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?

[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.

[BurningBridges]

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

[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.

[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.

[hollinhurst84]

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

[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.

[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

[daisychain01]

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

[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)