Threatened with disciplinary after 3 absences

[Acecarad]

I moved to UK to work in NHS 6 months ago. I had an absences of 1 day for diarrhoea and vomiting. Two months later, I got an insect bite in my neck, with caused an allergy, making my neck and throat sell up where I could only take fluids and no solid food. It was very painful and needed steroids to get rud of it. Now I have gotten bronchitis after a cold. I stayed in work and some colleagues and patients were telling me I shouldn't be there as I was coughing so much but my manager threatened disciplinary proceedings if I took another day sick. I have been to thr GP 3 times for different medications, steroids, antibiotics, inhalers to stop the coughing, but it is stll so bad I'm vomiting periodically with it. I have also lost the hearing on one side due to the virus. I haven't been sleeping because of all this snd now feel really exhausted. I emailed ma ager this morning and said I would be absent today, but if the inhalers I was given worked I would be I tomorrow. My manger emailed back to Sat she was sorry I was sock but as I had 3 absences within a year, she had to initiate disciplinary proceeding. I have never been the subject of disciplinary proceedings before. I am thinking of just handing in my notice and goigsck to Ireland. One colleague also said I should toughen up about sickness and just get on with it

So yes, 3 times in 6 months seems a lot to me, unless you've got some underlying condition. I have a friend who's off sick with something or other at least once a month, I think she should be tested because I really don't think it's normal.

Can you give us a clear description of all the traits of what a 'normal' person is?

I’d also like to know about the proposed test and its relevance to the OP – could she be tested for an underlying condition that causes 1 instance of D&V, 1 allergic reaction and 1 episode of bronchitis? It must be a fascinating condition.

We have a meeting with our line manager if we have 3 in 6 months but its like what Ebearhug writes.

It is entirely standard in education as well. Three periods of sickness in any rolling 12 month period would trigger a meeting.

It's fairly shit, considering pupils bring in colds/flu etc all the time and pass it on. It is why many teachers drag themselves into work feeling like death.

It’s fairly easily to sack employees who have worked for the company for under 2 years, not unique to my company. 3 occasions in a rolling 12 months or more than 9 days in a year would trigger procedures for full timers. OP has breached that in 6 months. I get sick pay. Many companies have worse policies.

Where is the breach? Employees of under 2 years have hardly any rights in the UK, not unique to my employer. OP has been sick 3 times in the first 6 months.

Because the process is called the 'Disciplinary process' it's very standard and 3 absences in 6 months would have triggered it in every company I've worked in.

Generally the stages of a Disciplinary process are:

• verbal warning
• written warning
• final written warning
• employment termination

Steps can be skipped if it's a gross misconduct or very short term employment situation.

Likely outcome of 1st stage for sickness absence would be to reiterate the sickness policy, explain that another occasion within the 12 month rolling period is likely to result in a further disciplinary meeting and next stage, and to establish whether there are any underlying conditions or personal/work issues causing the employee to call in sick and to offer support.

Thanks again for replies. I spoke to my partner tonight and I am going to give notice in on 1st Nov. It's 3 x months notice, so I'll be here until 1st Feb. I'll just be worried all the time if I stay in case I have another bout of sickness, twisted an ankle - I have arthritis so that could easily happen, etc At this stage of life it's not worth the stress. There are plenty of jobs in Ireland though not as interesting

Because the process is called the 'Disciplinary process' it's very standard and 3 absences in 6 months would have triggered it in every company I've worked in.

Yes, and my point was that it should not be called that, even though it commonly is called that by employers who don't respect their employees.

'Discipline' has a very strong suggestion that you have done wrong and need to modify your behaviour; getting genuinely sick is not your own fault, usually cannot be avoided and so what exactly are they expecting you to 'modify'?

The clear answer is that they assume you are lying about being sick and are trying to frighten you into stopping lying. It's extremely difficult to stop lying when you haven't been lying in the first place.

Are you in management that you have to give 3 months notice?

I’m an NHS manager, is sickness management, not disciplinary action as such.

Stage 1 is very informal and you will just be monitored. We all have to follow similar guidance set out by the each Trust.

It is a time consuming and unnecessary process in many cases which is frustrating for managers and upsetting for staff but for most people, with the right support, they don’t ever go past stage 1.

Some people do have periods of increased sickness but they move through and things improve. There is the occasional person who is absolutely taking the pee and these are the people I try and focus on.

This is so depressing. People get sick. You would expect an organisation whose sole purpose is to look after sick people would understand this. So on the one hand medical professionals no doubt tell people to focus on getting better and not to work when they are clearly unwell and on the other they are being disciplined for being unwell. No wonder we can't get and keep staff. It is the same in teaching.

No Jethia, I am not management but a senior clinical position. Doyouthinktheyknow - it's helpful to know the process from someone who is in management and does manage sickness

Your sickness... from experience they ask you how you will improve it and often give a target like no sickness for 12 months or they will move to stage 2

It’s a one size fits all process which isn’t really fit for purpose and I think a decent manager knows the difference between someone with health issues that may need additional support to improve their attendance and someone who is abusing the system.

We have to follow the system in both situations but the last thing most teams want is to lose any staff so I support my team through it with lots of reassurance, supervision and Occ health support.

It will be an informal stage 1 meeting op so don't stress about it! It will be to see how you are and what can be done if anything to help you.

I'm currently waiting for a formal stage 3 sickness meeting (nhs) . I've had several illness's over the last year all genuine and it's brought me to this point. I'm also in my 50s and struggling with awful menopause symptoms, had covid, vertigo, DV, migraine and 2 bereavements. It's been a shit year. There doesn't seem to be any recognition that as you get older you can't just bounce back from illness like you can when you're in your 20s. We are held to the same standard as people half our age. Seems unfair.

