Does this 52-week rolling sick policy seem oddly applied?

Naf

So the company policy says:

<company> offers all full time staff 5 separate occurrences of paid sick leave (up to a maximum of 20 days) paid (i.e., company) sick leave within any 52 week period of time. This is known as a rolling or cumulative sick leave system. The sick leave year starts on the first day an employee is off sick and keeps moving subject to further sickness absence. It means that if at any point in time, a member of staff is off sick for more than 5 occurrences (or 20 days) within any 52 week time period, the additional days will be paid at the SSP rate, if qualifying.
For the first 5 occurrences or 20 days of sick leave, SSP will be topped up to full basic pay by <company>. Any further period of sickness will be covered by Statutory Sick Pay only, providing that the absence qualifies for SSP.

OK, so firstly is it just me or is that contradictory already? The start says that you get 5 company paid periods in any 52 weeks; but then the explanation section doesn't distinguish and just says that any sickness more than five occurrences will be SSP only. That second explanation leads to the situation where you actually don't get those 5 occurrences of paid sick leave within the rolling 52 weeks - because they're counting even SSP-only sick periods towards the rolling total.

Which is what's just happened to my wife. She has had:

• 4 working days isolating due to someone else at her work having Covid in August - all appears to be company sick.
  
• 8 working days of them dragging their heels to do a risk assessment, and initially not allowing her to work with a fractured ankle in September. Only some of this was company sick, mostly not.
• 8 working days isolating due to actually having Covid in January - all of which was SSP only.
• 2 working days sickness in March.

Prior to that 10 days isolating due to having Covid in February 2021 - more than 52 weeks ago.

Our expectations were that she would have company sick days again for those two days in March, because those 10 days last Feb would have "dropped off" the total now - a simple count shows March as only the third period of company sick in those 52 weeks. They are saying that the periods of SSP still count towards the total, so she still has no fully paid sick days left to use.

I'm finding it hard to believe that's the intended meaning of the policy. It means that if she now has just two more days sickness before mid-September, then she will go a full year without getting a single company sick day, because she will have had 20 days of SSP-only in the previous 52 weeks.

Seems clearly unfair and misleading to me; but is it actually anything we have any recourse against? Worth pushing back and potentially involving her union?

k3lvc

IIRC the two days in March bring her up to 22 days (i.e. over 20 days) in the rolling 52 weeks. Of more challenge would be why they've not applied the policy for the previous absences. Assuming they agree and pay those in full then there's little hope for the March dates

Naf

k3lvc said:

IIRC the two days in March bring her up to 22 days (i.e. over 20 days) in the rolling 52 weeks. Of more challenge would be why they've not applied the policy for the previous absences. Assuming they agree and pay those in full then there's little hope for the March dates

But only when you count the SSP-only periods towards the company sick rolling total, which is the point here. Applying the policy that way (against what it initially says) means you can go a full 52 weeks, and therefore continue on forever, without ever getting a single company sick day. That seems very wrong to me.

k3lvc

So what's there response been to why the earlier periods only attracted SSP ? If there's a good reason for that then agree that March should be in full.

Savvy_Sue

Always worth talking to the union.

Naf

k3lvc said:

So what's there response been to why the earlier periods only attracted SSP ? If there's a good reason for that then agree that March should be in full.

She had run out of days due to isolations (where she was well) and the whole place being closed down completely due to covid outbreaks prior to Feb 2021. You only have to add the 10 days from Feb 2021 to the 4 in August and 6 of the September ones to get to 20 days, so that seems about right that she had run out for some of September, and all of January's 8 days.

Also the 5 periods rolling policy only came in last April; prior to that it was just 20 days rolling.

Jillanddy

Naf said:

k3lvc said:

IIRC the two days in March bring her up to 22 days (i.e. over 20 days) in the rolling 52 weeks. Of more challenge would be why they've not applied the policy for the previous absences. Assuming they agree and pay those in full then there's little hope for the March dates

But only when you count the SSP-only periods towards the company sick rolling total, which is the point here. Applying the policy that way (against what it initially says) means you can go a full 52 weeks, and therefore continue on forever, without ever getting a single company sick day. That seems very wrong to me.

It would normally be the case - and I read the policy in this way - that all periods of sickness are counted towards the total amount of sickness. So the "SSP only" period is still a period of sickness, as she was "off sick" and paid "sick pay".and counts towards the total. The other thing to possibly look at is when her period of sickness last February ended. It is fairly common that rolling periods start from the end of the last one, not the beginning, so if that 10 days took her into March, that may account for it.

I would assume that this is part of a larger policy or policies, some of which also deals with the number of absences and managing attendance - in other words, when sanctions for high sickness levels kick in.

Of course, the obvious thing to do is to ask the employer.

[Deleted User]

Ask union steward for their thoughts as they will be the ones involved with the sharp end of policy interpretation and implementation.

Undervalued

Naf said:

So the company policy says:

<company> offers all full time staff 5 separate occurrences of paid sick leave (up to a maximum of 20 days) paid (i.e., company) sick leave within any 52 week period of time. This is known as a rolling or cumulative sick leave system. The sick leave year starts on the first day an employee is off sick and keeps moving subject to further sickness absence. It means that if at any point in time, a member of staff is off sick for more than 5 occurrences (or 20 days) within any 52 week time period, the additional days will be paid at the SSP rate, if qualifying.
For the first 5 occurrences or 20 days of sick leave, SSP will be topped up to full basic pay by <company>. Any further period of sickness will be covered by Statutory Sick Pay only, providing that the absence qualifies for SSP.

