To think that HR don't need to know the details of my sickness!!

[UnGoogleable]

I'm currently waiting for surgery on my severe endometriosis and large ovarian cyst. I had surgery last year, I've had scans, I'm having a camera up the bum - the lot.

So it involves quite a few hospital appointments, as well as a few days off sick when my period is too painful or I'm bleeding too heavily. My line manager and colleagues all know what's going on and everyone has been brilliant.

But we have a new sickness recording system, which requires my manager to fill in the reason for sickness. In the past, we just filled in a form, and you could write what you wanted on there. Now, the new system has pre set categories and you have to pick one from a drop down list.

The categories cover a range of problems, so in the category which my sickness falls under, there is also stuff like 'Cystitis, Period problems, fertility problems, gynaecological etc'. But when listing past absences it abbreviates it so that only the first few ailments in the category are visible.

Consequently, my absence record looks like this:

UnGoogleable sick days:

day 1 "Cystitis...."
Day 2 "Cystitis...."
Day 3 "Cystitis...."
Day 3,4,5 "Cystitis...."
Day 6 "Cystitis...."
Day 7-28 "Cystitis..."

The problem is, this system also services our finance system, so the finance team also have access to it. As it's a new system we have had a lot of teething problems so there is a dedicated helpline with a team to help you through it - that team obviously also have full access to the system.

I told my line manager that while I'm fine for her to know what's going on, I'm not entirely comfortable with the entire HR and finance team to have full access to it, plus the way it's displayed makes it look like I have frequent days off for cystitis!

Line manager agreed, and said she would just record my sickness without a reason next to it from now on. We said that I wasn't comfortable with all the finance staff etc being able to access it and I was told that they're all bound by the same HR confidentiality rules so it's OK. But that doesn't stop me feeling uncomfortable with them all being able to see it! For example, I recently had to use the helpdesk to sort out a finance issue on the system with me. She was able to access my files and I had to sit there when she opened the above mentioned sick leave record in front of me

Then today, I've had an email from someone in Payroll demanding to know the reason for my recent sickness. I find this a huge invasion of privacy and was tempted to give him the full details of my upcoming extensive gynaecological surgery for good measure!

Surely if I've told my LM the reason, and she's OKd it, then why does anyone else need to know the details? And

There's a deeper issue to this - once I'm done with my surgery, I'm likely to be referred for IVF. I haven't discussed this with work yet, but it will be very private and I really don't feel comfortable with that being plastered all over our system for all to see.

Can I refuse this? Is this a breach of my right to privacy?

Yanbu. Data protection rules demand thay they process the minimum they need for the purpose.
btw I work in secondary data analysis (of hospital data). Everything comes to us anonymised and we take data protection very seriously. We can access info on hospital stays for almost every condition but there are a few that sre subject to stricyer rules because they are highly sensitive and I'm sure ivf is one of those (hiv is another). This is done under the data processing rules of the health and social care information centre who consider ivf to be a highly sensitive procedure. I don't think this would apply to individual records held at workplaces by may help to strengthen your argument.

Tell them your prostate is playing up, it comes under the right category

This is terrible OP. Finance don't need to know the info at all. HR need to know annonomised data to track trends; so the reasons should feed into the system and for example they should be able to see how many people across the whole company had time off for each category, but where this might become identifying (eg only one absence in a department so it's obviously you) then they shouldn't see it.

The only time any individual HR person needs to know specific reasons for absence is if your manager had asked them for help in managing sickness/absence. That's clearly not the case so they don't need to know. And the system should have robust controls to prevent people accessing this kind of information.

I would be making a formal complaint. It may be that they hadn't realised the potential issues but they need to correct them ASAP.

Oooblimey

Sorry, I must have missed your post. That is APPALLING, I would be utterly furious ,and most definitely making a complaint.

and for your ET and a massive good luck for you xxx

So does anyone know why my company needs to know such great detail about sickness absences? Why can't it just be as simple as:

Minor ailment
Major ailment
Personal - don't want to say

I understand that they want to be able to flag up any work related occupational health issues.. but how do they do this with the information that they collect? And if that's the genuine reason, then why on earth would they need to know about infectious problems, or infertility problems, or any of the other issues on the list that could not possibly be caused by work???

okay, apols if this is no use - posting jet lagged and without a link.

