Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@. Skimlinks & other affiliated links are turned on

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • od244051
    • By od244051 22nd Oct 19, 3:49 AM
    • 144Posts
    • 214Thanks
    od244051
    Scared of ringing in sick 3rd time
    • #1
    • 22nd Oct 19, 3:49 AM
    Scared of ringing in sick 3rd time 22nd Oct 19 at 3:49 AM
    I wonder if you can help me

    Been working at my current employer for 12 years. They, along with most employers have a policy of three sicknesses in a rolling year, disciplinary action is to be taken.

    Already on two periods of sickness - early spring for unexplained pains etc which I was put on strong medication. In hospital for 2 days having tests done which nothing was found, Changing my medication - which I took for 5-7 years previously, got rid of the pains. Not stayed in a hospital since I was born

    At the beginning of this month - sickness and diarrhea. Not thrown up for 15 years. Had to stay off work for a certain time of having no episodes of either S&D, following company rules

    Now I have been suffering with laryngitis since Friday and its getting worse - both voice and frequency of coughs. Been taking painkillers, having inhalations, sucking on sweets and drinking fluids. Been awake for past twenty minutes with my coughing and feeling clammy. All around my throat is hot to touch.

    I cannot be doing with the stress of disciplinary so I am having to struggle at work. Keeping my talking to a bare minimum - both at work and outside work.

    This policy of three sicknesses is quite common as if your employer has a similar policy to mine then you will notice other colleagues just like myself struggling to get to work and struggle with their days at work as like myself, scared of disciplinary. Then affecting other colleagues' health and sickness.

    What is your opinion in this?

    Please be kind as I am a newbie to the forums
Page 1
  • archived user
    • #2
    • 22nd Oct 19, 7:09 AM
    • #2
    • 22nd Oct 19, 7:09 AM
    Why shouldn't people "struggle to get to work"?
    • Tigsteroonie
    • By Tigsteroonie 22nd Oct 19, 7:12 AM
    • 23,476 Posts
    • 58,787 Thanks
    Tigsteroonie
    • #3
    • 22nd Oct 19, 7:12 AM
    • #3
    • 22nd Oct 19, 7:12 AM
    I wonder if you can help me

    Been working at my current employer for 12 years. They, along with most employers have a policy of three sicknesses in a rolling year, disciplinary action is to be taken.
    Originally posted by od244051
    Is it that disciplinary action will be taken?

    Or is it that a welfare meeting will be held to determine whether these have been genuine, unrelated sickness absences and not (1) swinging the lead or (2) an underlying health issue that they need to consider; and to advise you to consider improving your level of absence - but not an actual disciplinary unless they find you've been having duvet days?
    Mrs Marleyboy

    MSE: many of the benefits of a helpful family, without disadvantages like having to compete for the tv remote

    Proud Parents to an Aut-some son
    • Wyndham
    • By Wyndham 22nd Oct 19, 7:39 AM
    • 2,122 Posts
    • 2,443 Thanks
    Wyndham
    • #4
    • 22nd Oct 19, 7:39 AM
    • #4
    • 22nd Oct 19, 7:39 AM
    Why shouldn't people "struggle to get to work"?
    Originally posted by Vim_Fuego
    Well, because if they have something infectious then they are likely to infect the whole workplace and have a major impact on productivity. That's as well as potentially passing it on to anyone they share any public transport with, who in turn will pass it on to their own workplace, their children and their schools etc.

    OP - it sounds like you are having a rough time, and I'm sorry to hear that. I've noticed as I get older there are more things wrong more regularly, and I've now accepted that as a fact of life. In your case it sounds like three unrelated things, and a run of bad luck. One was something you had under control with medication, but for some reason that needed to change (it happens). Second one, sounds like you picked up a bug - maybe from someone else (see my first paragraph as to how that might have happened). This time it sounds like another bug, but it may also be worth seeing your GP? Also worth saying that as the first one involved a hospital, it should be clear that you're not swinging the lead here.

    I think Tigsteroonie may also be right - it should be supportive, not disciplinary?
    • suki1964
    • By suki1964 22nd Oct 19, 7:49 AM
    • 12,529 Posts
    • 33,413 Thanks
    suki1964
    • #5
    • 22nd Oct 19, 7:49 AM
    • #5
    • 22nd Oct 19, 7:49 AM
    Ring in sick , its obvious you are sick

    3 unrelated sicknesses aren't going to get you a disciplinary. Its going to get you a talking to, a "is there anything else going on that's impacting your health" type chat
    if you lend someone 20 and never see that person again, it was probably worth it
    • TELLIT01
    • By TELLIT01 22nd Oct 19, 8:31 AM
    • 7,530 Posts
    • 8,062 Thanks
    TELLIT01
    • #6
    • 22nd Oct 19, 8:31 AM
    • #6
    • 22nd Oct 19, 8:31 AM
    Ring in sick , its obvious you are sick

