Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Work

Chat with other users about all things related to working life on our Work forum.

Flip

Original poster

Medical suspension

23 replies

andyoldlabour · 20/02/2020 12:19

If a company has put you on medical suspension, should you have to provide them with medical certificates?
If it is the company's decision to suspend you, even if you are quite willing to go to work, then should they be paying you at the normal rate?

OP posts:

Dinosauraddict · 20/02/2020 12:47

It really depends on the reason for the medical suspension, and how long it's due to last (they should've outlined this in a letter to you ideally?) but normally it would be on full pay. However, if they've offered you alternative (safe) work that you've turned down, for example, then that's a different story.

GodwinsRulebook · 20/02/2020 12:47

Doesn't that depend on whether you're fit to work?

I don't know your specific situation - and you probably don't want & shouldn't give details, but you may think you are fit to work, but you actually may not be.

personal experience of trying to work with a colleague in a hypermanic phase of bipolar who was then sectioned

maxelly · 20/02/2020 16:48

Medical suspension usually is on full pay, yes, and no, by definition if you have a doctors note saying you are unfit to work, you are on sick leave not medical suspension.

However, depending on the circumstances of why you are on medical suspension, they may well quite reasonably want you to attend your GP or their Occupational Health service asap to confirm your fitness to work. Like a PP said, medical suspension is quite unusual and is usually only used where there is some dispute or lack of clarity over the person's fitness to work. Examples I have come across are where the person feels they are well enough to be in work and may not even have been to the doctor, but the employer has reasonable grounds to suspect they are unwell (e.g. serious mental health concerns), or where a GP signs someone fit to work but there are particular issues or H&S requirements at the workplace which mean it's safer to not allow the person back without proper medical clearance (e.g. physical work in challenging/dangerous environments). In both circumstances (if I was the HR advising the employer), I would want the person to seek medical advice asap either from their own doctor or from our OH as appropriate, and wouldn't be keen for them simply to stay on medical suspension effectively in limbo for longer than necessary. Is something like this going on for you OP (you don't have to post details if outing)?

HappyHammy · 20/02/2020 16:51

Have you been suspended on medical grounds

Original poster

andyoldlabour · 20/02/2020 23:09

Ocupational health have been involved, but work has insisted that the person be 100% fit in order to return to work before they return.
OH have said in their reports that it is a workplace injury - RSI and other injuries .
Yes, the person has been suspended on medical grounds, and wants to return to work ASAP, but work is not letting them.

OP posts:

flowery · 20/02/2020 23:26

Have OH said person is 100% fit to do the job? Or only fit if adjustments are made?

Original poster

andyoldlabour · 21/02/2020 00:01

No flowery, work has said that person is only fit for work if person returns at 100% without any help, which they are not fit to do.
OH has said that person is definitely not 100% and needs gentltereturn to work - phased duties and light work.

OP posts:

reginafelangee · 21/02/2020 00:06

You would be best to call acas.

flowery · 21/02/2020 07:08

How is it medical suspension then? Person isn’t fit for work. Phased return and light duties might enable them to return but there is no requirement for the employer to agree to those. If the employer can’t/won’t agree adjustments to allow someone who is not fully fit to return to work, person stays off sick until they are fit.

Actual medical suspension is pretty unusual. This is a simple case of someone not being fit to work unless duties are adjusted and employer being unwilling or unable to do so, which is perfectly common.

Who are you in this- you keep referring to “person”?

HappyHammy · 21/02/2020 11:31

So the person has a work related injury affecting their ability to do their job safely and independently?. Oh suggest they can work on reduced hours and duties. Work dont agree and want person fully fit and able to work unsupervised. Is it realistic that person can reduce duties."light duties" may not exist in that role. Is it nursing? Continue sending fit notes. Do physio or whatever treatment plan has been suggested. Go to OH and HR meetings if called. Ask your Union for advise.

Original poster

andyoldlabour · 21/02/2020 14:40

Just a quick update. I am the person who does the payroll and I know the suspended person quite well. He has been at the firm for four years, good worker, not in a union (none of us are). His job is half manual, half admin. He had a bad leg injury last year (workplace injury, not his fault) and on his return to work, the company said they only want him back 100% fit. They suspended him in October and he has been on SSP ever since. I think they should be paying him full pay, but HR disagrees with me.

OP posts:

Bluntness100 · 21/02/2020 14:44

If he has a work place injury he potentially has a claim, if he is not fit to do his job, or fifty percent of it, then medical suspension may be the best option, it is up to the employer ultimately. They need to follow the ssp process or it opens them up to all sort of back dated and future claims.

