Phased return to work and annual leave

elsien

But if it’s not happening for other staff  in the company,  the OP is right to wonder why it’s not applying to them. Although that might have been helpful information to have at the start of the thread.

Hoenir

BabyChick_2 said:

BrassicWoman said:

You seem to assume it is ok for the employer to keep funding you to do no work. They have costs as much as you do. They are not there to replace the DWP.

You will have accrued annual leave while off sick; it does seem reasonable to use that to aid your return to work.

As for not being bothered to read the policy.. come on. You can't properly structure a request if you haven't checked the boundaries. Go get a copy .

I’ve handled phased returns to work in my company for the staff that sit underneath me and to date not one of them has had any wages deducted and none have had any annual used to facilitate a reduction in work.pad/hours worked - which is why I find it odd that I’m being subjected to this sort of treatment. 

Did all these employees fully utilise 100% of the paid sick days that they are allowed. 

Savvy_Sue

Hoenir said:

BabyChick_2 said:

I’ve handled phased returns to work in my company for the staff that sit underneath me and to date not one of them has had any wages deducted and none have had any annual used to facilitate a reduction in work.pad/hours worked - which is why I find it odd that I’m being subjected to this sort of treatment. 

Did all these employees fully utilise 100% of the paid sick days that they are allowed. 

This: my former colleague who took paid leave to supplement a paid return had fully exhausted her entitlement to paid sick leave, but she did have plenty of annual leave available. If you have also exhausted your entitlement to paid sick leave then being asked to use annual leave does not seem unreasonable. 

I do think you need to really consider whether long term this is going to be the job for you. You're hoping that by phasing you back to work, everything will be alright. But realistically, it doesn't sound as if anything will have changed. So how soon will 'the job' result in you being unwell again? And then, whether you can afford to take a reduction in pay or not, that's what will happen. 

LightFlare

BabyChick_2 said:

BrassicWoman said:

You seem to assume it is ok for the employer to keep funding you to do no work. They have costs as much as you do. They are not there to replace the DWP.

You will have accrued annual leave while off sick; it does seem reasonable to use that to aid your return to work.

As for not being bothered to read the policy.. come on. You can't properly structure a request if you haven't checked the boundaries. Go get a copy .

Have you actually red my posts or simply taken snippets and added your own spin on it? No where in any of my posts have I said I expect my employers to fund me sitting at home and doing no work. 

I do not understand you saying I expect my employers to replace DWP that would be you assuming I want to claim benefits….that’s rather n odd comment to make given the fact I posted bout my full time employment 🤔

I’ve read the sickness policy back to front top to bottom - I don’t manage a team and not know what the  company sickness policy is. No where in our sickness policy does it state how a phased return has to be taken nor does it state anything about reduced wages etc. It was tongue and cheek when I said can’t be bothered with the policy as for the last 5 months my employers have not followed one single sentence of their down sickness policy so I find it amusing that they now choose to follow their own policy (of which they seem to have added their own terms to it so it interprets something entirely different- making out like their re doing me a favour. 

I’ve handled phased returns to work in my company for the staff that sit underneath me and to date not one of them has had any wages deducted and none have had any annual used to facilitate a reduction in work.pad/hours worked - which is why I find it odd that I’m being subjected to this sort of treatment. 

There may be a seperate policy - in my place of work it is an entirely different document.

Did you query this at the time you became aware they weren't following it ?

How did you handle phased returns if you can't find a policy -- or did you also just "make it up as you went along"

If a policy does not exist - then I would argue that it is up to individual managers and employees to discuss and agree (excluding any statutory entitlement - if there is any). Therefore, how you have managed staff under you has no bearing on how you are being managed

I don't find it odd at all to use annual leave as part of a phased return, in fact, I am actually doing exactly that in my place, currently to the tune of 1 day a week

Angelica123

I think the bigger question is what is the longer-term plan? It sounds like a phased return to work will only put a plaster over the issue. You haven't elaborated much on the health problems that have led to your time off - but the impression I get from your posts is that the issue hasn't been resolved and that even after the phased return, you would struggle to return to your full-time previous duties.  

Undervalued

BabyChick_2 said:

BrassicWoman said:

You seem to assume it is ok for the employer to keep funding you to do no work. They have costs as much as you do. They are not there to replace the DWP.

You will have accrued annual leave while off sick; it does seem reasonable to use that to aid your return to work.

As for not being bothered to read the policy.. come on. You can't properly structure a request if you haven't checked the boundaries. Go get a copy .

Have you actually red my posts or simply taken snippets and added your own spin on it? No where in any of my posts have I said I expect my employers to fund me sitting at home and doing no work. 