    3 unrelated sicknesses aren't going to get you a disciplinary. Its going to get you a talking to, a "is there anything else going on that's impacting your health" type chat
    Originally posted by suki1964

    If company policy is that 3 period of sickness in a rolling 12 months starts the disciplinary process then it will start. The company will decide if there is a pattern to it or if they are totally unrelated. From the OPs description they would seem to be unrelated, and the hospital stay should be treated in isolation.
    All this is 'should' but that is the way a decent employer should act. If the OP is genuinely unable to function at work due to the current illness they should call in sick.
    • ACG
    • By ACG 22nd Oct 19, 10:39 AM
    • 19,851 Posts
    • 11,384 Thanks
    ACG
    • #7
    • 22nd Oct 19, 10:39 AM
    • #7
    • 22nd Oct 19, 10:39 AM
    Disciplinary does not really mean there will be a negative outcome. Most people are not off 3 times in a year unless they are pulling a fast one or there is something more serious wrong. In your case, it looks like you have just had an unlucky year and 1 bad year in 12 isnt bad at all.

    Personally, I would expect if you do go to the disciplinary to just explain you have been there 12 years, rarely been off ill in all that time and it is what it is. There is not really a lot you or they can do about your time off ill as it is just unfortunate one off events. I suppose an apology wouldnt go a miss but I am not sure you can really apologise for being ill.

    You have the choice dont you?
    Go in and deal it with.
    Stay off and deal with the disciplinary.

    Either way, we are in October, if you are saying you cant be off ill again between now and march, I would start buying a shed load of berocca.

    For the record, I hate it when people come in with something contagious, I tend to tell people not to come in. I would rather than stay off for 2 days than come in, barely do any work and spread it to someone else or worse... me!

    There is no magic outcome that satisfies both outcomes though.
    I am a Mortgage Adviser
    You should note that this site doesn't check my status as a mortgage adviser, so you need to take my word for it. This signature is here as I follow MSE's Mortgage Adviser Code of Conduct. Any posts on here are for information and discussion purposes only and shouldn't be seen as financial advice.
    • Marvel1
    • By Marvel1 22nd Oct 19, 3:57 PM
    • 4,633 Posts
    • 5,257 Thanks
    Marvel1
    • #8
    • 22nd Oct 19, 3:57 PM
    • #8
    • 22nd Oct 19, 3:57 PM
    Considering there is possible disciplinary action, myself I would try my best and go in.
    Last edited by Marvel1; 22-10-2019 at 6:31 PM.
    • fred246
    • By fred246 22nd Oct 19, 4:20 PM
    • 1,965 Posts
    • 1,295 Thanks
    fred246
    • #9
    • 22nd Oct 19, 4:20 PM
    • #9
    • 22nd Oct 19, 4:20 PM
    I can't understand how this silliness is legal. I know someone who worked at a hospital and they were having disciplinary action because they were having treatment for cancer. It's unbelievable.
    • Undervalued
    • By Undervalued 22nd Oct 19, 4:36 PM
    • 4,643 Posts
    • 4,037 Thanks
    Undervalued
    I can't understand how this silliness is legal. I know someone who worked at a hospital and they were having disciplinary action because they were having treatment for cancer. It's unbelievable.
    Originally posted by fred246
    Because ultimately an employer employs people to work. They are not a social service.

    Disciplinary is a bit of an emotive misnomer in such circumstances, obviously unless there is reason to believe the employee in not genuinely unwell. However it is perfectly lawful to have a "tight" and closely managed sickness policy even when the sickness is genuine and / or serious.

    You mention an employee with cancer. They would have some additional protection as any form of cancer is automatically a disability requiring the employer to make reasonable adjustments. However, ultimately if the employee can't work for significant periods and any contractual sick pay entitlement has been used up, the employer can take steps towards dismissal.
    • fred246
    • By fred246 22nd Oct 19, 5:10 PM
    • 1,965 Posts
    • 1,295 Thanks
    fred246
    Disgusting way to treat someone. I suppose it's what you expect when the Tories are in. Worse than Victorian times.
    • Undervalued
    • By Undervalued 22nd Oct 19, 5:19 PM
    • 4,643 Posts
    • 4,037 Thanks
    Undervalued
    Disgusting way to treat someone. I suppose it's what you expect when the Tories are in. Worse than Victorian times.
    Originally posted by fred246
    So if you run a small business with a couple of staff and one or both go long term sick (perfectly genuinely) what would you do?

    Support them indefinitely until the business goes bust?

