Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

What is a reasonable amount of time for sick leave?

Any scheme that rewards people for not taking sick days will be problematic. It penalises those who are genuinely sick, and sends out a rather bizarre message - that you get rewarded for not skiving off. Perhaps delinquent school children need to be enticed with free playstation games, but grown adults should know better. That's why I think our system makes more sense - allocate a small number of "sickie" days that everyone is aware they can use to deal with the occasional hungover Monday morning, and then be quite strict about proper sick days.
 
cesare said:
You want to be a bit careful about that doctor's cert, soj. They're not actually required to produce that until after 7 consecutive days illness - it's self cert up to and including 7 days.
Click to expand...
Can you let me have a source for that cesare?

I like to think I'm up to date on all my policies and have had this in place for a few years now - would hate to think this is incorrect.

Are you sure it isn't just up to the company to decide, as it is when deciding how many days to give them fully paid?
 
cesare said:
You want to be a bit careful about that doctor's cert, soj. They're not actually required to produce that until after 7 consecutive days illness - it's self cert up to and including 7 days.
Click to expand...

I thought it was 5 days +
7 days including the weekend
 
It's something to do with Statutory Sick Pay, iirc. Can't find legal link but have a look at his on-line guide to employee sickness Sick Pay Guie for Employers

Half way down it notes that "Your employees can use form SC2 for self-certification for spells of sickness lasting four to seven days. You cannot ask for a doctor's statement for the first seven days of a spell of sickness."
 
EastEnder said:
Any scheme that rewards people for not taking sick days will be problematic. It penalises those who are genuinely sick, and sends out a rather bizarre message - that you get rewarded for not skiving off. Perhaps delinquent school children need to be enticed with free playstation games, but grown adults should know better. That's why I think our system makes more sense - allocate a small number of "sickie" days that everyone is aware they can use to deal with the occasional hungover Monday morning, and then be quite strict about proper sick days.
Click to expand...

Agreed....

What if you have two members of staff doing the same role?

Number 1 has 10 days off sick but only 4 are genuine.

Number 2 has 15 days off sick and all 15 are genuine.

However despite having 5 more days off sick Number 2 acheives 20% more work to target over the year as they work harder whilst in the office?

Fair?
 
sojourner said:
Can you let me have a source for that cesare?

I like to think I'm up to date on all my policies and have had this in place for a few years now - would hate to think this is incorrect.

Are you sure it isn't just up to the company to decide, as it is when deciding how many days to give them fully paid?
Click to expand...

Certainly. The main provisions are in the Statutory Sick Pay (General) Regs 1982 mainly in Regulation 7 but also referred to in Regulation 3A (2)(b)

Sorry, but OPSI doesn't have UK leg predating 1987 on their site - I've just looked it up hard copy here for an exact reference for you.

This page of guidance from the HMRC sets it out further.

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/spmmanual/spm10415.htm
 
cesare said:
Certainly. The main provisions are in the Statutory Sick Pay (General) Regs 1982 mainly in Regulation 7 but also referred to in Regulation 3A (2)(b)

Sorry, but OPSI doesn't have UK leg predating 1987 on their site - I've just looked it up hard copy here for an exact reference for you.

This page of guidance from the HMRC sets it out further.

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/spmmanual/spm10415.htm
Click to expand...
Cheers for that - one amendment coming right up!!
 
You're allowed 12 days (5%) in any one year at my NHS trust before you get called in for a meeting.AFAIK it's always paid, but you need a note after 5 days on the trot. This policy has only just been properly implemented which, considering we're a Foundation Trust, is a bit of a poor show.
 
If you impose procedures, and people fall foul, presumably in enforcing such dismissal is envisaged as a possible outcome?

Normally I am very much in favour of ACAS Guidelines. Employment Tribunals refer to these to establish case law. They should be seen as minimum procedural guidelines. Unfortunately these particular Guidelines include reference to the discredited 'Bradford Factor' in calculating impact of absence. The problem with these is that they risk penalising genuine medical conditions that result in intermittant, rather than prolongued absences. Thus this confirms the view that odd days here and there are usually the result of sciving. Well, they may be, but it does depend on the underlying causes. Simple trigger points for dismissal, formal warnings or other action have a number of pitfalls - whether such action would be deemed to be 'fair' under law depends in part on the underlying reasons for the absence. So, you could use such calculations as a guide, or trigger points in terms of days, but action depends on the underlying medical causes for which - before considering drastic action medical opinion should be sought.

Sick absence (not 'sick leave' as this implies an entitlement) policy needs to be clear, but has to have some flexibility to take into account different causes.

There are statutory minimums for paid sick absence but these are shite, and decent employers offer better. You can set a limit to paid sick leave provided you comply with (at least) the minimum legal limits.

