DH has been called to a disciplinary meeting

[curriegirl]

Next week by HR.

He is a bit worried. It is for a 2 week absence last month when he was off for an operation. dH was upfront from the start about the surgery. Work saw all letters from the assessment to the surgery dates. He said he knew he'd be off for one week. They were OK with that and just asked to be kept informed. He felt fine on the Friday which was 7 days post op and intended on returning to work on the Monday but felt ill Sunday night. He called to say he was trying to get an emergency appointment with his GP and would phone straight after which he did. He was signed off for week 2 as he got an infection.

DH is just a bit confused why he is now being called in for a persistent and prolonged absence when he was completely honest with them. Why is it now a problem. Any thoughts?

[atticusclaw2]

Yes but remember everyone that until someone has been employed for 2 years they can be dismissed without the ability to then bring an unfair dismissal claim. Its perfectly possible that there are other issues with the OP's DP and that the business simply wants rid.

Just because HR best practice say that things should be done in a certain way doesn't mean an employer has to do them that way. If they don't they might run the risk of a claim but that will depend on the length of service and other circumstances (whether the employee could demonstrate that the treatment was due to a protected characteristic)

[daisychain01]

The policy does allow for common sense and humanity trouble is the people implementing the policy don't always have enough of either!

[daisychain01]

I have to say I despair when I read things like this. A genuine absence, all the correct procedure followed with the line manager and the employee being sent a random sounding communication that doesn't map to reality.

If there is a process to be followed, fair enough but the least they, HR or whoever, can do is tailor the communication to be relevant and commensurate to the employee's circumstances. Talking about persistent absence sounds nonsensical in this context and make the employer look incompetent

Makes the process look ridiculous, potentially adds to the employee's stress when they have had a genuine medical issue, and does nothing to contribute to productivity.

Hope yr DH is OK and they look suitably embarrassed at his meeting curriegirl

[dealmefive]

Same thing happened to my husband - the end result was basically what LoveAnchor described. He was off ill with a persistent stomach complaint for a week, then a month later was rushed in for an emergency appendectomy, the second absence triggered the review.

[hollinhurst84]

I have been through various stages. Mostly it's "don't go off sick for a year" or you trigger another stage

[Dixiechickonhols]

Is he in a union? If so speak to rep and ask if they will attend with him.

If not i'd take a trusted colleaugue to make notes, company will be at least 2 people there.

[LoveAnchor]

I went through a similar process and felt terrible about it, throughout the rather long sequence of warning and disciplinary meetings that this shite policy triggered. I was on good terms with my manager and have no reasons to believe that anyone was questioning whether the absence was genuine. It was just the policy, and unavoidable at that.

In my case I was off sick for a week, then worked from home, then my chest infection got worse and I was signed off by GP again for a few days. The policy (which I have never heard of prior to this) was 10 days absence in a calendar year, or 4 separate absences in a calendar year.

The resolution was to reduce my sick allowance for the next 6 months by half, and if I stay within those absence limits then that's that; otherwise stage 2 disciplinary meetings, further investigation etc. It was insulting - telling a person who has just recovered that they are no longer 'allowed' to be off sick is insulting; if anything, someone who's just recovered from an illness needs to be more careful, and look after themselves more, not less. But I've not been off sick in the next 6 months, and after a few check-up meetings the matter was forgotten.

I was in banking so the policy was created in response to call center staff skyving. I wasn't in the call center but it was blanket policy for everyone. I think this policy is shamefully wrong.

I would second the PP advice to not try to be nice or maintain a conversation, but just factually, briefly and to the point answer all the questions, and get it over and done with. Fingers crossed all will be fine.

[BurningBridges]

On what planet is 2 weeks post operative sickness "persistent absence"?!

[Karoleann]

I had a similar thing after my apendectomy a few years ago and pointed out that if I took more time off to attend the disciplinary I would be seeing less patients.
Sent the dates and times of the op and the subsequent drs letter and heard nothing more.

[curriegirl]

They took a days annual leave off him for the operation. They told him that what they were doing.

