Taking holiday when on long term sick leave

[BananaWaving]

From what I have seen online, apparently annual leave still accrues even when on sick leave.

It seems a bit cheeky, but has anyone taken annual leave when they are on long term sick leave so that they get full pay for that time instead of the reduced sick pay amount?

Also, has anyone who works in HR come across this being done?

Thanks.

Yep, my employer is a global company and it is a contractual benefit for me.

'Very rare for something like this to be a contractual benefit.'

Phi would usually be seen as a contractual benefit even if it's not mentioned in the contract. It can be contractual via written policy or just by custom and practice.

I think even with Group income protection, it’s likely after a year or two, you’ll be offered a settlement agreement but it should be a good amount.

Yes, you do accrue holiday and often HR will suggest you take it. I personally wouldn’t lift an eyelid at someone on sick leave going on holiday. Sometimes pain or drugs put them through hell and it’s cathartic to get away.

@Cookie77777 I don’t think it’s rare, mine is a contractual benefit at a certain level of coverage. I can increase the level of cover as an additional benefit.

It’s quite standard in my industry (financial services, City based). It’s offered to all senior managers as a matter of course, as one of the perks. It’s kind of expected at a certain grade, alongside things like 10% non-contributory pension, top notch health insurance fully paid for, death in service payment of minimum 3 x annual wage etc. Without it, people would expect higher wages, so it’s swings and roundabouts I guess!

Yes you can request your annual leave each year.

I would ask them how it works in your company as you would like to take your annual leave.

Re the income replacement policy. It would be very unusual to end your employment and very risky for the company to try as you are guaranteed pay until retirement provided you meet the policy terms.

If they make any noises to suggest they are thinking about dismissal take legal advice or ask ACAS for help.

I think you've misunderstood this clause. It means the policy applies to people up to.state pension age, but not older employees. It's not generally about how long payment will go on for.

Usually your HR manual will cover the policy on medical retirement and how long you can stay on sick leave.

Hmm but they still have you „on the books“ which could stop them recruiting for a replacement as their headcount hasn’t reduced in the way it would do if you’d left . That’s in my experience though, your employer may view it differently. It’s not just about them not having to pay a wage.

Off on a bit of a tangent, but what happens if premiums go up and the company decides to change policy - would the OP’s benefits change, or would she be protected as someone who is already off on LT sick? I know that the organisation I work for stopped similar insurance after premiums leapt up, due to one person being off for a period of sickness (and in her case this was less than a year).

I can't. I'm either sick or on annual leave.
If you have annual leave then go back to being sick it's a new episode. @BananaWaving how can they keep your job if you're likely to be off sick for years ? Wouldn't they let you go on medical grounds ? We'd be medically retired.

It’s not a new episode, for the purpose of contractual sick pay we would count this as the same episode.

You can’t medically retire or sack or fire etc if there’s an income protection plan which the employee could benefit from, because that would mean that they couldn’t claim on it, and the employer can’t restrict the benefit.

All depends on how companies manage their cost centres.

Plus in huge organisations hits like this are easily absorbed. And don’t forget that a lot of the benefits companies pay to employees are tax deductible so notwithstanding the headcount issue, the net cost of keeping someone on, with income protection, is potentially negligible.

The main loss is often the value that the employee generated.

and of premiums go up the company can look around at other suppliers. They’re not tied to one provider just because there’s an open claim.

This is not correct. There are other costs that employer occurs for having you employed, not just your salary -
so called overheads. So it will cost them to have you on their books even if they don’t pay you your salary.

But this isnt entirely accurate as it all depends on the wording of the contract, or the employers policy re: the benefit.

If the contract specifically provides for capability dismissal whilst receiving PHI/IP benefit then they can likely dismiss following due process with low risk.

Which yes can make IP a bit pointless to offer in a way but the same goes for companies who offer very long contractual sick pay periods but have a clause that allows for capability dismissal before contractual entitlement is exhausted.

It all comes down to how the contract is worded.