OK, so firstly is it just me or is that contradictory already? The start says that you get 5 company paid periods in any 52 weeks; but then the explanation section doesn't distinguish and just says that any sickness more than five occurrences will be SSP only. That second explanation leads to the situation where you actually don't get those 5 occurrences of paid sick leave within the rolling 52 weeks - because they're counting even SSP-only sick periods towards the rolling total.

Which is what's just happened to my wife. She has had:

• 4 working days isolating due to someone else at her work having Covid in August - all appears to be company sick.
  
• 8 working days of them dragging their heels to do a risk assessment, and initially not allowing her to work with a fractured ankle in September. Only some of this was company sick, mostly not.
• 8 working days isolating due to actually having Covid in January - all of which was SSP only.
• 2 working days sickness in March.

Prior to that 10 days isolating due to having Covid in February 2021 - more than 52 weeks ago.

Our expectations were that she would have company sick days again for those two days in March, because those 10 days last Feb would have "dropped off" the total now - a simple count shows March as only the third period of company sick in those 52 weeks. They are saying that the periods of SSP still count towards the total, so she still has no fully paid sick days left to use.

I'm finding it hard to believe that's the intended meaning of the policy. It means that if she now has just two more days sickness before mid-September, then she will go a full year without getting a single company sick day, because she will have had 20 days of SSP-only in the previous 52 weeks.

Seems clearly unfair and misleading to me; but is it actually anything we have any recourse against? Worth pushing back and potentially involving her union?

The vast majority of company sick pay schemes these days are "discretionary". Whilst hard and fast contractual entitlements do still exist they often only apply to long standing employees.

So the first question is....

Are you (or your wife) sure that you are looking (and have quoted) all the relevant documentation relating to this "policy". Does her contract say something to the effect that the company's policies will "normally" be applied or applied subject to the management's "discretion"?

Also, how long has she been employed by this company? If less than two years I would think long and hard before rocking the boat.

Normally (sorry I'm doing it now!) any medical absence enforced by the company, when she was fit to work, should be paid in full and not count as sick leave.

Naf

Jillanddy said:

Naf said:

k3lvc said:

IIRC the two days in March bring her up to 22 days (i.e. over 20 days) in the rolling 52 weeks. Of more challenge would be why they've not applied the policy for the previous absences. Assuming they agree and pay those in full then there's little hope for the March dates

But only when you count the SSP-only periods towards the company sick rolling total, which is the point here. Applying the policy that way (against what it initially says) means you can go a full 52 weeks, and therefore continue on forever, without ever getting a single company sick day. That seems very wrong to me.

It would normally be the case - and I read the policy in this way - that all periods of sickness are counted towards the total amount of sickness. So the "SSP only" period is still a period of sickness, as she was "off sick" and paid "sick pay".and counts towards the total. The other thing to possibly look at is when her period of sickness last February ended. It is fairly common that rolling periods start from the end of the last one, not the beginning, so if that 10 days took her into March, that may account for it.

I would assume that this is part of a larger policy or policies, some of which also deals with the number of absences and managing attendance - in other words, when sanctions for high sickness levels kick in.

Of course, the obvious thing to do is to ask the employer.

Yeah, they said that the SSP periods count. But I'm still astounded. You see what I mean, right? That it doesn't really take much to be in a position where you would never ever qualify for company sick pay again because your rolling 12 months has 5 occurrences or 20 days of SSP-only sickness. Seems rather discriminatory that just because of how your particular sickness falls you wouldn't receive the same sick pay as a colleague.

Undervalued

Naf said:

Jillanddy said:

Naf said:

k3lvc said:

IIRC the two days in March bring her up to 22 days (i.e. over 20 days) in the rolling 52 weeks. Of more challenge would be why they've not applied the policy for the previous absences. Assuming they agree and pay those in full then there's little hope for the March dates

But only when you count the SSP-only periods towards the company sick rolling total, which is the point here. Applying the policy that way (against what it initially says) means you can go a full 52 weeks, and therefore continue on forever, without ever getting a single company sick day. That seems very wrong to me.

It would normally be the case - and I read the policy in this way - that all periods of sickness are counted towards the total amount of sickness. So the "SSP only" period is still a period of sickness, as she was "off sick" and paid "sick pay".and counts towards the total. The other thing to possibly look at is when her period of sickness last February ended. It is fairly common that rolling periods start from the end of the last one, not the beginning, so if that 10 days took her into March, that may account for it.

I would assume that this is part of a larger policy or policies, some of which also deals with the number of absences and managing attendance - in other words, when sanctions for high sickness levels kick in.

Of course, the obvious thing to do is to ask the employer.

Yeah, they said that the SSP periods count. But I'm still astounded. You see what I mean, right? That it doesn't really take much to be in a position where you would never ever qualify for company sick pay again because your rolling 12 months has 5 occurrences or 20 days of SSP-only sickness. Seems rather discriminatory that just because of how your particular sickness falls you wouldn't receive the same sick pay as a colleague.

That is irrelevant unless the "discrimination" is on one of the handful of legally protected grounds (e.g race, gender, religion etc).

Plus, there is no legal right to company sick pay. It is an entirely contractual matter and can be offered on (more or less) whatever terms are agreed.

Remember also that SSP (which they are obliged to pay subject to the Government's rules) is also a direct cost to the employer. Despite the name employer's can no longer reclaim the cost. Those days are long gone.