I really wouldn't worry about a stage 1 sickness meeting. I went up to the next stage, a Stage 1 Review couple of years ago and it came off my record after only 6 months. I was kind of fortunate that I got covid a week or two before the nhs removed it from being exempt from being counted towards sickness recording.

Everyone on my team is currently on at least a Stage 1 at present and no one worries about it.

Unfortunately we have one colleague who has been in once in the last two years and only now have HR gotten round to termination.

So it's very unlikely you're going to lose your job over this.

To the both of you, if you’re off sick once a month (as my ‘not normal’ comment was referring to someone who’s off that often) then yes I do think some testing should be going on to figure out why you get sick that often 💁🏽‍♀️

With regard to the OP’s specific combination of conditions, all I had to comment was that is also a lot of time off in 6 months. It might be a fluke or OP might be one to those who regularly gets struck down by an odd combination of things. Maybe next month it will be a strike of lightning

Your sickness... from experience they ask you how you will improve it and often give a target like no sickness for 12 months or they will move to stage 2

So they want to know how you will improve various random sicknesses that can (and usually do) beset just about anybody - not necessarily long-standing reasonably manageable conditions at all?

They give you a 'target' to not catch a virus that's going around, to not slip on a wet floor or to not be stung by an insect that can give you a severely allergic reaction? Really?

Yep same here. 3 times in 12 months and we have a meetinh

An insect bite is NOT a strange thing to be off sick with for goodness sake! I take awful reactions to insect bites and have ended up in hospital due to cellulitis and sepsis because of them. Get your facts right before posting if you know nothing about medical conditions.

It’s normally 48 or 72 hours to stay off for D&V. We wouldn’t that spread that about with staff.

OP you have been unlucky with your health, however as an employer we’d have raised your instances of illness in a concerned way. Most employers would have raised it.

Yep. I was asked about improving my attendance. Had triggered it following a period issue (big bleed post miscarriage) and a herniated disc

It’s a one size fits all process which isn’t really fit for purpose

Actually it is entirely fit for purpose. Of course managers know who is swinging the lead and who isn't. And once upon a time managers would sack people with impunity because it was their opinion that people were taking the proverbial. Then Employment Tribunals got involved and a number of employers were taken to the cleaners, quite rightly, because they could not prove that the employees were taking the proverbial. Hence proper sickness monitoring was introduced based on evidence.

I am old enough to recall, in public service, some employees saying that they needed to go off sick because they "hadn't taken their allowance this year" - when people get full pay for being off sick with absolutely no consequences then some, a minority, will exploit that. Some people took 6+ months of sick every 12 - 18 months. They had doctors notes and everything. Many of them suffered from "bad backs". That's why having a bad back became such a joke - an unproveable condition that the GP cannot dispute.

So the policy is entirely fit for purpose - it sets targets, it provides support to those who need it, and it ultimately terminates those who take too much time off sick. Oddly, the purpose of working is to work, and not be off sick; and there is a reason why sickness rates are highest where people get paid sick periods (and I think everyone should have at least some fully paid periods of sickness - so I am not arguing that paid sickness absence is a bad thing).

Incidentally, actioning stage 3 (termination) before contractual sick pay is exhausted is a breach of contract and has been held to be unfair in law, so whilst employers in the public sector, who routinely offer up to six months full and six months half pay can complete that stage, they cannot action the termination until sick pay is exhausted. That is up to 12 months paid sick leave. Which is pretty "fit for purpose".

If the OP wants to flounce off because, as a senior clinical members of staff, they don't understand that there needs to be sickness absence procedures then that is worrying - they seem to be operating on the assumption that they will need to have lots more periods of sickness rather than this being a bad run and unusual. As a fellow arthritis sufferer (disabled in law, highest rate of PIP in both categories) it is always a possibility, but I have no expectation that I will sprain my ankle or have a bout of sickness. But my last period of sickness, which was after surgery, was 10 weeks in 2018; I did end up in the sickness management process, and it resulted in huge levels of support for my return to work and staying in work. But yes, it was made clear, quite rightly, that a return to work and sustained attendance would be an expectation. I saw no problem with that because that is what I wanted too.

Oddly, the purpose of working is to work, and not be off sick; and there is a reason why sickness rates are highest where people get paid sick periods (and I think everyone should have at least some fully paid periods of sickness - so I am not arguing that paid sickness absence is a bad thing).

If you don't want human employees - who are subject to human sicknesses - then you have to run your business solely with robot 'staff'.

Of course, we all know that there are people who royally take advantage of paid sickness leave and claim to be sick when they are not at all; but has it not occurred to you that the opposite may also be a factor?

Do you not think that some people who are really too sick to be at work - and will pass on goodness knows how many bugs and viruses to everybody else, but who know that they will not be able to pay their bills and put food on the table if they don't go in to work anyway - will come in to the workplace against all wisdom and maybe represent a danger to themselves and/or others?

I may be misunderstanding you, but you seem to me to share the common opinion that anybody can get sick a bit of the time, but people who suffer significantly worse sickness than average simply do not exist and therefore must be lying/taking advantage/should not be allowed or trusted to work. Othering in extremis.

I feel badly for you op. As someone who is allergic to wasps I can really sympathise. You’ve been unlucky and some people do get more chest infections and stomach bugs than others. I don’t think you are swinging the lead at all. It’s just crap that the few people who do swing the lead make it harder for everyone else 💐