I currently work in a place where you don't even have to disclose the nature of your illness until you get into doctor's note territory.

I was very surprised by this and they told me that under the law, they can't demand to know precisely what is wrong with you, for a couple of days.

Previous companies have always asked me to fill in forms explaining what was wrong with me when off sick.

so in addition to the fact that this information is being shared where it shouldn't, I wonder if they are on the wrong side of the law demanding to know specifics anyway?

That's appalling. As Finn said, it is ^sensitive* personal data.
When I was stressed, anxious and depressed I would take days off and tell my manager I had a 'migraine', 'food poisoning', 'bad cold' etc, anyway, so no-one would know. I ended up hounded out of that job fucktards, and having a complete breakdown. There's no point recording this info unless the approach to people who are stressed is actually helpful and empathetic.

Are you 100% sure that Finance can see HR records. Access in systems such as Oracle can be set so people only see limited fields relevant to their job. So HR see personnel info but not eg supplier records and cash and vice versa for finance. Before you go in both barrels on finance be sure that they can actually see your info. Having access to Oracle or SAP to do your job doesn't automatically mean you can see everything held in that system.

Re the support people having access again it may well, and should be, set so personal info is masked. If they do have quite wide access then there may well be additional monitoring in place to ensure they are not going on fishing trips and rummaging around people's information.

For example, I recently had to use the helpdesk to sort out a finance issue on the system with me. She was able to access my files and I had to sit there when she opened the above mentioned sick leave record in front of me

Holy shit!

That is absolutely 100% Not. On.

One year around Easter I suddenly had the best part of two weeks off sick (mmc) with only the odd day in the office fighting figurative fires.

My manager, famous for being no-nonsense and blunt as a brick, was fabulously discreet. She knew exactly what was going in and never breathed a word, just took my phone calls saying I wasn't going in, and helpfully was too unapproachable for anyone to try being nosy!

On my return, bearing in mind only my friend and my boss know any details, I get the return to work form from HR manager. My sick record was great - several sick-years with no absence at all. I filled in the form with the basic information: name, department, dates ill, dates absent, total days absent, and the bit about medical attention which is basically "did you see a doctor, if so where" and I named the hospital, and "emergency treatment in hospital and recovery" or something in the reasons bit.

She sent the form back. More detail required. I asked why. The sick pay couldn't be authorised without a detailed reason.

It went back and forth for some time and I was sitting with a calculator working out if I could afford not to get paid (from memory only one or two days would have counted for SSP because it was in two blocks). Eventually I gave in and returned the form with "miscarriage" in the reason field.

It was awful, just awful. With hindsight I should have got my manager to step in, but I was extremely vulnerable and felt surrounded.

The good thing was that that arseholery was the final straw I needed to leave that purgatory workplace and find another job. I was interviewed just a couple of weeks after submitting that awful form and was pretty much hired on the spot. Surprise Surprise HR were absolutely horrible about my leaving as well (instituted a new rule about people leaving for competitors not getting leaving collections) but I had a full and frank exit interview with the managing partner in which I revealed to her all kind of "partners' decisions" rolled out by HR which had never even been tabled at partners' meetings. I should have liked to be a fly on the wall for the resulting conversation.

I loved my new job. I have recommended the move to several people, all of whom are vocal about their release.

OP, I think it is morally wrong that you are being asked for such detailed information. I can see for OH reasons it would be useful to clarify whether something is contagious or not, or work-related or not, or chronic or not, but I can't see why it's any of their business whether it's digestive or gynae (say).

There ought to be a Chinese wall between the HR and payroll functions in the system, so the guy who rang you logs on as one or the other of his functions eg Steve-HR or Steve-payroll. This is very common in IT systems where people have the equivalent of -user and -admin accounts with different access.

Reading with interest, and sympathy for the OP.

I have to record sickness absence in our office (public sector, ancient systems). Sickness info is sent to Payroll, so they can implement sickness pay, half pay or whatever. Payroll send on data to HR afterwards! This thread is making me think ...