    Remember that the employer (not the state) has to meet the full cost of even "statutory" sick pay.
    • eamon
    • By eamon 22nd Oct 19, 8:02 PM
    • 1,945 Posts
    • 1,418 Thanks
    eamon
    To the OP given that you have been up at 3.49am typing its tells its own story. When you get back/to work a good read through your employers Sickness & Attendance Policy wouldn't go amiss. It should tell you all that you need to know and if they have a scheme what it is called. In the Public Sector the Bradford Scale & variations off are popular. If you are in the private sector then ask what help is available. Many employers offer various "employee well being programs". I also second what other have said you are having a bad year and I would hope that your length of service and prior impeccable attendance record speaks for itself.

    In the meantime if your symptons aren't clearing up then get yourself to your GP and worry about a disciplinary later.
    • od244051
    • By od244051 23rd Oct 19, 10:07 AM
    • 144 Posts
    • 214 Thanks
    od244051
    Ok, I went into work yesterday and my voice was breaking up towards the end plus feeling woozy. Had a slightly better night sleep. Voice is very quiet and hoarse - now hurts to cough and can't get by without doing at least 5 coughs in a fit. Can't talk, drink or eat without coughing

    Rang in sick and see how work treat it. Colleagues were shocked to hear my voice and one called me by the male equivalent of my name (I'm female) as I sound like a man.

    I hardly get colds or laryngitis. Last cold I had was Jan 2017 but that was manageable at work and last time I had to need to have time off work for the above was 5 years ago. Most of my time off sick has been with post surgery as had 4 surgeries, then painful leg which has gone away with physio and losing weight.

    It really annoys me when many employers including mine only look at the past 12 months of sickness
    • stripeyfox
    • By stripeyfox 23rd Oct 19, 10:15 AM
    • 459 Posts
    • 543 Thanks
    stripeyfox
    My company has exactly the same policy as yours. I've had one team member "trigger" the three absences in a year rule and we simply sat down it emerged that she had just been "unlucky" with a chest infection and in fact had "struggled" back to work in order to avoid the third one the week before but had ended up even more poorly.

    Otherwise her work output was good and there were no other issues so no further "action" was taken.

    I think the policy is there generally to "deter" those odd sick days which people take now and again (some more than others) without punishing those who are genuinely poorly - and certainly in our case, the statistics would seem to proove it works.
    • sew109
    • By sew109 23rd Oct 19, 2:19 PM
    • 617 Posts
    • 523 Thanks
    sew109
    Disgusting way to treat someone. I suppose it's what you expect when the Tories are in. Worse than Victorian times.
    Originally posted by fred246
    Your third sentence supports the stupidity of the second one
    Last edited by sew109; 23-10-2019 at 2:45 PM.
    Its Vegas time -no longer a five year old has changed Vegas time to Orlando time
    • Mnd
    • By Mnd 23rd Oct 19, 7:31 PM
    • 1,514 Posts
    • 2,448 Thanks
    Mnd
    Disgusting way to treat someone. I suppose it's what you expect when the Tories are in. Worse than Victorian times.
    Originally posted by fred246
    My wife does a 2 person receptionist job, since January her opposite number has managed 14 days off sick, 1 or 2 days at a time. She should be fired! That's not the tories fault
    • eamon
    • By eamon 23rd Oct 19, 7:54 PM
    • 1,945 Posts
    • 1,418 Thanks
    eamon
    My employers current sickness/attendance policy started circa 12 years ago. They made it quite clear at the time that it was to address those that were sick the day after pay day, Sunday, the day before booked leave, the day after booked leave.

    When I had people reporting to me I had to apply the rules. Sometimes not a pleasant conversation but it is only fair to warn people of possible outcomes if attendance at work doesn't improve/meet acceptable standards and to proceed with action when needed.
    • Marcon
    • By Marcon 23rd Oct 19, 8:57 PM
    • 1,575 Posts
    • 1,243 Thanks
    Marcon
    It really annoys me when many employers including mine only look at the past 12 months of sickness
    Originally posted by od244051
    In most cases they don't. Sickness over a period of 12 months may trigger some form of 'disciplinary' action (which is entirely sensible), but it would be a rare employer who ignores past history completely where an employee has had years of excellent attendance. Bear in mind that 'disciplinary' is something of a catch-all term and could simply mean the employer offering help and support rather than warnings.
    • od244051
    • By od244051 24th Oct 19, 7:35 AM
    • 144 Posts
    • 214 Thanks
    od244051
    My employers current sickness/attendance policy started circa 12 years ago. They made it quite clear at the time that it was to address those that were sick the day after pay day, Sunday, the day before booked leave, the day after booked leave.

    When I had people reporting to me I had to apply the rules. Sometimes not a pleasant conversation but it is only fair to warn people of possible outcomes if attendance at work doesn't improve/meet acceptable standards and to proceed with action when needed.
    Originally posted by eamon
    Did it also include employees that tried to get a certain date or week off annual leave but couldn't and coincidentally rang in sick when the date was here?
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

3,035Posts Today

8,096Users online

Martin's Twitter