Sick leave and warnings

[lumpsdumps]

I have just been given a verbal warning from my deputy at work as I have taken 15 days off sick since June last year, I had two weeks off in December due to flu and chest infection and then yesterday I had a reaction to some medication that I had taken on Monday night and was unable to stand up, let alone go to work. I was told during this interview that I had to go to the dentist as I have toothache - for which the medication was taken for on Monday night, tomorrow and because it's an emergency dentist I have been told it's first come first served but if the dentist has only got an appointment for the morning I have to take it as sick leave which will go against me again. On top of the warning today I have been told that when the manager is back on Monday I will have to go in front of her again about my sickness record and may be given another warning. Does this sound right?

It doesn't sound right that you might get two warnings at the same time and for the same matter just because the manager is off.

But, being honest, 15 sick days in 8 months is quite a lot of absence. It depends on company policy whether that might trigger a warning. It should go in your favour that 10 of the 15 days were due to a single illness though (not lots of odd days).

What does your company handbook or policy say about absence?

Some companies have sickness absence policies that automatically trigger a disciplinary hearing/a warning if a certain level of absence is reached. Is there something like that where you are?

Have you had any kind of informal discussions about your absence rates being of concern? Did your company follow a reasonable procedure when giving you a warning, ie having a hearing, allowing you to bring someone with you, etc?

If you've been given a formal verbal warning this morning it certainly wouldn't be reasonable to give you another one on Monday without giving you a chance to improve first.

You shouldn't have a warning if it is all covered with medical notes.

I have had the old "sick leave" talkw ith HR. I had two ops each with 7 and 9 weeks off afterwards due to the medication I was on. prior to it I had had time off sporadically because of the condition I had the ops to sort out. I didn't get warnings. I did have HR chat to me, as it was compulsary as flagged up on my records.

I will no doubt have similar this year as I am currently off sick, on my 3rd week, recovering from pnuemonia. This is a different job, different employer. I think it will flag up automatically. However it is covered by a doctor's note so shouldn't become a warning, just a "how can we help" kind of talk.

In my last job it was a rolling 12 months, so you could get flagged up on the same sick leave more than once. A I sad though, I never gt a warning, only a chat about anything they could do to support me.

It is a small care home and I have been told in the past not go to work if I have flu or anything that spreads easily, there is no handbook and my contract says nothing about sick leave. I can understand that they have given me a back to work interview today but they didn't after the 2 weeks off in December when I had flu and chest infection. When I queried today why I hadn't had one then I got told they had forgotten about it. I just don't understand why I am being given two warnings one from the deputy and then one again from the manager next week about the same incidents. Surely they should have picked me up about my sick leave in December and given the warning then if appropiate?

Hulababy there are some employers where certain levels of sickness trigger warnings, not just those for which a doctor's note isn't provided. Sometimes it's literally the amount of time off and/or number of occasions, and what the problem was each time isn't considered.

That's not good practice in my opinion, for lots of reasons, but it does happen.

Sorry Hula, but that's not right. You can be warned for absence even if every single day is covered by a doctor's note. However, as you say, particularly if it is one or two longer bouts of illness, (and by law if it is a disabilty), HR will normally be looking at constructive ways to address the problem too.

lumpsdumps it may not be their policy to automatically have a back to work interview after every sickness absence, not all employers do.

Another warning on Monday wouldn't be reasonable, so if that happens you should appeal it.

It seems very unfair to be given actual warnigns for genuine illness. Presumably, even if warnings on paper - if this continued they couldn't actually use such warnings against an employee in terms fof dismissal, etc?

Or are they saying the doctors are lying?

Seems very wrong.

Luckily I have never been treated that way by my employer, even when I did have a lot of time off sick.

And my emloyer DID have the automatic trigger thing. This triggered the HR meeting, Howeer it did not trigger an automatic warning, That was at the discretion f the HR after the meeting and the discssion. In those meetings the dates of each absence was discussion, with the reason discussed too. Only after that discussion was a decision made as to whether you went ont he next level of the disciplinary/sickness level.

I'd always advise an employer to be very careful before actually dismissing someone for high rates of sickness absence, and to be very sure nothing could improve the situation adequately, but that doesn't mean you couldn't dismiss someone, and that warnings given in relation to absence levels don't count for that purpose.

Having an automatic trigger for a meeting with HR is probably a good thing, as it means problems that can be addressed are picked up quickly, and support required given.

Yes, eventually such warnings could lead to dismissal. No, they are not saying that the doctors are lying.

The thing is, they're not judging whether your absence was genuine. They are saying "you are employed to do this job x days a week and the number of times you are absent is higher than acceptable." This is a fair and legally recognised reason for dismissing someone after sufficient numbers of warnings. It doesn't matter that that person is genuinely ill. It's a capability dismissal (i.e. they are absent so much that they are not capable of fulfilling the needs of job), not a misconduct one.

As an aside, it was because such dismissals are legal that disability discrimination legislation was brought it, to give people with long term health conditions extra protection from this type of dismissal.

According to the deputy today, who is in charge of the back to work interviews it is their company policy to do them she just forgot to do it with me. She had mentioned to me when I was off with the flu that I would be on a warning when I got back to work at that point, but when I mentioned my sick record to the manager when I returned she said she didn't have a problem with my record for which I was much relieved as I had worried the rest of the time I was off. So to be told today that I was on a warning was a shock, and then to be told that I was going to be going to the manager for another warning on Monday was even more so.