[Wigeon]

My workplace absence policy has triggers for various levels of absence, and requires the line manager to hold a formal meeting with the reportee after they have hit one of the triggers. If the absence can be shown to be genuine, and unlikely to be repeated, then the employee doesn't have to be given a formal written warning.

Have just been through this with a member of staff. The policy does allow for common sense and humanity too, but you still have to hold the meeting.

[Dontlaugh]

Just wondering why he took day of operation as AL? Where I work, that would be sick leave, planned, and then post op would be planned sick leave for recovery. So all one absence. Perhaps this is now not working in his favour.

[ComtesseDeSpair]

It would trigger a disciplinary at my work, simply as a matter of protocol: in a situation like your DH's the actual disciplinary meeting would be straightforward and result in no actual disciplinary taking place, but as a result of people swinging the lead in the past there's now a strict HR procedure in place which is automatically applied to everyone so that there's complete transparency and no room for accusations that some staff are receiving favourable treatment.

It's a waste of time imo resulting in pointless paperwork and an example of the behaviour of a minority making things difficult for the majority.

[InternalMonologue]

Annual leave will count as not being off sick, so if he had 4 days, AL day, then 5 days that will count as 2 absences.

His boss may well be understanding but if it's a large company it will be an automatic procedural thing. Try not to worry too much. At the company I worked for you were "allowed" three absences before HR would call a meeting.

[WhoTheFuckIsSimon]

It'll be a storm in a tea cup, they have to tick the boxes.

I was off sick after my dad died for two weeks as I was in bits. Only sickness ive had in five years. I was sent for a disciplinary. Everyone looked suitably embarrassed, stared at the floor, muttered that they hoped I was ok now and that was that.

[curriegirl]

Very large company but not public services. Will just need to see what Tuesday brings. Thanks all for helping. Appreciate it very much.

[atticusclaw2]

If an employee is disabled then reasonable adjustments are likely to be necessary and this might include discounting the absences (to an extent)

If you are just ill then it's unfortunate but lots of organisations will come down hard on non attendance even if it's genuine. If the employee has more than two years' service then the employer must follow a fair process. If the employee has less than two years service then actually they could be dismissed after just one day's absence since they wouldn't have the ability to bring a claim of unfair dismissal (although might have a discrimination claim if they are disabled and the absence related to the disability).

[wannabestressfree]

Attitcus what happens when the person is disabled? What if you are just ill? Its no one's fault.....
When I read these I am so glad I work in education....

[Youarentkiddingme]

It seems of be very common from discussions I've had with people lately. Any absence sets off a procedure to go through a disciplinary.
My local do op tells employees they can only have 3 days sickness in total per year - any more results in a warning.

[IonaNE]

Does your DH work for a large company/public service? E.g like HRMC or DWP? If so, the letter could be a computer generated one, some robot noticed the number of days he was absent for and the letter got sent out without having gone through any human hands.

[atticusclaw2]

They shouldn't class it as two absences since it wasn't two absences.

In all likelihood he'll just get told to keep an eye on his attendance and that will be that.

[purplefizz26]

Can they look at it as two separate absences when he didn't actually return to work in-between?

To me, it was 1 absence period of 2 weeks, for 1 illness that was prolonged by an infection!

Doesn't sound like they have a leg to stand on to give out any warnings, I wouldn't worry.

[atticusclaw2]

it will be an attendance/absence management meeting. An employee can potentially be dismissed fairly for poor attendance even if the reason for the absence was completely genuine. He may well get a stage 1 warning.

(I'm an employment lawyer)

[MrsBertMacklin]

Well hopefully it is a matter of procedure. Even if they 'know' that he was genuinely ill, if their policy states sickness over x days / x periods may be classed as a disciplinary offence, they have to investigate.

If they don't, then they discipline someone else on those grounds, they could find themselves in trouble.

I investigated and wanted to discipline an employee for leaving work without permission, but he raised the fact that the old boss knew that a colleague did this and he got away with an informal warning, i.e. no disciplinary action. Legal advice was that we'd be on a sticky wicket if we went for gross misconduct.

[curriegirl]

Thanks. Will pass that on. Yes, he can take someone with him if he wants to.