Cancelled operation - will employer pay?
Comments
-
I agree that it is up to the employer, and not, as the OP appears to think, their right. But let me clarify one thing. Being sat in a hospital is not the same thing as being unfit for work. Otherwise all medical appointments would be sick leave. And they aren't. "Not being able to go to work" is not the same thing as "sick". So, for example, let's take that procedure you are having for piles. You are not unfit for work, so you may sit in the hospital all day - you have no right to call that "sick leave".It's actually an interesting situation but one which can only be resolved by asking the employer. If the OP was sat in a hospital bed most of the day waiting for an operation which was then cancelled, there is no way they could have been at work. They must have had some form of illness or injury if they were to undergo surgery but were obviously living with the situation. I would think that a decent employer would accept the day of the operation as a day off sick. Personally, I wouldn't expect the employer to pay for the following day, but the OP has already indicated that to be their view as well.
In the OPs case, the thing that renders them unfit for work is (I am assuming) the actual procedure. Otherwise this would all be moot as they would be off sick already. So legally, if that procedure does not take place, they are not sick. They should, again technically, have phoned the employer and got permission to be off work "not sick", if you see what I mean. That would make the second day self certification for sickness. Now few employers are going to get antsy about a day here or there where they understand the circumstances. But what is almost certainly guaranteed to get their backs up is that attitude that it's a right and they'll get the union in if the employer doesn't do what they want.
And that is my point. The employer hasn't actually done anything at all, never mind anything wrong, and the OPs attitude is to go in banging a drum about their rights. Rights they don't have. That is guaranteed to get up an employers nose...0 -
I had similar happen to me 2 weeks ago - operation was cancelled day before in my case. I was at work when I got the phone call and burst into tears, but after a cup of tea and 5 mins quiet time I went back to work as I was well enough to be at work before the phone call cancelling and nothing had changed in that sense after taking the call- but I completely get people handle things differently.
My operation was scheduled for a Friday and due to not being able to say I was sick up until I had actually had the surgery, the day of the operation itself was going to be marked down as absent - manager authorised and the sick leave was to start the following day. I think my employer would have had something to say if id called in sick the day after the surgery that didn't happen.0 -
Op hasnt bothered to come back so its all moot.0
-
I actually disagree about the 'unfit for work' discussion for the day of the operation.
Some people get very nervous about having operations, no matter how big/small they are.
I've had my fair share over the years, and had an op cancelled earlier this year when I was scheduled to have Genicular nerve block injections in my knee.
I'd gotten myself to the hospital only for it to be cancelled about an hour later.
If I'd have set off to work after getting home I would have done just over half a days work.
However, given the mental state I was in given the worry about the op, the fact I'd had no sleep, I felt sick, I was extremely upset, I advised my employer that I would not be attending that day despite the cancellation.
Some people think that being 'fit for work' only applies to being physically fit.
Some think that you cannot be unfit for work unless your leg/arm is hanging off, or you are at deaths door.
Fact is that being unfit for work can be due to being mentally unfit.
When it comes to work, being unfit because of a mental illness issue is just the same as being unfit because of a physical issue.
It remains the case today that many people, and unfortunately many employers, refuse to acknowledge that mental illness is a serious issue. Too many reply with comments such as 'pull yourself together', or 'man up', or the awful 'get over yourself'.
These comments do far more harm than good.
It's time more was done to make people and businesses/employers understand the often devastating and misconstrued issues of mental illness.[SIZE=-1]To equate judgement and wisdom with occupation is at best . . . insulting.
[/SIZE]0 -
I actually disagree about the 'unfit for work' discussion for the day of the operation.
Some people get very nervous about having operations, no matter how big/small they are.
I've had my fair share over the years, and had an op cancelled earlier this year when I was scheduled to have Genicular nerve block injections in my knee.
I'd gotten myself to the hospital only for it to be cancelled about an hour later.
If I'd have set off to work after getting home I would have done just over half a days work.