As someone who works in payroll, we are responsible for entering sickness into the payroll system, along with the reason code. We pay over 24000 staff a month and can assure you we have zero interest in the reasons for an individual's sickness, but it's a mandatory data field so that the organisation can collate the sickness levels and monitor trends. Maybe your organisation is set up in a similar way and your payroll team are also responsible for entering the data?

It doesn't matter whether the person entering the details is 'interested', what's important is how much a person WANTS to share their personal and private information.

Neither need to know. Companies may retain the info so that they can spot trends - I.e if there are lots of stress absences the board may wish to know so that they can address it. But that should all be anonymous.

It is a break his of the DPA for sensitive personal information to be available to more people than necessary. If you continue to get questions I'd consider reporting them to the information commissioner who can impose sanctions.

It's not only about trends.

Certain illnesses will be exempt from absence triggers e.g. those covered under the equality act... pregnancy and those that would be considered to be a disability or related to a disability. That's why HR would need to know as they would be advising the management of absence or the need to amend triggers

But finance YANBU they only need to know if your wage / bonus is affected or not. Not the reason you are absent

Sistedtwister what's an "absence trigger" in this context? (question in earnest I am not having a go or anything)

Absence triggers refers to the number of days off sick that you can have off without triggering an investigation. The calculation for that can vary from place to place.

IE, I used to work int he MOD. We could have up to 14 days of sick a year before HR referred you to Occupational Health to see if there was anything behind the sick leave. However, some kinds of things, such as a one off op and recovery time, was excluded from the trigger calculation.

It was designed to catch out the "Monday moring hangover" brigade, or to catch people before they ended up off sick with stress, etc.

Thanks Rasberry - this is an organisational thing then, not directly linked to, say SSP.

As far as I can tell, as long as the Sick Pay rules are all met, there's no legal requirement to know the reason for sickness absences in order to pay SSP at least. Of course, employers may wish to make further stipulations about paying amounts over SSP.

I'm furious on your behalf, OP. Carry on digging as this seems an outrageous breach of your privacy. And good luck with the treatment.

MrsHathaway's story reminds me of a few years ago when I had breast cancer. I had surgery in late December and missed about a week's work in all as the rest of the time my place of work was shut. The bloody HR person in my department demanded I completed a return to work form as I refused to show her my hospital discharge letter, nor was I going to trouble the GP for a note. After much toing and froing I pointed out I'd actually worked from home during my sick leave (I had the records to prove it), so she needn't record it as sick leave after all. It was completely obvious she only wanted the information out of nosiness.

wasonthelist I didn't think you were having a go It's not only linked to pay. Organisations will manage absence based on frequency and duration whether they pay occupational sick pay or not (additional to SSP)

If an employee goes over what they see as an acceptable level this may trigger disciplinary action. Obviously pregnancy related absence will not be counted and with disability occupational health would advise an increase in how many days absence would be likely / acceptable so making a reasonable adjustment to the absence trigger. E.g my company would do an absence review which may result in a warning after 2 occasions or more than 10 days in 13 weeks. My triggers have been increase to 3 occasions due to an underlying medical condition.. this was advised by hr. If I hadn't told them why I was absent they wouldn't have known and I could have ended up out of a job.

Companies have to have these triggers to set expectations if absence rates rise out of control productivity falls so whether they pay you when you're off sick is actually irrelevant.

I work in HR and we advise managers how to deal with different types of absence. What is likely to fall under the equality act and where reasonable adjustments should be made. I'm sure some HR people are nosy but sometimes honestly we do need to know to help people and make sure managers are fair, act within the law and don't discriminate, but like I said finance only need to know if wages / bonuses should be paid nothing else

But finance doesn't need to know the details of the sickness, just the number of days. It doesn't matter whether it was caused by gastric flu or a broken collarbone or whatever else.

You poor thing, a close friend had this and it was just dreadful for her. Lots of hospital stays, surgery, invasive tests and a lot of pain.

Absolutely unacceptable the way you have been treated. YANBU.

Thanks everyone for the really informative background and insights into HR workings.

I think my employer allows up to 10 days absence before triggering a review - which in my case the absences are clearly justified and therefore there would be no further action. In a situation like that I absolutely wouldn't mind telling the appropriate person more details about my reasons for absence.

I hope to hear back from HR on Monday with a reply to my question of who, exactly, could access these sickness records on the system. I will update you all.