Privacy breach- sick leave

Jaybee_16

Jillanddy said:

I think you are alone, yes. Nobody said that the consultant said anything. But if you Google their name their specialism will be listed. That's all the information needed to have an idea about the area of sickness. If you Google my consultant,  you'll very quickly work out that I have arthritis! 

I misread the OP statement. I thought there was communication between the surgeon and manager but rereading that doesn't seem the case. 

oystercatcher

Maybe it's just common knowledge that that particular consultant is a gynaecologist, the manager may not have needed to google it. In any local community everyone has friends and relatives going in and out of hospital and knows who does whatever speciality. So unless OP has a long commute to work just giving a consultants name will immediately disclose the speciality.

KiKi

It's also entirely possible that the thinking isn't as malevolent as is being assumed!  Perhaps that assumption is there because he's a crap manager.  But maybe he got the letter, registered the absence on the system - and in doing so, was required to put a reason. So he thinks "I could ask the OP, but they're not well, and I can easily just google the consultant...job done, sickness recorded."  

Is it the decent thing to do as an approach to managing someone?  No.  Any sensible manager would speak to their staff member.  But is it really that big a deal if it's accurate?  Probably not.

If you're very upset and want a conversation, I would approach it with the assumption that he wasn't trying to be rude or intrusive, but was just making sure he recorded things right.  And on that basis, ask how he knew what to put.  If he says he looked it up, simply point out that the decent thing would have been to ask you, because it caused you concern that he's managed to get that information without you - and you're sure other employees would feel the same etc.

HTH
KiKi

General_Grant

Jaybee_16 said:

Am I alone in thinking the OP anger should be directed towards the consultant?

If the manager Googled the consultant and asked a question and the surgeon replied with medical based information then surely that's a GDPR issue. 

If the Google issue is true, then why would the consultant supply personal medical information to the employer without the express permission of the OP?

Jillanddy said:

Jaybee_16 said:

Am I alone in thinking the OP anger should be directed towards the consultant?

If the manager Googled the consultant and asked a question and the surgeon replied with medical based information then surely that's a GDPR issue. 

If the Google issue is true, then why would the consultant supply personal medical information to the employer without the express permission of the OP?

I think you are alone, yes. Nobody said that the consultant said anything. But if you Google their name their specialism will be listed. That's all the information needed to have an idea about the area of sickness. If you Google my consultant,  you'll very quickly work out that I have arthritis! 

But the OP did say, "When the medical secretary to the surgeon emailed me the proof of my admission letter to supply to my employer she asked me if there was anything on the letter I would want marked out and I said on thought let’s mark out what my operation is for, and keep it on a need to know basis. "

Although that wasn't direct consultant to company, it was information for the OP was to pass to the employer.  Could the consultant's secretary's letter have indicated the consultant and their title including their department name?

General_Grant

Jillanddy said:

General_Grant said:

Jaybee_16 said:

Am I alone in thinking the OP anger should be directed towards the consultant?

If the manager Googled the consultant and asked a question and the surgeon replied with medical based information then surely that's a GDPR issue. 

If the Google issue is true, then why would the consultant supply personal medical information to the employer without the express permission of the OP?

Jillanddy said:

Jaybee_16 said:

Am I alone in thinking the OP anger should be directed towards the consultant?

If the manager Googled the consultant and asked a question and the surgeon replied with medical based information then surely that's a GDPR issue. 

If the Google issue is true, then why would the consultant supply personal medical information to the employer without the express permission of the OP?

I think you are alone, yes. Nobody said that the consultant said anything. But if you Google their name their specialism will be listed. That's all the information needed to have an idea about the area of sickness. If you Google my consultant,  you'll very quickly work out that I have arthritis! 

But the OP did say, "When the medical secretary to the surgeon emailed me the proof of my admission letter to supply to my employer she asked me if there was anything on the letter I would want marked out and I said on thought let’s mark out what my operation is for, and keep it on a need to know basis. "

Although that wasn't direct consultant to company, it was information for the OP was to pass to the employer.  Could the consultant's secretary's letter have indicated the consultant and their title including their department name?

Possibly. But that still isn't disclosing anything. It is sending an entirely appropriate letter. Put it another way - if an employee provided me with a letter that said "X is having some kind of surgery, sometime, and won't be in work" with ALL identifying features blocked out, they'd either be getting another letter or no sick pay. It would be easy to fake a blank letterhead and say anything you want. I could do it and I am not even very good at that sort of stuff. Think about the equivalent example - this is effectively a sick note. If an employer received a sick note with the doctors diagnosis scrubbed out, they would be entirely justified in rejecting it. 

There is a vast difference between providing officially required information for an employers processes and gossip. If a manager gossips that information to all and sundry, then that is entirely inappropriate. If they put that information on to the employers systems in a confidential manner then it is their job. 

If there is this little trust between an employer and an employee, then I would suggest that we are examining the wrong problem!

My point about the admission letter was simply that it may have disclosed the specialism of the consultant whilst not actually mentioning the procedure which the OP had asked not to be mentioned.  My thought was that this could have been the source for the guess at the treatment area rather than a Google search - or, for that matter, a search of the hospital website which would also list consultants.

Undervalued

General_Grant said:

Jillanddy said:

General_Grant said:

Jaybee_16 said:

Am I alone in thinking the OP anger should be directed towards the consultant?

If the manager Googled the consultant and asked a question and the surgeon replied with medical based information then surely that's a GDPR issue. 

If the Google issue is true, then why would the consultant supply personal medical information to the employer without the express permission of the OP?

Jillanddy said:

Jaybee_16 said:

Am I alone in thinking the OP anger should be directed towards the consultant?

If the manager Googled the consultant and asked a question and the surgeon replied with medical based information then surely that's a GDPR issue. 