However, given the mental state I was in given the worry about the op, the fact I'd had no sleep, I felt sick, I was extremely upset, I advised my employer that I would not be attending that day despite the cancellation.
Some people think that being 'fit for work' only applies to being physically fit.
Some think that you cannot be unfit for work unless your leg/arm is hanging off, or you are at deaths door.
Fact is that being unfit for work can be due to being mentally unfit.
When it comes to work, being unfit because of a mental illness issue is just the same as being unfit because of a physical issue.
It remains the case today that many people, and unfortunately many employers, refuse to acknowledge that mental illness is a serious issue. Too many reply with comments such as 'pull yourself together', or 'man up', or the awful 'get over yourself'.
These comments do far more harm than good.
It's time more was done to make people and businesses/employers understand the often devastating and misconstrued issues of mental illness.
Whilst I fully understand the valid points you are making, the real issue here is to what extent the employer should "pick up the tab" for situations that are completely outside their control.
In any case many employers would insist, quite lawfully, that a planned day procedure does not qualify for sick leave and should be booked as holiday.0 -
Undervalued wrote: »Whilst I fully understand the valid points you are making, the real issue here is to what extent the employer should "pick up the tab" for situations that are completely outside their control.
In any case many employers would insist, quite lawfully, that a planned day procedure does not qualify for sick leave and should be booked as holiday.
I suppose it depends on the policies in place and how much the employer values it's staff.
I think most employers want a healthy workforce, and know/expect that from time to time someone may need time off to have an operation and recover.
I think most good employers would allow/expect the employee to take sick leave and not holiday to cover the time off. Even its just SSP.
The OP said 2.5 weeks recovery so it's not something minor that they were having done.
When I had my ACL reconstructed I was off sick for 9 weeks for recovery/intensive physio treatment.
However, when I had the snip, I arranged the op for a Friday and went back to work on the Monday.
(I don't know why so many blokes make a fuss. It wasn't really painful at all).
It also depends on whether the procedure is being performed to manage a condition that could likely be considered to be a disability within the definition used by the Equality Act.
In these cases it may be 'reasonable' to give some additional time off to attend the hospital for treatment and operations. It's one of the examples given within the Equality Act: employers statutory code of practice, although it does not state that this time off has to be paid.
Any procedures/treatments I have which are directly related to managing the problems with my leg (such as the Genicular nerve block injections I recently had done) are covered under the Equality Act and I'm allowed additional paid time off (upto a maximum amount).
Obviously different employers would consider 'reasonable' differently, but it must be considered.[SIZE=-1]To equate judgement and wisdom with occupation is at best . . . insulting.
[/SIZE]0 -
I suppose it depends on the policies in place and how much the employer values it's staff. How much an employer values their staff is irrelevant. The OP asked whether they would get paid, and whether it would be two absences or one, and said that if the employer didn't give them the "right" answer, then they'd bring in the union. The "right" answer is that legally the employer does not have to pay, and it's two absences. Anything better than that under policy is the employers choice. Valuing staff does not mean that you should always pay them when they want paying.
I think most employers want a healthy workforce, and know/expect that from time to time someone may need time off to have an operation and recover. But that wasn't the question. Nobody said the employer doesn't know those things.
I think most good employers would allow/expect the employee to take sick leave and not holiday to cover the time off. Even its just SSP. I work with some of the "best" employers going. And no, they wouldn't necessarily give sick leave. You cannot judge an employer by whether they allow sick leave for a hospital procedure. That term covers a multitude of situations, and not all of them would be sick leave eligible.
The OP said 2.5 weeks recovery so it's not something minor that they were having done. You don't know that. One of my colleagues a few years ago had three weeks off after a hospital procedure. They were advised to do that by the consultant. To be fair, they didn't ask for sick leave, but they wouldn't have got it anyway. They weren't sick. The procedure was entirely elective and "medically unnecessary ".
When I had my ACL reconstructed I was off sick for 9 weeks for recovery/intensive physio treatment. So what?
