question re warning for time off sick

[Triggles]

DH works for a large business. He missed a couple weeks of work (2 in May, 1 in September) and was signed off sick by GP from work. Then in December, he missed one more week of work, again signed off sick by GP. (We've just had one of those horrendous years for illness in our house as sometimes does happen) Not that it probably matters in this case, but just a note that this is all UNPAID sick leave.

Work attendance manager called him in and gave him a written warning. Policy states they are supposed to give a VERBAL warning first, but DH was never given one. Manager stated that he should have gotten a verbal warning, but due to an oversight, it was never done, so they went straight to written warning. Isn't this wrong? DH was absolutely horrified as he didn't see this coming as nothing had been said previously about this being an issue. Can they skip the verbal warning like this? Does anyone know how this works?

Triggles there is nothing actually written down anywhere specifying what warnings can and should be given, that's normally on the organisation's policy, as it is with your DH. I would expect the policy to say that if the situation is serious enough, the initial verbal warning stage will be 'skipped' and the individual will go straight to a written warning.

So technically, you can do that. However, it does sound like that isn't reasonable in these circumstances, if he should have had a verbal warning but due to someone else's mistake he didn't have one and wasn't even aware that his absence was a problem.

He should have been told how to appeal his warning, and I would suggest he does so and asks for it to be changed to a verbal warning as per the policy.

He's in the midst of trying to transfer within the company to another location as we are moving, and he's concerned this will be a problem. Not sure if he'll be willing to rock the boat yet. I think he may wait to see if the written warning causes a problem and then take it from there, as we should be getting decision on the transfer in the next week.

Thank you for the information. I'll pass it along to him and see what he says.

thats wrong. if the policy states that he should have been given a verbal first, then your husband can take them tpo court. I can find out the means of what legally this is. Excellent website www.acas.co.uk. you can ring them and give situation and they will give free advice. NBm your husbands work can NOT do this. Good luck

Afloss I think it's a bit premature to say that Triggles' DH can 'take them to court' if he feels the warning was unreasonable.

It sounds as though it may well have been unreasonable, and if he is not happy and wants to take it further, he must appeal it using the procedure he will have been given.

Triggles - thought it was interesting that you said the sick pay was unpaid. Even if there is no company sick pay entitlement he may have been entitled to statutory sick pay (although this only kicks in from the 4th day of absence).

It seems a bit odd that he takes a full week (or two) each time.

what i meant by he can take them to court, is that they are being unlawful. they cannot do things if they do not follow their written policies.

If he should follow his policy to take steps against the company, and he gets a case and they wont setle, a small claims court will. I am sure the best thing to do is follow the grievence policy

Afloss I'm sorry to keep on about this. I am always mindful that when people read these threads its often because they or someone they know is in a very similar position and they open the thread hoping for some helpful advice. Which means when someone posts advice which is factually and/or legally incorrect, I do want to put that straight.

Firstly it's not clear that Triggles' DH's employer haven't followed their own policy. As I mentioned before, I would expect there to be a clause in the disciplinary policy stating that if they consider the offence to be serious enough, they can skip the verbal warning stage. They might consider this to be serious enough as ordinarily for this level of absence he would have previously had a verbal warning already. I'm not saying I personally think that would be reasonable of them, but they could say that and it would be perfectly within their policy.

Secondly, just because a company doesn't follow it's own policy, doesn't necessarily make it 'unlawful'.

Thirdly, he shouldn't jump in and use the grievance procedure. He will have been told how he can appeal this disciplinary decision and should do so if he wants to. In most disciplinary policies it will state that the decision of an appeal panel or equivalent will be final.

Fourthly, a small claims court wouldn't handle something like this, it would be an Employment Tribunal.

Fifthly, what 'case' do you feel he would have? What would he be claiming? He has had no financial loss, so what 'settlement' would they make?

We have not had any indication that Triggles' DH feels he is being discriminated against so he has nothing to 'claim' at the moment. In the unlikely event that he does something else within the next few months and is dismissed because he is already on a written warning, he might then have a case for unfair dismissal. But that hasn't happened. Even if Triggles' Dh decides to appeal the decision and doesn't actually succeed in getting it changed, the warning will expire off his record in (usually) 6 months anyway.

I am sorry to labour the point, but I do get a bit fed up with people on here and in RL at the first sight of anything unfair, leaping in and suggesting the person consider some kind of legal action. This is not America, where as I understand it, they are far more inclined to sue someone who blows their nose too loud causing them to drop their car keys down a drain, and similar ridiculous claims.

Even if Triggles' DH does disagree with the action they have taken, there is no legal 'case' and he should not be contemplating legal action because of this.

Once again apologies for picking you up on everything, but I would be concerned to think that someone reading this and in a similar position might threaten their employer with a case in the small claims court or similar.

yes. i agree with what you are saying but.. i do think its a bit deep. i never said that he had to do anything now if i read my last post again. having been in this situation, although for a slightly different reason, i do know companies have to follow their own policies, at least in my line of work, or how can they bring something to disciplinary?a grievence procedure is quite a mundane policy, and can be used for the smallest of things that dint go any further than people standing up for themselves and isnt it they who are threatening him with action, not the other way round... all i hope is that it goes ok for him. isnt that what we all should be thinking?

saying that, i am not picking a fight, certainly its all about freedom of speech isnt it?

good luck triggles DH

Triggles - you say that the manager called him in and gave him a written warning. Did they give him at least 24hrs notice before the meeting? He should have had chance to prepare and arrange somebody to go to the hearing with him.
This is the only way I can see the company may have breeched law - you dont have to give a verbal if the situation warrents it.

The manager did give him 24 hours notice before the meeting. I think DH's biggest issue with this is that he was specifically told that he would have gotten a verbal warning, however, they said he should have gotten a verbal warning last time he was ill but through an oversight or simple error, nobody did it. And it wasn't mentioned to him. So this time they went straight to written warning, even though he was never actually given a verbal warning in any way. To me, it's like saying "well, we forgot to follow procedure, so we're skipping it and going straight to the written warning." So now, he's been told if he misses even 1 more night sick, he'll probably be sacked. Which I have to say is a bit insane. And yes, their policy states verbal warning then written warning.

We're still waiting on the transfer info, although they've apparently sent off email to the other location stating that he has a clean work record and is a great worker. It's such a puzzle, really. But then, this is a place that wrote up somebody for being off sick after he had a heart attack, even though he came back earlier than recommended by GP!

He doesn't get paid sick leave, and we've never done the statutory sick leave. I imagine it's probably something we should have looked into, but that's really not the issue here.

I'm not going to bother to go into the "it seems a bit odd that he takes a week or two off" comment, as it is not only irrelevant, but comes off as being a bit judgemental, when the poster doesn't even know the circumstances of the illness. He was ill and signed off by GP. Again, specifically WHY he was off (other than the fact that he was ill) is not relevant to the issue.

Oh, and he's certainly not looking at going to court. He doesn't feel he has been discriminated against for any particular reason, just that they have bypassed normal company policy. I suppose if it affects the transfer, he may take it further either by appeal or through employment tribunal, if it's still within the time frame.

I suppose it's irrelevant anyway. It's not like he would have been well enough to go to work when he was signed off anway, so either way he still would have been off sick during that time. big sigh It's just frustrating.
I'm sure we're not the only ones that have had a rotten year for illness. Hopefully 2008 will be much better.