If the Google issue is true, then why would the consultant supply personal medical information to the employer without the express permission of the OP?

I think you are alone, yes. Nobody said that the consultant said anything. But if you Google their name their specialism will be listed. That's all the information needed to have an idea about the area of sickness. If you Google my consultant,  you'll very quickly work out that I have arthritis! 

But the OP did say, "When the medical secretary to the surgeon emailed me the proof of my admission letter to supply to my employer she asked me if there was anything on the letter I would want marked out and I said on thought let’s mark out what my operation is for, and keep it on a need to know basis. "

Although that wasn't direct consultant to company, it was information for the OP was to pass to the employer.  Could the consultant's secretary's letter have indicated the consultant and their title including their department name?

Possibly. But that still isn't disclosing anything. It is sending an entirely appropriate letter. Put it another way - if an employee provided me with a letter that said "X is having some kind of surgery, sometime, and won't be in work" with ALL identifying features blocked out, they'd either be getting another letter or no sick pay. It would be easy to fake a blank letterhead and say anything you want. I could do it and I am not even very good at that sort of stuff. Think about the equivalent example - this is effectively a sick note. If an employer received a sick note with the doctors diagnosis scrubbed out, they would be entirely justified in rejecting it. 

There is a vast difference between providing officially required information for an employers processes and gossip. If a manager gossips that information to all and sundry, then that is entirely inappropriate. If they put that information on to the employers systems in a confidential manner then it is their job. 

If there is this little trust between an employer and an employee, then I would suggest that we are examining the wrong problem!

My point about the admission letter was simply that it may have disclosed the specialism of the consultant whilst not actually mentioning the procedure which the OP had asked not to be mentioned.  My thought was that this could have been the source for the guess at the treatment area rather than a Google search - or, for that matter, a search of the hospital website which would also list consultants.

Well it almost certainly would and in any case I struggle to see anything wrong it that. It would have been on the consultant's letterhead which would normally state their speciality.

As I said earlier they employer is entitled to enough information to make an informed decision on any discretionary sick pay. For example, they most likely wouldn't give sick pay for purely cosmetic procedures. Repeated absence for sporting injuries is another area. Then we get on to the difficult call on elective procedures, that are irritating but not threatening or keeping the employee off work. Some employers, not all, would insist that holiday rather than sick leave was taken in such circumstances. 

General_Grant

Undervalued said:

General_Grant said:

Jillanddy said:

General_Grant said:

Jaybee_16 said:

Am I alone in thinking the OP anger should be directed towards the consultant?

If the manager Googled the consultant and asked a question and the surgeon replied with medical based information then surely that's a GDPR issue. 

If the Google issue is true, then why would the consultant supply personal medical information to the employer without the express permission of the OP?

Jillanddy said:

Jaybee_16 said:

Am I alone in thinking the OP anger should be directed towards the consultant?

If the manager Googled the consultant and asked a question and the surgeon replied with medical based information then surely that's a GDPR issue. 

If the Google issue is true, then why would the consultant supply personal medical information to the employer without the express permission of the OP?

I think you are alone, yes. Nobody said that the consultant said anything. But if you Google their name their specialism will be listed. That's all the information needed to have an idea about the area of sickness. If you Google my consultant,  you'll very quickly work out that I have arthritis! 

But the OP did say, "When the medical secretary to the surgeon emailed me the proof of my admission letter to supply to my employer she asked me if there was anything on the letter I would want marked out and I said on thought let’s mark out what my operation is for, and keep it on a need to know basis. "

Although that wasn't direct consultant to company, it was information for the OP was to pass to the employer.  Could the consultant's secretary's letter have indicated the consultant and their title including their department name?

Possibly. But that still isn't disclosing anything. It is sending an entirely appropriate letter. Put it another way - if an employee provided me with a letter that said "X is having some kind of surgery, sometime, and won't be in work" with ALL identifying features blocked out, they'd either be getting another letter or no sick pay. It would be easy to fake a blank letterhead and say anything you want. I could do it and I am not even very good at that sort of stuff. Think about the equivalent example - this is effectively a sick note. If an employer received a sick note with the doctors diagnosis scrubbed out, they would be entirely justified in rejecting it. 

There is a vast difference between providing officially required information for an employers processes and gossip. If a manager gossips that information to all and sundry, then that is entirely inappropriate. If they put that information on to the employers systems in a confidential manner then it is their job. 

If there is this little trust between an employer and an employee, then I would suggest that we are examining the wrong problem!

My point about the admission letter was simply that it may have disclosed the specialism of the consultant whilst not actually mentioning the procedure which the OP had asked not to be mentioned.  My thought was that this could have been the source for the guess at the treatment area rather than a Google search - or, for that matter, a search of the hospital website which would also list consultants.

Well it almost certainly would and in any case I struggle to see anything wrong it that. It would have been on the consultant's letterhead which would normally state their speciality.

As I said earlier they employer is entitled to enough information to make an informed decision on any discretionary sick pay. For example, they most likely wouldn't give sick pay for purely cosmetic procedures. Repeated absence for sporting injuries is another area. Then we get on to the difficult call on elective procedures, that are irritating but not threatening or keeping the employee off work. Some employers, not all, would insist that holiday rather than sick leave was taken in such circumstances. 

Neither do I see anything wrong with that (mentioning the consultant's specialism).  I was trying to say, obviously unsuccessfully, that the OP's belief that a prying internet search had led to the information being known, was not the likely source.  [I'll leave this thread now as my input is fruitless and wasting the time of other people - sorry for that.]

pjcox2005

Personally, probability of a manager feeling the need to google seems low compared with likelihood you just said more than you think before the surgery or something else was showing on various forms. I really think it's an overreaction to what's on a HR file personally.

Hope you're doing well in your recovery.