However, when I had the snip, I arranged the op for a Friday and went back to work on the Monday. A medically unnecessary procedure. Why would that entitle someone to sick leave?
(I don't know why so many blokes make a fuss. It wasn't really painful at all).
It also depends on whether the procedure is being performed to manage a condition that could likely be considered to be a disability within the definition used by the Equality Act. No, it doesn't. What qualifies as sick leave and whether you are paid for it has nothing to do with disability.
In these cases it may be 'reasonable' to give some additional time off to attend the hospital for treatment and operations. It's one of the examples given within the Equality Act: employers statutory code of practice, although it does not state that this time off has to be paid. It may be, not is. And again this is not relevant. The OP doesn't need additional time off. That wasn't ever the question.
Any procedures/treatments I have which are directly related to managing the problems with my leg (such as the Genicular nerve block injections I recently had done) are covered under the Equality Act and I'm allowed additional paid time off (upto a maximum amount). Which is something your employer has chosen to give. Not something that they must give.[/B]
Obviously different employers would consider 'reasonable' differently, but it must be considered.
Must be considered[bU]. Not must be given. But none of this is remotely relevant to the OP. The employer has not refused sick leave. The OP asked whether they must give it - the answer is no, they do not have to, and what they do depends on policy; and does it count as two absences, to which the answer is that it may do and that is also up to the employers policy. Disability, if it even exists, is not relevant to either of those questions. The purpose of the Equality Act is to level the playing field, not to put people with disabilities in a better position.0 -
Must be considered[bU]. Not must be given. But none of this is remotely relevant to the OP. The employer has not refused sick leave. The OP asked whether they must give it - the answer is no, they do not have to, and what they do depends on policy; and does it count as two absences, to which the answer is that it may do and that is also up to the employers policy. Disability, if it even exists, is not relevant to either of those questions. The purpose of the Equality Act is to level the playing field, not to put people with disabilities in a better position.
We don't know whether disability is relevant or not as the OP has never responded. They may not even be aware of the EA given many employers never tell staff about it. Many times to prevent the employee from exercising their statutory rights.
Just as I don't know disability etc is a factor, you don't know it isn't.
If disability/long term health issue that has a significant impact on daily life is an issue then the OP might consider finding out what the employers policy is regarding absences/treatments etc.
Unfortunately too many people are not provided the information about their statutory rights that offer them protection in the workplace.
The more people are aware the better.[SIZE=-1]To equate judgement and wisdom with occupation is at best . . . insulting.
[/SIZE]0 -
We don't know whether disability is relevant or not as the OP has never responded. You misunderstand me. It is irrelevant not because they may or may not have a disability, but because that entire issue is an irrelevancy. The question relates to the way in which their employer operates sickness absence - whether the period counts as one absence or two - and that is a fixed matter. A reasonable adjustment MIGHT be to allow more periods of absence, not how they are counted. And payment for b absences, that is never av reasonable adjustment because paying someone with a disability more than someone without a disability would get in the same circumstances is, itself, discrimination!They may not even be aware of the EA given many employers never tell staff about it. Many times to prevent the employee from exercising their statutory rights. Employers are not responsible for informing employees of their statutory rights. What makes you think that they should?
Just as I don't know disability etc is a factor, you don't know it isn't. And as I said, either way it is irrelevant.
If disability/long term health issue that has a significant impact on daily life is an issue then the OP might consider finding out what the employers policy is regarding absences/treatments etc.
Unfortunately too many people are not provided the information about their statutory rights that offer them protection in the workplace. Really? It's all over the internet. In libraries. In advice centres. And many other places including trade unions. People need to very of their backsides and find out their rights (and responsibilities) are, not expect things "providing for them". These are adults we are talking about, not children.
The more people are aware the better.
The Equality Act, even when it applies, does not trump everything. It isn't a magic fix for employment situations that people don't like.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.6K Spending & Discounts
- 235.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 607.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173K Life & Family
- 247.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards