New "sickness managing policy" at work.........feels like the last straw! What are your views?

[needtobeanonymous]

Hello all

really need some calm sane opinions/advice on this issue as am too mad to think straight!

I work for a (v) large public body.....won't name it but am sure most people can hazard a guess.

Over the last few years we have seen out working conditions, pay etc eroded with much higher workload and constant 'negative' bulletins/e-mails etc etc. Morale is very low.

Then just after xmas, we got a new "sickness managing policy". Basically this wanted to make sure people were communicating about their sickness etc, fair enough.......

Now they have instigated 'interviews' for anyone that has had more than 3 episodes of sickness in the last six months. This is irrespective of the cause, whether you have a doctors certificate, whether you have had an op or have a serious illness like Cancer. The interview is held with you and two managers. They start off by saying they are 'assuming' the sickness is genuine but then go on to make statements like "are you aware of the impact YOUR sickness is having on your colleagues". "This organisation spent X million on sickness last year-we want to spend this on other things!!" The whole thrust of the interviews seems to be to harrass and intimidate you into agreeing to reduce your sickness, irrespective of the cause.

They are even interviewing people who have been involved in adverse/critical incidents and have been referred for PTS counselling by the organisation itself!! WTF!!!

Please don't get me wrong, I don't condone people having loads of sickies when they are well but sometimes people get ill!!

I am now say here dreading my interview as I have had three episodes of sickness,all with GP certs, all for totally genuine problems which meant I would not have been SAFE to do my job. Hopefully I will not have such a spate of bad luck again, but thats not the point.

I am fuming. Is this considered reasonable emloyer behaviour? Are they within their rights to act like this?

Sorry for rant

[needtobeanonymous]

sorry for typos!

[LilRedWG]

Unfortunately lots of employers do this, particularly the large ones with lots of HR people to keep busy...

[Cam]

In my employment more than 8 days off in total in a rolling year is a disciplinary issue

[needtobeanonymous]

Hi cam

does that mean that even if you have a really serious or life threatening illness you can be disciplined? Bloody hell......

[Sparkletastic]

Work for a council - we have exactly the same policy from the sounds of it. In reality it all depends on your line manager - their sensitivity and ability to act like a human being. Does not ever feel like intimidation IME but as I say depends on who is doing it. I line manage and IGNORE the policy in cases of serious illness, mental health issues etc.

[marina]

Our organisation does this too although the content of the Return to Work interview is rather less prescriptive and emotive than the one you describe
But to answer your OP, sadly they are within their rights. A good Absence Management Policy implemented sensitively can help managers deal with worrying patterns of sick leave. Yours sounds confrontational and ham-fisted

[rantinghousewife]

Lots of places do this now and I'm sure it's legal.
My dh's company disciplined a worker during a 'attendance' interview and he was signed off with throat cancer. I do think these kinds of practices within organisations can turn out to be counterproductive.

[llareggub]

Yes, this is totally reasonable employer behaviour and they are quite within their rights to do this.

Can you tell I work in HR?

Crucially though, it is important that sickness absence is addressed. I am guessing you work for the NHS where it is very important that work related sickness absence is identified and addressed. It is proven that the sort of approach you describe reduces the amount of frequent, short term sickness absence of the kind that is fake rather than genuine. Obviously this is in everyone's interest.

Sickness absence is ridiculously high in the public sector but a supportive employer will not be looking to penalise you for your absence but to support you. Where I work, yes, a cancer sufferer would be "interviewed" but this would be more about ensuring that we are doing all we can to aid recovery and ensure a safe and supportive work environment. Where it is suspected that the sickness absence isn't genuine, obviously there would be a very different approach.

What would you do if you were tasked with reducing sickness absence?

[expatinscotland]

Common practice in many workplaces.

I had one for illness from pregnancy, before I was eligible to go off on leave.

Was fine.

[popsycal]

dh work do this
huge national company
think it is shocking

[Cam]

Yes in the sense that you would have a meeting after reaching 4 days sick leave (assuming you are back at work) to warn you that you are half way to one year's worth.

After 8 days, another meeting with questions asked to ascertain if you have a long-term problem.

[unknownrebelbang]

We have similar, using the Bradford Score.

We have a RTW interview with line manager after every period of sickleave (even one day), and have done for a while now.

If your score is high enough, you trigger an interview with your line manager and someone from HR and improvement notices and the like can be issued.

Same for everyone, whatever the reason/length of illness etc etc.

[foxinsocks]

I think it depends how it's implemented.

Seen from the other side, I cannot tell you how annoying it is to have people who think their sick days are a nice addition to annual leave. I also think most employers know who takes the micky and who doesn't and most people don't.

I do speak to people who have been off for a number of days but only in a 'is there anything we can do to help' way and I must say, I actively encourage people NOT to come to work if they have fluey/sicky bugs because I really don't want to catch them myself!

[OrmIrian]

It sounds a bit officious but I can see why it happens. I used to work for local govt and TBH there were a lot of workshy employees - who'd take a day off sick for a broken nail. And no-one ever questioned it. I think that knowledge that they'd be interviewed about it would have put a stop to that.

Now I'm in the private sector it tends to swing too far the other way - my manager went back to work 3 weeks after a hip replacement. Could hardly walk and was popping pain killers like smarties .

Surely they can't actually discipline someone who is seriously ill and can prove it?

[rantinghousewife]

I agree when it is tackled properly then, yes it will reduce fake absence but, an awful lot of companies do tend to use them to terrorise their staff. Not all but some do.
And I have to say if I was hauled over the coals for having throat cancer my loyalty to the 'company' would be severly tested.

[Bellie]

A majority of companies tend to this these days. As a former HR person I do agree with llareggub, but it should be about support and re-habilitation back into the workplace where and when appropriate.

When we imlemented a similar policy, not surprisingly it did stop most of the 'one day sickies'. I guess it is harder to lie to someones face about a 'sickie' than it is to over the phone etc.

It is all about how the policy is handled ime

[llareggub]

In my experience, the disciplinary action is saved for those people who really do treat sickness absence as extra annual leave. Those people who are genuinely sick or have an underlying, long term reason for their sickness absence are treated in a supportive and fair manner.

[chubbymummy]

We have a similar thing going on (I work for the local education authority). In reality though if you have a doctors note for every sickness they cannot do anything about it as a doctor has confirmed that you were not fit to work - this means that people end up being off for a week instead of 4 days just to make sure that they get a sick note instead of self-certificating! Ridiculous!!!!!!!

[llareggub]

Believe me, doctors note or not there is plenty that can be done.

[needtobeanonymous]

Hi Llareggbug
yes i CAN tell you work in HR!

I am not questioning the fact that sickness has to be looked at, and that yes some people seem to take sickies always on a friday/mondayxmas etc etc, but I really feel that to approach the 'problem' in the way that seems to be happening is no better than treating people, human beings, like a piece of crap.

Like I said, they are even subjecting people who have been harmed/injured/traumatised DOING THE DAMN JOB to these 'interviews'. I hope more staff start to persue litigation against the organisation for not protecting them adequetely, and believe me I have never been a big fan of 'blame and claim' culture.

[Cam]

It depends OrmImrian. Oral warning happens after 4 days if not considered a "one-off" illness; written warning on file after 8 days.

People can be off for up to 6 months on full pay with serious provable illness. After that, monthly home visits are made to ascertain the situation. If still off after a year, you can come back to work or face dismissal.

[CaptainCaveman]

Am nodding in agreement at all the posts! Also guilty of working for NHS.

All contracts are based on the individual being "ready, willing and able" to work. If you have sick leave, genuine or not, you are not actually fulfilling your contract. Agree also, as a manager, it irritates the feck out of you when people see sick days as an entitlement!!!

However, the policy should be handled sensitvely to support people who are/have been off sick, and to get staff back to work as soon as they are fit. Also sends out a very clear message that sickness will be monitored and reviewed, so those staff who are 'prone' to taking sick days might think twice.

[needtobeanonymous]

And what can they do if a medical professional has declared you unfit to work, sorry but no HR person can made a judgement on that. Maybe they should read some of their fabulous anti-discrimination policies before they get on their high horses.

[needtobeanonymous]

And what can they do if a medical professional has declared you unfit to work, sorry but no HR person can made a judgement on that. Maybe they should read some of their fabulous anti-discrimination policies before they get on their high horses.

[NorthernLurker]

sorry but I can see why people who have been harmed at work should be interviewed - it provides a forum for their manager to talk through the situation and check all appropriate support has been offered/accessed. I have done numerous RTW and sickness management meetings and I have never once treated someone like 'a piece of crap' - but as a person, for whom I have some responsibility, who has been ill and so may need more from me in order for them to be well!