I do not understand you saying I expect my employers to replace DWP that would be you assuming I want to claim benefits….that’s rather n odd comment to make given the fact I posted bout my full time employment 🤔

I’ve read the sickness policy back to front top to bottom - I don’t manage a team and not know what the  company sickness policy is. No where in our sickness policy does it state how a phased return has to be taken nor does it state anything about reduced wages etc. It was tongue and cheek when I said can’t be bothered with the policy as for the last 5 months my employers have not followed one single sentence of their down sickness policy so I find it amusing that they now choose to follow their own policy (of which they seem to have added their own terms to it so it interprets something entirely different- making out like their re doing me a favour. 

I’ve handled phased returns to work in my company for the staff that sit underneath me and to date not one of them has had any wages deducted and none have had any annual used to facilitate a reduction in work.pad/hours worked - which is why I find it odd that I’m being subjected to this sort of treatment. 

I 100% agree with BrassicWoman's comments where she said "They have the option to say, "if you cannot do all the job, stay home and do not do any of the job."

Plus.....

 A policy is unlikely to be a contractual entitlement. At best it is a guide to normal practice. Equally, these days, company sick pay is rarely a contractual entitlement and is normally "discretionary". The law allows wide discretion in these matters unless it is so far off as to be "perverse".

As you say, your policy doesn't even mention phased returns and, as I said in an earlier post, there is no legal entitlement to a phased return except possibly as a reasonable adjustment for a disability.

So, any phased return is offered on whatever terms the company pleases. The fact that somebody else in the past got better terms is irrelevant unless it was as a result of unlawful discrimination.

Statistically very few employees make a fully successful return to their old job after six months or more of sickness absence, particularly if the illness was mental rather than a specific physical problem. You have not indicated the nature of your illness and in saying that I am not in any way trivialising one type of illness over an other, simply stating facts.

Savvy_Sue

I was in an ACAS webinar earlier today. During a phased return you would expect the non-working days to be covered by sick pay. But the outstanding question is then: what is your entitlement to sick pay at this stage? Clearly your employer pays full Company Sick Pay for a certain period, but have you exhausted this? If you have, and you do not want a reduction in pay, your two options are returning to work full-time, or using annual leave. 

If you have exhausted Company Sick Pay but are still entitled to Statutory Sick Pay, then that should be paid for the days you are not working. 

Undervalued

Savvy_Sue said:

I was in an ACAS webinar earlier today. During a phased return you would expect the non-working days to be covered by sick pay. But the outstanding question is then: what is your entitlement to sick pay at this stage? Clearly your employer pays full Company Sick Pay for a certain period, but have you exhausted this? If you have, and you do not want a reduction in pay, your two options are returning to work full-time, or using annual leave. 

If you have exhausted Company Sick Pay but are still entitled to Statutory Sick Pay, then that should be paid for the days you are not working. 

As I understand the earlier posts, the OP's company normally pays 6 months full and three months half pay. She said she was returning only because she "couldn't manage on half pay". If she has been off for 6 months then SSP will either have run out or will be about to finish.

So, the OP seems to expect the company to pay her in full whilst only working part time (for the time being) as an alternative to up to three further months off sick on half pay. As I said earlier, that is entirely at the company's discretion. They may view it as more or less cash neutral and go along with it or they may play "hard ball" and refuse.

The hard truth is that the company have now managed for six months without her and the chances of a fully successful return to work are statistically low. The OP feels the company are being less accommodating than they have been with other staff. She may be right but the implications of that are obvious.

Wonka_2

Undervalued said:

The hard truth is that the company have now managed for six months without her and the chances of a fully successful return to work are statistically low. The OP feels the company are being less accommodating than they have been with other staff. She may be right but the implications of that are obvious.

And following the OP's latest post about different handling between people I take the view the same view - limited/no communication during absence and the OP's view that the work/role is responsible for the sickness may well have sent a message to the employer that they're now managing.

Savvy_Sue

Undervalued said:

Savvy_Sue said:

I was in an ACAS webinar earlier today. During a phased return you would expect the non-working days to be covered by sick pay. But the outstanding question is then: what is your entitlement to sick pay at this stage? Clearly your employer pays full Company Sick Pay for a certain period, but have you exhausted this? If you have, and you do not want a reduction in pay, your two options are returning to work full-time, or using annual leave. 

If you have exhausted Company Sick Pay but are still entitled to Statutory Sick Pay, then that should be paid for the days you are not working. 

As I understand the earlier posts, the OP's company normally pays 6 months full and three months half pay. She said she was returning only because she "couldn't manage on half pay". If she has been off for 6 months then SSP will either have run out or will be about to finish.

So, the OP seems to expect the company to pay her in full whilst only working part time (for the time being) as an alternative to up to three further months off sick on half pay. As I said earlier, that is entirely at the company's discretion. They may view it as more or less cash neutral and go along with it or they may play "hard ball" and refuse.

The hard truth is that the company have now managed for six months without her and the chances of a fully successful return to work are statistically low. The OP feels the company are being less accommodating than they have been with other staff. She may be right but the implications of that are obvious.

Yes, I agree with you, especially as it doesn't sound as if anything has changed or will change on the employer's side.