No compassion - working for government

sheramber

When I worked in the CS a young colleague was off sick being treated for cancer with chemo. 

She was subject to the action due to extended sick leave, albeit she had a very good reason.

BrassicWoman

I am assuming the process is quite standard and has monitoring, warning, second warning before anything much happens other than keeping an eye on you.

View it as an opportunity to ask for any support that would be helpful - for example, time off for bereavement counselling. So many people see any kind of process as a route to dismissal, and so often, they are not.

TELLIT01

LinLui said:

@Brie   "As for compassion - well it would be nice but some people are just not made that way."

It has absolutely nothing to do with people not being made that way.  Quite the reverse. Employers always know who is taking the proverbial, and who isn't. Once upon a time they were allowed to make decisions based on "compassion". But we all know that some employees have several dead grandparents, get sick every other Friday... etc., etc. In the old days,  malingerers got fired,  and others got compassion. Generally. There is no benefit to an employer in getting rid of good employees.

Then some people took dismissals to tribunals, saying it wasn't "fair" that they got sacked for time off sick when others with the same or more sickness didn't. The law agreed. So employers are forced,  whether or not they like it,  to have fixed policies which are blunt instruments. Too much time off sick,  and that having a fixed measurement, means the employer must move towards dismissal,  no matter how they feel about it. And they must follow a proscribed process which treats everyone the same - malingerer or honest person struggling with life. 

Whether you think it's "fair" or not,  it's the law. 

I agree with most of the above but not the section I have changed to bold type.  Entering into a defined process does not mean there will always be the same outcome.  There is an element of discretion which enables managers to take all the underlying reasons into account.

Hoenir

TELLIT01 said:

LinLui said:

@Brie   "As for compassion - well it would be nice but some people are just not made that way."

It has absolutely nothing to do with people not being made that way.  Quite the reverse. Employers always know who is taking the proverbial, and who isn't. Once upon a time they were allowed to make decisions based on "compassion". But we all know that some employees have several dead grandparents, get sick every other Friday... etc., etc. In the old days,  malingerers got fired,  and others got compassion. Generally. There is no benefit to an employer in getting rid of good employees.

Then some people took dismissals to tribunals, saying it wasn't "fair" that they got sacked for time off sick when others with the same or more sickness didn't. The law agreed. So employers are forced,  whether or not they like it,  to have fixed policies which are blunt instruments. Too much time off sick,  and that having a fixed measurement, means the employer must move towards dismissal,  no matter how they feel about it. And they must follow a proscribed process which treats everyone the same - malingerer or honest person struggling with life. 

Whether you think it's "fair" or not,  it's the law. 

I agree with most of the above but not the section I have changed to bold type.  Entering into a defined process does not mean there will always be the same outcome.  There is an element of discretion which enables managers to take all the underlying reasons into account.

Bottom line is that there's a business to be run effectively and efficiently. A line ultimately has to be drawn. Managers being accountable for their decisions and actions. 

EnPointe

WelshGlyndwr said:

I work in the civil service and my father in law was in a coma for 5 months and passed away. My grandfather passed away and my father had a major health scare. I have had maybe 4 weeks off as sickness in the past year, this includes leadjng up to funerals and the stress of so many bereavements. My employer has moved me to a formal disciplinary process for sickness. Should they show more compassion? 

I doubt very much they have moved you to a Disciplinary process. That said  4 weeks off / multiple  epidoes  would likely  have ot to at least  strage 1 if not stage 2 of  most organisations, public or private,  Attendance and capability processes 

 presuambly all absences  supported by  relevant fit notes if longer than a week  ( self certifications if less) ?   

have you been  offered / referred to Occupational health ?  taken up any  owrkplace  funded  counselling / berevement support?

What does your Union Rep have to say  on the topic ? 

LinLui

TELLIT01 said:

LinLui said:

@Brie   "As for compassion - well it would be nice but some people are just not made that way."

It has absolutely nothing to do with people not being made that way.  Quite the reverse. Employers always know who is taking the proverbial, and who isn't. Once upon a time they were allowed to make decisions based on "compassion". But we all know that some employees have several dead grandparents, get sick every other Friday... etc., etc. In the old days,  malingerers got fired,  and others got compassion. Generally. There is no benefit to an employer in getting rid of good employees.

Then some people took dismissals to tribunals, saying it wasn't "fair" that they got sacked for time off sick when others with the same or more sickness didn't. The law agreed. So employers are forced,  whether or not they like it,  to have fixed policies which are blunt instruments. Too much time off sick,  and that having a fixed measurement, means the employer must move towards dismissal,  no matter how they feel about it. And they must follow a proscribed process which treats everyone the same - malingerer or honest person struggling with life. 

Whether you think it's "fair" or not,  it's the law. 

I agree with most of the above but not the section I have changed to bold type.  Entering into a defined process does not mean there will always be the same outcome.  There is an element of discretion which enables managers to take all the underlying reasons into account.

That is true,  but employers must be very careful applying that discretion because it leaves them open to legal action when they apply it. That's costly,  whether they are judged to be right or not. 

powerful_Rogue

Sounds like a sickness investigation meeting. I've had one previously, was just a process the manager had to follow. Took all of 2 minutes with NFA taken. Just a tick box exercise.

LinLui

powerful_Rogue said:

Sounds like a sickness investigation meeting. I've had one previously, was just a process the manager had to follow. Took all of 2 minutes with NFA taken. Just a tick box exercise.

That is a dangerous piece of advice. Nothing may happen as the result of a single sickness absence meeting. But they are part of a cumulative process that can,  and often does,  eventually lead to dismissal. They are not tick box exercises. They are formal employment processes, just as disciplinarian are,  and are just as serious. 

TELLIT01

I think the point being made, both by myself and others, is that a formal meeting does not automatically mean that a rigid set of rules will be applied and that the employer is trying to get somebody out of the door.  From my personal experience in nearly 50 years of employment, managers do have discretion and to suggest otherwise is inaccurate.

strawb_shortcake

As a manager in the CS I have been  through this process a couple of times in the last year. 
The process initiation is automated from our HR system, I have the discretion to either take no further action - in which case there is no further input to HR, or I can choose to go down the restoring efficency route in which case HR are involved. Each of these options has formal letters to be issued to the individual and must be kept as record.

I suppose I could chose not to engage with the process, but in the event that the absence frequency continues then the automated system will start again and I'd have no record of evidence to say I had followed due process previously. I'd be failing as a manager if I didn't follow the process and potentially putting my job on the line. 

Compassionate leave can be granted but it has its limitations and again subject to line manager discretion. I was granted 10 days when my Husband was seriously ill. But I had to take leave when my Grandad died - different line managers.