You cannot set a limit to sick absence as such. What you can do is set a trigger point where absence above a certain level - say 18 days in a rolling 12 months period - triggers a discussion. The point here would be to ascertain the causes. If a member of staff has e.g. frequent Mondays off with headaches, what could be the possible reason? Whereas if a member of staff had 24 days as a result of a broken leg you would take a more understanding view presumably. You can/should build such discretion into any procedures provided there are guidelines in reaching conclusions and that these are fair and consistent.

A business does not legally have to endure endless amounts of even genuine sick absence, but you have to have a clear policy that sets out a standard approach fair to everyone. Ascertaining the medical facts before management action is taken is important. Once management action is triggered you do have to give written warning and a chance to improve e.g. a one - three month trial period during which sick absence (barring unforeseen traffic accidents etc) should be kept to a minimum. Only if such a trial is failed, or subsequent to the warning and chance to improve, high levels are again reverted to without good cause, can further action be taken.

Were you to dismiss someone [A] under sick absence policy for taking e.g. 22 days where you felt less inclined to be leniant because they were a poor worker and they smell, but did not sack another excellent worker who had taken 23 days sick absence you may have to justify at a Tribunal objectively the difference of approach purely as regards sick absence (if that is what you dismissed them for). If A had had 22 days all on Mondays with never a Drs note and reasons such as 'shits', 'headache', 'poorly' and had had time off for a multi-fractured leg you can objectively justify. But if [A] and did not have such obvious disparity, or if the procedures used did not spell out an objective approach to apply discretion, you could be hauled over the coals by a Tribunal.

Finally, as well as, and as part of, sick absence you have to be aware of Disability issues and of compliance with the Disability Discrimination Act which itself may entitle staff to 'Reasonable Adjustments' that might include higher levels of sick absence and in limited circumstances entitlement to 'Disability Leave'. If you fuck up and sack someone unfairly where the DDA applies there are no upper limits to the possible compensation awarded at Tribunal. The definition of Disability for the purposes of the Act are a long term impairment (regarded as 12 months + or likely to last 12 months +) that has a substantial adverse effect on a person's ability to carry out day-to-day activities. They don't have to be registered disabled. It can be a mental health impairment such as clinical depression. Failure to make 'Reasonable Adjustments' amounts to discrimination.

You should also have a written alcohol policy whereby alcoholics willing to seek to recover are given support to do so and not summarily sacked for absence. Only if they don't recover or don't co-operate with seeking help can you take action under any reasonable policy.

Finally, if you are the person to suddenly clamp down on sick absence prepare to be unpopular. Be prepared for morale to decline. Balance the sick absence problem with the possible problems associated with a tougher management policy. If you do tighten up, you might want to do so after a discussion where the idea comes from staff and a consensus is reached.

Good luck!
 
BiddlyBee said:
But you very rarely have a sickness certificate if you've got a bad cough, head cold... etc. I know I probably wouldn't go to the docs for one day off.
Click to expand...

And Drs charge for certs for less than 5 working days - if the business insisted on this (they can't legally) they would have to agree time off to attend the Docs to get a cert and fut the bill for the cert. :)

eta: it is 7 days but I assumed w/ends off hence 5 working days.
 
We are expected to take no more than 10 sick days/5 separate incidents of sick in a rolling year. Anything over this triggers Early Management Action which is their new way of giving us a written warning.:rolleyes:

I had loads of sick last year.:( I had catarrh between december and march pretty much constantly so I had a couple of days here and there where I didn't go in as was feeling too awful and I also had 18 days off (this includes weekends when I work mon-fri :mad: ) for a severe chest infection. Every time I was off sick I visited my doctor who eventually diagnosed chronic catarrh and my long absense was certificated. I was put on a management action plan which prevented me from volunteering for any extra responsibility, forums etc and was made to feel like a skiver and a fraud. It also affected me applying for transfers and I was not allowed to go for promotion.

Any sick policy which is introduced needs to be fair, the civil service are bullying staff into going to work when they are ill. There are piss takers and I agree they need to be dealt with but most companies cannot seem to do this without victimising those who have genuine illnesses.

Rant over.:D Good luck Zenie, this is a minefield and it must be hard to know what to do for the best.
 
sparklefish said:
We are expected to take no more than 10 sick days/5 separate incidents of sick in a rolling year. Anything over this triggers Early Management Action which is their new way of giving us a written warning.:rolleyes:

I had loads of sick last year.:( I had catarrh between december and march pretty much constantly so I had a couple of days here and there where I didn't go in as was feeling too awful and I also had 18 days off (this includes weekends when I work mon-fri :mad: ) for a severe chest infection. Every time I was off sick I visited my doctor who eventually diagnosed chronic catarrh and my long absense was certificated. I was put on a management action plan which prevented me from volunteering for any extra responsibility, forums etc and was made to feel like a skiver and a fraud. It also affected me applying for transfers and I was not allowed to go for promotion.

Any sick policy which is introduced needs to be fair, the civil service are bullying staff into going to work when they are ill. There are piss takers and I agree they need to be dealt with but most companies cannot seem to do this without victimising those who have genuine illnesses.

