Sick pay wording

[mygenericusername]

If my contract says:

The company will pay you sick pay up to 40 hours per year

I work for two months at company x
I’m sacked in my second month Of employment
In that second month I have had two days off sick

Would you expect sick pay to be pro rated based on my time in employment

Or am I entitled to 2 days of sick pay.

Depends if there is a qualifying period or not during probation.

@mygenericusername

If my contract says:

The company will pay you sick pay up to 40 hours per year

I work for two months at company x
I’m sacked in my second month Of employment
In that second month I have had two days off sick

Would you expect sick pay to be pro rated based on my time in employment

Or am I entitled to 2 days of sick pay.

I'd expect it to be Pro Rata

Pro rata

Places I've previously worked sick pay as been 'on completion of probation period'.

Once you're entitled to it, I wouldn't expect it to be pro-rota. Ours was always X may days in a year period, so not start/end date to pro-rota from.

As with pp, I'd expect it to be pro-rate and subject to a probationary period.

I'd expect full pay for those two days if there's no caveat that says it only applies after your probation period

Entirely irrelevant, I’m just being nosy as hell. What did you do to get sacked? I’m assuming you meant fired as opposed to let go because your job was no longer needed/company in administration etc

Well I’d expect it to be pro rata, but as your pro rata allowance is (possibly, depending on exact timings) more than two days I’d expect you to be paid two days. So the lower of 2 days or your pro rata allowance

I didn’t get sacked @ButterflyAway. It’s my relatives very small business. She sacked an employee for not turning up on time persistently. She is now being sued for paying 7 hours of sick pay rather than 16 hours. There was no probationary period.

My opinion is that the wording isn’t specific enough but I like to over use words. Interested in the opinion of others.

@mygenericusername if they were contracted to 8 hour days she should pay 16 hours worth of sick pay

@mygenericusername

I didn’t get sacked *@ButterflyAway*. It’s my relatives very small business. She sacked an employee for not turning up on time persistently. She is now being sued for paying 7 hours of sick pay rather than 16 hours. There was no probationary period.

My opinion is that the wording isn’t specific enough but I like to over use words. Interested in the opinion of others.

If the contract doesn’t say it should be pro rated and there was no qualifying period / probationary period, then I would say she should pay for both sick days.

Any ambiguity in the wording would go in favour of the person that did not right the contract, so if it comes down to that, then I would expect the other person will win this.

*write the contract

🙄

Why are people are saying it will be pro rata? The contract doesn’t seem to say anything of the sort. The writer of the contract could have chosen to state that sick pay entitlement will be pro rated in the first year (and presumably upon termination as well) to reflect a part-year being worked, or for employees who serve less than a year, and they chose not to do so.

I would have expected 2 days of sick pay

If the contract said up to 40 hours of sick leave per year then she should have paid the employee in full for the two days she had off.

The wording implies "you get one week of sick pay each year". If your relative meant it to be pro rata or subject to probation being completed then the contract needs to have stated that.