Change in informal sickness policy

[Velmy]

Our contracts state no sick pay (outside of SSP). However, the company has always paid people their full salary when off sick. We've never asked for Drs notes. Very much a trust system.

Company is - to be honest - too lax on this and various other things, in part because until now there hasn't been anyone with the remit to manage an absence process.

A junior employee has recently been asked for a Drs note to cover an ongoing absence, for the purposes of SSP. This has come as quite a shock to said employee and will have a significant impact on their finances next month (they are currently on their 9th day of absence).

For clarity, this person had another extended period of absence earlier in the year (also completely legitimate). They were paid in full.

Employee has contacted me (not officially their boss but a 'senior' employee) asking if this is a 'policy change' (in which case they feel it should have been communicated) or if they're being singled out due to their previous absence, in which case they feel like they're being treated unfairly.

My question - legally, should this change in 'unofficial' policy have been communicated, or is the fact that contractually the company offers no sick pay enough to cover it?

To further muddy the waters, employee has (off their own back) been working from home while ill. Obviously not to full capacity, but covering urgent stuff and responding to emails. Could they claim that they have been WFH on that basis and therefore deserve at least partial payment?

I have advised them to contact our external HR service, but they are reluctant to do this in the first instance if it can be resolved internally.

Fact is, said employee can self cert 7 days. They are on day 9 so a certificate is needed.

Whatever policies are in place, they wont trump that requirement.

And as for WFH while ill, well then they are just plain fucking stupid to do that. Either this person is ill or they are not.

Agree with the post above. A sick note is a requirement from the 8th continuous day of sickness - the company can request it whatever they have done before. Perhaps there is now someone whose job it is to chase these things up and ensure sick pay is paid as per the policy?

Your colleague is daft for working whilst ill - same as people who work whilst on annual leave.

I would simply say, no, there is no change - here is the policy. The error was in not enforcing earlier in the year rather than following it now.

Fact is, said employee can self cert 7 days. They are on day 9 so a certificate is needed.

They're not disputing this and have no issue with it; they have since got a fit note to cover them for 14 days. Their issue is the full pay vs SSP situation, which has seemingly changed without notice, and unexpectedly left them set to receive about half of their take home pay next month.

This is their first job, they've never encountered SSP before, so it's come as a bit of a shock.

Whatever policies are in place, they wont trump that requirement.

As per my OP, this has never been a requirement at our company, as they have never paid SSP before. Again, the employee is not disputing the rules around self-cert/fit notes for SSP. It's more a case of "Why just me, why just now?"

I'm aware that whether its written into a contract/company handbook or not, if a company acts in a certain way to the point that it is considered standard behavior/policy, this can in some cases be treated as if it was contractual.

And as for WFH while ill, well then they are just plain fucking stupid to do that. Either this person is ill or they are not.

That's a very old fashioned point of view.

I was off recently with a nasty stomach bug - no way I'd have been able to deal with an hour+ commute each way and having to run to the loo constantly, but I was more than capable of sitting on my laptop at home pottering away under my own steam and answering emails. Which I was happy to do knowing that I was being paid my full salary, as we all are.

I suspect that will change now that the company is going SSP only.

Sounds like people were taking the piss to me.

Your view is the old fashioned one. No working when you're off sick, everyone knows that. Doesn't matter if it's just sending a few emails.

Working from home is not being off sick in any way. Your company are being really dodgy allowing it and are on thin ice if the person has a fit note stating they are too sick to work.

So what does the sickness policy say? My work policy is 6 months full pay, 6 months half pay, then SSP. What does yours say?

@Velmy

"I was off recently with a nasty stomach bug - no way I'd have been able to deal with an hour+ commute each way and having to run to the loo constantly, but I was more than capable of sitting on my laptop at home pottering away under my own steam and answering emails."

Well then thats just as stupid. So you were "off" yet carried on working - so basically you werent "off" then? 🙄

As said, either a person is unwell, or they are not - work policies on pay be damned.

As a general rule of thumb, anyone who is sick and continues to work as some sort of "work martyr" is simply nuts.

Thats what I call fucking old fashioned - working while ill/sick/unwell etc. SMH 🤦‍♂️

Anyway, do what you want, ditto for your feckless colleague. Laters.

Working from home can be an option and doctors can give a "may be fit for work" note stating eg may be fit to work from home / reduced hours / amended duties etc. They should be paid for this work. I think proper HR advice is needed here

Surely if the company have paid other employees full pay and not SSP it's pretty dodgy.

Sorry for the partial drip feed but I was aware that I'd waffled already in my OP!

Perhaps there is now someone whose job it is to chase these things up and ensure sick pay is paid as per the policy?

Yes - someone was effectively made office manager recently, and as a company we're currently tightening our belts across all areas. I'm certain that this is what's prompted the request for a fit note/SSP situation.

The member of staff who's ill however is convinced that it's because of them/their previous illness, and that in absence of another reason being given, the rest of the office will now blame them for this change.

Again they're not disputing it, just how it has been introduced, and if it's going to apply to everyone moving forward, or just them. But that's probably a question for the legal board!

Your colleague is daft for working whilst ill

Totally understand this POV. Should point out that nobody is ever asked or expected to work while sick. However it's a unique company with a small number of staff, all quite specialist in what we do. The attitude in the past has been 'Even if you're just a little bit ropey, we'd prefer you stayed at home rather than risking making anyone else ill'.

Given how generous the company has always been with sick/holiday pay, and effectively allowing people to manage their own absence/annual leave (it's not one of those 'take as much as you want' places, but we're allowed to take a day - paid - here and there over our allowance as long as our work is done) people have always been inclined to do what they can while off, rather than just writing the day off and watching Judge Judy repeats.

I expect this will change quite dramatically given this new approach!

When I worked for one of the big banks, sick pay was always discretionary. Custom was that it was paid, but the policy said it was discretionary, which meant there was no guarantee if you took a lot of time off.

This is the issue - I'm not sure where the line is drawn legally with what is, in effect, a discretionary sick pay system.

Believe it or not, absence wasn't formally tracked at all, up until the company recently promoted someone into an 'office management' type position.

It was then communicated that all leave requests and sickness/absence reporting should go directly through that person. Nothing was said about the payment situation though.

Internal communication is - frankly - a poor area for the company. I know that the 'office manager' has been tasked with saving as much money as possible in a time of financial uncertainty, so my feeling is that this is a case of reverting to what's in our contracts RE: sick pay that hasn't been communicated properly at all.

There isn't one. We have no 'company handbook'. Our employment contracts state only SSP.

However, previously the company has always paid everyone their full salary regardless of how many days they've had off sick. We've had people off for months with serious health issues, people needing to take an extended leave of absence to deal with family issues...all paid in full.

This is my question as per my OP - Can unwritten policies like this be altered without notice, purely by virtue of the fact that they're discretionary?

Well if your contracts say you only get SSP I'm not sure it matters if there is an unwritten policy or not. Its in your contracts that I assume were seen and signed when you were employed - i guess it was just a perk that the company were being 'generous' (using that word loosely!) In giving full pay previously

You would need to check with a lawyer however I think you could find yourself caught under the “established practices” rule. Fact is just because the company only offers SSP but has consistently paid CSP they may find themselves having established that as a practice that they are now bound to follow. Changes to that WOULD need to be promulgated.

Well then thats just as stupid. So you were "off" yet carried on working - so basically you werent "off" then?

I was off in the sense that I wasn't in the office (usually mandatory), had handed off a good chunk of my workload to colleagues, reorganised certain deadlines and simply cracked on with bits I wanted to do, when I felt up to doing them, at a pace I could manage between redecorating the bathroom with the contents of my stomach. Nobody from work contacted me and I had an Out of Office on.

Was I well enough to travel into the office for the day? No. Was I well enough to sit on my laptop at home for a few hours here and there? Of course. I would suggest that anyone physically incapable of replying to a few emails or jotting down some notes is probably in need of serious medical attention. I had a bug, not sepsis.

I'm not sure what's stupid about that. The things I did were things that had to be done by me. They were a welcome distraction. I was doing less than 50% of my work for 100% of my salary. I'd have been paid the same if I did nothing, but the work would still have been there when I got back to the office...I'd say it'd have been stupid not to, but we're all different.

Don't get me wrong, if my employer is going to withdraw the benefit of full pay during time off sick in the future, I'll be withdrawing my labour, and they'll need to find an alternative solution.

As said, either a person is unwell, or they are not

You think health - as it relates to a person's ability to work - is binary? So when I broke my leg, I should have closed my laptop for 4 months? I certainly couldn't walk to the station, take a train and a tube into London then walk to my office and sit under a desk in a leg brace for 8 hours every day. I couldn't do the part of my job that involves travel for a good while. But sat at home with a laptop and phone...fine. So was I ill, or was I not?

Disabled people who require reasonable adjustments, or people with life-changing/limiting illnesses...presumably they shouldn't work? Are they ill, or are they not?

As a general rule of thumb, anyone who is sick and continues to work as some sort of "work martyr" is simply nuts.

As a general rule of thumb, I agree! Nobody who is ill should be, or even feel, compelled to work. People who need to rest and recover should be encouraged do so. People who don't feel valued, respected or well compensated shouldn't put themselves out.

But if someone is capable and willing, if what they're doing isn't hampering their recovery, if they're appreciated and compensated fairly and if - god forbid - they actually enjoy their job...its hardly Martyrdom to approach an inconvenient situation looking for things you can do, rather than things you can't.

I'm not naive, I understand that I'm part of a fortunate minority, and that other people will have vastly different circumstances, experiences and attitudes towards this. But to call people who don't share yours 'stupid' and 'feckless', to treat illness as binary...aside from being unnecessarily rude, is an incredibly narrow-minded and ignorant position to take.

Thank you, I've had this on the tip of my tongue all day! Custom and Practice is how I've known it to be referred as in the past.

I believe the tests for proving the practice is a benefit (which are quite strict and must be evidenced by the employee) are:

• Has to be a long standing practice with no variance.
• Has to have been applied equally and consistently to all employees throughout that time.
• All employees must be aware of and expect it, not just a select group

With regards to our company, they haven't asked a single employee for a fit note in nearly 20 years until this point, so it hits the first two. As for proving it...

She'll have three years of payslips at her full salary despite multiple absences. I know she has a Whatsapp message from a senior member of staff from her previous long absence telling her a fit note wasn't necessary. She also has messages from multiple colleagues this week saying they've never been asked for fit notes and had always been paid in full.

The company can counter by proving that the practice was either temporary or discretionary. I'm not sure they'd be able to do the former given the timeframes involved, or the latter given that other members of staff have had much longer absences, and absences for similar reasons.

I wonder if that will be enough should this go further? As I've said in PP, there's no documented sickness/sick pay policy and there wont be anything in writing RE people getting paid in full.

I believe the fact that there’s no stated company policy on sickness is going up be their death knell. I’m not a lawyer but I think they’ll get tripped up on this. 20 years.. hardly temporary. And discretionary doesn’t apply if it’s given to everyone (including this person previously)

💯
it is perfectly acceptable to agree with your employer that you'd like to wfh because you have a bug, and the practicalities of that means that you'd rather be at home - if you're willing and able to continue to work, what's the problem. Any such situation needs a flexible and honest approach between employer and employee. We are all humans, not bots. I wouldn't have any problem supporting a member of my team, especially when I trust them to be honest. Trust means people don't take the p. They're an adult. They know how they're feeling and can make an adult decision, knowing I'm not forcing them to work when they're sick. No martyrdom needed. And if the employee subsequently wants to logoff early because they're feeling rough, then I'd support that too.

I do feel you need to tighten up your sickness policy, OP so staff know where they stand and everyone is treated fairly and consistently especially where pay is affected.

I think it muddies the waters to work when formally off sick and could pressurise junior employees in particular to push themselves to do some work when they need to rest. I know I’ve had bugs which have left me too drained to do even an hour or two of light emailing and needing to sleep!

If I’m off, it’s because I really can’t manage much or any work. So I make that clear and don’t work at all. Thankfully I’ve always worked places over the last fifteen years that don’t count absence if you say you’re sick but well enough to wfh at a reduced pace on the odd day or two. But if they started saying you’re either sick or not, I would not be working on sick days, SSP or otherwise.

I think the person who is now running the office has possibly questioned the laxness of the sickness policy, there are people who take the piss

The person off sick - who has a poor sick history - might realise their history is poor and thinks they’re being targeted when in fact they’re not. They may realise that they’ve taken the piss in the past and are worried they may have been rumbled

@HelplessSoul you’re being incredibly rude on this thread, it’s not the OP having a meltdown.

OP I work in a very similar company with a trust system for annual leave, and people often wfh if able when ‘off sick’. It’s a flexible company, which we respect.

We also have SSP only in our contracts but full pay is given. I do see that as a privilege not a right, and understand it could be withdrawn at any time and vary from individual to individual. I don’t know about the legal standpoint but I do think it’s a bit cheeky of your colleague to be pushing back on what is agreed in their contract.