill and not just taking time off for the sake of it. Plus my contract says we are paid 2 weeks full sick pay, I have had 15 days off and yet might not get paid for any of them just because they were taken with gaps between them, whereas if I had 2 weeks off sick in one go I would still be paid and my bradford factor wouldn't be effected.

I am basically being punished for being off sick on different occasions, which was impossible to avoid as unfortunately I couldn't choose to have each seizure/episode days in a row! My manager has appealed the bradford factor decision for me but I've been told this is going to take around a month, I am moving to a different part of the country in a month and just handed my notice in so won't even be here when the decision has been made!

So if I'm not allowed to pick up shifts, which would have gained me an extra £600 (i picked up a lot!) and I don't get my sick pay refund which should also be around £600, then I've lost out on £1200 because of this bradford factor - as if being in and out of hospital and having no idea what's wrong with me is stressful enough!

Any advice on what I can do to speed things up and try to sort this out? Because surely if I had epilepsy (which thank god i don't but that's what these seizures could be) then this could be classed as disability discrimination?

The point of a sick leave policy is to cover actual sick leave.......

rjh29992

what do you mean? i was on actual sick leave - I was in hospital due to seizures?

agrinnall

Forget the shifts, that's a privilege not a right, your employer is entitled to have rules over who can and can't take them.

I think you will get a refund of any sick pay that would have been due before your BF hit 200. We don't know how your periods of sick leave were made up, but if all 5 were 3 days each then at the 4th period your score would have been 4*4*12 = 192, so just under the 200, but you'd be over it for the 5th so you wouldn't get the sick pay for that period.

TBagpuss

I think you need to check with HR what you will be entitled to.

However:

- Extra shifts : no-one has a right to these, and if th company has a policy not to allow those with high levels of sickness to take extra shifts they are entitled to do so. I would guess that there are good reasons for the policy; they may well feel that someone with high levels of sickness is likely to recover faster / be less prone to illness of they are working normal hours andnot wearing themseves out with extras, or they may have had problems with people playing the sytstem.

- paid sick leave: I would have thought that for each period of sickness, whether or not you get paid would have to be worked out based on whether you wualified then, even of the actual payment if delayed. So if the first time you were off you had a Bradford factor of 5 and no previous sickness, and that meant you waulified for sick pay, you should get it even if at the time the payment is made, your score has changed.

Discrimination means ttreating you less favourably than others becuase of a disability or other protected characteristic. Applying a general policy to you, as well as to others, is very unlikely to be discriminatory. If you are classed as having a disability, then, moving forward, you are entitled to ask for reasonable adjustments to be made for your disability, and the wmployer should make reasonable adjustments. What is reasonabe depends on the specifc circumstances of the case, including things such as a size of your employer and the impact any changes will have.

Undervalued

rjh29992 wrote: »

what do you mean? i was on actual sick leave - I was in hospital due to seizures?

Yes but that doesn't stop the firm having a policy to manage the amount of sick leave employee's take.

No firm can sustain an employee who has large amounts of sick leave, regardless of how ill they may be. The Bradford factor is one widely used system in order to treat all employee's in the firm equally in regards of sick leave.

Obviously if a firm has good reason to believe that a particular employee's sickness is not genuine then that would be a separate disciplinary matter.

Undervalued

TBagpuss wrote: »

Discrimination means ttreating you less favourably than others becuase of a disability or other protected characteristic. Applying a general policy to you, as well as to others, is very unlikely to be discriminatory. If you are classed as having a disability, then, moving forward, you are entitled to ask for reasonable adjustments to be made for your disability, and the wmployer should make reasonable adjustments. What is reasonabe depends on the specifc circumstances of the case, including things such as a size of your employer and the impact any changes will have.

Exactly, but is the OP disabled (for employment law purposes)? Just being sick, even very sick does not in itself qualify as a disability.

Unless they are disabled the firm can discriminate if they so choose. Even if they do have a disability then that only entitles them to "reasonable adjustments".

daytona0

Undervalued wrote: »

Exactly, but is the OP disabled (for employment law purposes)? Just being sick, even very sick does not in itself qualify as a disability.

Unless they are disabled the firm can discriminate if they so choose. Even if they do have a disability then that only entitles them to "reasonable adjustments".

Nothing seems to have been diagnosed as of yet, so don't believe it would be considered a disability even if OP deserves some support.

In my old workplace OP would be the first on the list for a sacking. Sad, but true.

OP, is it wise to be picking up more shifts if your are poorly? Seems a bit silly to me...

TBagpuss

Undervalued wrote: »

Exactly, but is the OP disabled (for employment law purposes)? Just being sick, even very sick does not in itself qualify as a disability.

Unless they are disabled the firm can discriminate if they so choose. Even if they do have a disability then that only entitles them to "reasonable adjustments".

Isn't that what I went on to say in the rest of the paragraph you quoted?!

theoretica

daytona0 wrote: »

Nothing seems to have been diagnosed as of yet, so don't believe it would be considered a disability even if OP deserves some support.

The equality legislation is fairly clear about what is included as a disability, and does not mention that only diagnosed conditions count. People who baffle medical science may qualify for the protection against discrimination.

In my work, you are expected to tell HR if you want to be treated as disabled, so the OP might benefit from looking up the criteria and discussing this with HR.

xapprenticex

Sorry to hear you are so ill, just bear in mind your employer is in the money making business, not the charity or looking after people sector.

Be glad you have not been sacked if you have been there just 10 months, dont cause problems because you are in a vulnerable position right now and for the next 14 months.