Rant over.:D Good luck Zenie, this is a minefield and it must be hard to know what to do for the best.
Click to expand...

Yeh, they have tried to clamp down like that where I am but so far we've beaten them back. You have to have really quite high levels before action is taken, though there are lower triggers for preliminary talks, but not warnings.
 
Groucho said:
Yeh, they have tried to clamp down like that where I am but so far we've beaten them back. You have to have really quite high levels before action is taken, though there are lower triggers for preliminary talks, but not warnings.
Click to expand...

I do understand the need for procedures, but myself and other colleagues really do feel 'bullied'. I was suffering with anxiety and was getting panic attacks during the time of the disciplinary and am constantly worried about being ill. The union are doing everything they can and are fighting for us and there are grievances being filed regularly but it's a national policy and the management will not budge.
 
sparklefish said:
There are piss takers and I agree they need to be dealt with but most companies cannot seem to do this without victimising those who have genuine illnesses.
Click to expand...
Which rather succinctly sums up the dilemma....

If you're paid to turn up and do a job, then that's what you should do. If you're sick, you should be allowed adequate time to recover & recuperate without any recriminations whatsoever.

Unfortunately we live in a society where some people don't take their responsibilities very seriously, causing major grief for those who have genuine ailments.

It hardly helps the situation when major trade unions offer overt advice on how to pull a sickie when the bloody world cup is on......:rolleyes:
 
sparklefish said:
I do understand the need for procedures, but myself and other colleagues really do feel 'bullied'. I was suffering with anxiety and was getting panic attacks during the time of the disciplinary and am constantly worried about being ill. The union are doing everything they can and are fighting for us and there are grievances being filed regularly but it's a national policy and the management will not budge.
Click to expand...

National Govt. (especially Gordon Brown) have been pushing for a clampdown but Depts. are approaching it differently.

I know how distressing it is for people who have genuinly been ill/are suffering genuine ill health and then have disciplinary type procedures to worry about as well. In cases where the illness is depression just imagine how such procedures are likely to aid recovery :rolleyes:

As I said so far where I am we have successfully held off a really harsh approach, but it isn't easy when the rest of the CS are enduring ever harsher procedures. Nonetheless when they've made mistakes we've cost them money and that concentrates their minds given the budget squeeze.
 
I think duvet days are a great idea. Mainly as when i was a kid, some days i was just too tired to go to school (i used to have to leave the house at 7.30 and rarely got home before 5)

A duvet day in the middle of the half term, would have done me a lot of good, instead for a week every term, I used to argue with my mum about needing my bed.. :d
 
thought said:
I think duvet days are a great idea. Mainly as when i was a kid, some days i was just too tired to go to school (i used to have to leave the house at 7.30 and rarely got home before 5)

A duvet day in the middle of the half term, would have done me a lot of good, instead for a week every term, I used to argue with my mum about needing my bed.. :d
Click to expand...
The concept appeals to me greatly because it's eminently pragmatic - everyone has off days, hangovers, etc, and this is a way of employers saying "we're all human, we know there are times you won't want to come in even though you've no proper reason not to, don't piss about with silly excuses, just take a 'duvet day'".

With such a policy in place, it means that genuine sickness absence can be treated as such - there should be no excuse for pulling a sickie.
 
just been told that i might be getting a £50 m&s voucher, if i manage to stay healthy and come into work until the end of the current financial year, 3 weeks to go - <takes extra special care> no sickies for a year bonus
 
Thanks for the replies

Im off sick this morning :o

Going in shortly though :cool:

I am actually ill and been to the doctors though!!! :rolleyes:
 
marty21 said:
just been told that i might be getting a £50 m&s voucher, if i manage to stay healthy and come into work until the end of the current financial year, 3 weeks to go - <takes extra special care> no sickies for a year bonus
Click to expand...
Are you going to run a hill in the nudy, squawking "I'm normal!" ? :eek:
 
I cant remember the name of it but some companies use a formula which gives points on when the days are taken - so its not the actual number of days sick but the patterns. If you are out sick for ten days in a row it attracts fewer points than if the ten days are across a period, and I think there are extra points for Fridays and Mondays. I think its well known in HR circles but I have come across in it union capacity. Its designed to alert employers of possible fake sick leaves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
mental health and sick leave
Replies
20
Views
747
equationgirl
equationgirl
Elpenor
What are you studying at the moment? Or plan to study?
2 3
Replies
63
Views
2K
Red Cat
R
starfish2000
Calling out a racist to his workplace & school?
Replies
8
Views
239
AnnO'Neemus
A
N
What to say instead of Dear Sirs?
2 3
Replies
70
Views
2K
Saunders
S
mod
A graphic designer looking for a new job / trade in the age of AI
2 3 4 5
Replies
135
Views
5K
freshapple
F
Back
Top Bottom