However, if he can prove his employer was at fault, and this was not just an accident that could not be reasonably prevented by them, or his fault for ignoring the safety requirements, then he may have a claim,that would make him whole.

That would be his route to go down.

maxelly · 21/02/2020 14:51

Kind of you to check on this man's behalf, but I think your HR are right, and they are the ones qualified to know and in full possession of the facts so you should go with what they say IMO. As Flowery says, if someone isn't fit to do their full role then they are off sick, and so SSP applies. It's good for employers to offer adjustments and phased return, light duties etc. and usually mutually beneficial to do so, but they aren't obliged to and sometimes it isn't possible. In that case the employee has to stay off sick on SSP until they are well enough to come back to their full role. The fact it was a workplace injury might mean they are more motivated to help him/morally obliged to do so, but doesn't affect whether its SSP or not I'm afraid.

You and your colleagues would be well advised to join a union, you can join even if your employer doesn't currently recognise one, and then if you get enough members you can formally request the union to be recognised (but until then the union can still advise you on employment related matters).

HappyHammy · 21/02/2020 15:19

He should speak to the union ACAS and ask for their advice. Is he going to make an injury claim if it was entirely their fault, can he claim temporary disability allowance which I did in similar circumstances but that was a while back so I don't know if its still around. Has he sought legal advice about his injury.

flowery · 21/02/2020 20:51

”I think they should be paying him full pay, but HR disagrees with me.”

With the greatest respect, if you are doing payroll, your job is to pay people what you are told to pay them and administer/advise on statutory payments. Whether, either morally or legally, the employer “should” pay someone more isn’t for you to say.

In this case, if he isn’t fit for work then unless the employer has enhanced sick pay provision, they only need to pay him SSP, and yes he needs to provide fit notes.

If his absence is a result of negligence on the part of the company he may have a personal injury claim and loss of earnings may form part of that claim. But that’s separate, and if the employer has decided to not pay more than they are obliged to, that’s up to them.

Bluntness100 · 22/02/2020 08:22

are you involved with this man? It’s odd that you would get involved to this level if your role is to process payroll, not make the salary decisions.

Clearly the policy needs to be adhered in terms of ssp,as otherwise everyone past and present has a case on why they weren’t on full pay, and giving full pay may amount to an admission the accident was their fault.

It’s just curious why you’re involved to this level in something that is actually not within your remit?

Original poster

andyoldlabour · 22/02/2020 10:20

Bluntness100

"I am the person who does the payroll and I know the suspended person quite well"

From 14:40 yesterday.
I think HR have made a mistake and do not freally wish to gey caught up with it, because my experience as someone who has processed payroll for many years, is that people with issues with regard to their pay, tend to make a beeline for the payroll administrator, rather than the people who make the decisions.

"Medical suspension is a period during which an employee is suspended from work on full pay whilst the employer investigates the employee’s health condition."

www.qcs.co.uk/medical-suspension-of-an-employee/

"The employee has the right to normal pay (including bonuses) for up to 26 weeks, as long as they’ve been in their job for a month or more."

www.gov.uk/medical-suspensions-from-work

OP posts:

HappyHammy · 22/02/2020 13:15

I would advise your colleague to speak to ACAS or HR. You dont know how far the investigstion has gone. Its not your job to get too involved.

flowery · 22/02/2020 13:39

If he’s got OH confirmation that he isn’t fit for work then it isn’t “medical suspension”- it’s standard sickness absence. Nothing you say suggests any different.

flowery · 22/02/2020 14:55

On what basis do you think HR have made a mistake? He’s not fit for work. He’s not at work as a result of that. You’ve been instructed to pay him SSP. All of that is perfectly standard and normal, and is surely something you do all the time?

Where has the “mistake” come in?

Original poster

andyoldlabour · 22/02/2020 20:05

Because he has shown me a letter from HR, clearly stating that he is on medical suspension.

OP posts:

HappyHammy · 22/02/2020 20:13

I know you're his friend but getting involved might not be the best thing, his suspension is confidential and maybe sharing all this info could go against you both. Why doesnt he discuss it with HR or join a Union. Some organisations discourage meetings and discussions with other staff while they are suspended.

flowery · 22/02/2020 22:02

Ok, so their mistake is referring to it as medical suspension when all it is is him not being fit to work and the employer being unable/unwilling to make the necessary adjustments to enable him to return. They probably thought calling it medical suspension sounded better.

Either way, you need to stay out of it and encourage him to talk to his line manager or HR if he thinks there is an error or thinks he is entitled to more pay.

Flip