Verbal Warning

surestew

Yesterday I received a verbal warning over been out sick ten days over 4 different occasions this year, I had a cert for last time 5-days and another time for 2-days from hospital. Other three days were uncertified. I am allowed up to 12 paid sick days according to the employee's hand book. i was told back in Jan 4th I was giving a caution i have no memory of this i would not dispute it either way for the caution was for sick days and its normal pratice to have a back to work meeting. I was giving the option to appeal it to a different manager if i wish as the verbal warning stays with me until head office feels its ok to and next time i am sick they will feel its nessicary to give me a second warning. I have been working with the company for 4 years in previous years i missed 1 day 1st year 2nd year 3days and 3rd year I’m not sure not more than 5 anyways. I’m not in the union and what like to know peoples thoughts on it been fair and any advice and on the letter of appeal. this would be my first ever warning the job itself is with a large supermarket irish chain,
Cheers

Procrastastudy

Firstly that level of sickness would be a concern for me personally - other will have a different opinion. The issue is when it comes to being 'fair' the decision maker must be so off the wall if you wish to challenge the actual decision.

How was the meeting conducted - did you get a hearing or what was the story? The key is usually the procedure followed. Certainly not having a time limit on the warning sounds suspect.

Lumbo

Procrastastudy wrote: »

The key is usually the procedure followed. Certainly not having a time limit on the warning sounds suspect.

This.

Also a non written warning isn't worth the thin air it's written on.

Procrastastudy

Lumbo wrote: »

This.

Also a non written warning isn't worth the thin air it's written on.

Problem is verbal warning is a bit of misnomer - they are normally written and a precursor to a written warning.

surestew

Procrastastudy wrote: »

Firstly that level of sickness would be a concern for me personally - other will have a different opinion. The issue is when it comes to being 'fair' the decision maker must be so off the wall if you wish to challenge the actual decision.

How was the meeting conducted - did you get a hearing or what was the story? The key is usually the procedure followed. Certainly not having a time limit on the warning sounds suspect.

just told there cracking down on people who are using sick days in general. i dont feel picked on just seems unfair as other's are not giving warnings and some are so kinda of a lottery who gets called up./

Irish_Elect_Eng

Many companies use a formula called the Bradford Factor to measure absences due to sick leave.

Bradford Fator

In our organisation there are set factors at which counselling,verbal and written warnings kick in. The measurement penalizes repeat events over extended events for one illness.

But tailoring the trigger points is allowed is allowed depending on the reason for the absences, for example long term sicknesses or disabilities.

Absenteeism is very difficult to manage.

amtc

If any of sick leaves were from the same condition you can have them treated as one instance.

I had quite a number of days over 5 years, but as were all for recurring back problems, they were one instance. This is standard labour law. It's the persistent Mondays and Fridays that they want to catch.

Procrastastudy

amtc wrote: »

If any of sick leaves were from the same condition you can have them treated as one instance.

I had quite a number of days over 5 years, but as were all for recurring back problems, they were one instance. This is standard labour law. It's the persistent Mondays and Fridays that they want to catch.

Do you have a link to the case or statue that establishes that this is standard? Even some indication of where that comes from please?

Mrs OBumble

OP, what exactly is your problem here?

The fact that some of your sick leave is certified is irrelevant, the cert explains your absence but does not excuse it.

Many employers would see that number of days, over that number of instances, as indicating that you have a problem with capacity for the job.

Your employer is simply following normal practice, giving you the warning so as to give you the chance to prove that you are fit for the job.


(Hard-assed? Yes. But it seems that is the normal practise in this country.)

Procrastastudy

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

OP, what exactly is your problem here?

The fact that some of your sick leave is certified is irrelevant, the cert explains your absence but does not excuse it.

Many employers would see that number of days, over that number of instances, as indicating that you have a problem with capacity for the job.

Your employer is simply following normal practice, giving you the warning so as to give you the chance to prove that you are fit for the job.


(Hard-assed? Yes. But it seems that is the normal practise in this country.)

There does seem to be a number off issues with the way they've gone about it though. I'm assuming there was no hearing, but that is just an assumption. I'm also not sure what notice the employer has given the OP. Granted - all assumptions.

The fact that the warning is for an indeterminate period is certainly a bit unfair.

Eoin

amtc wrote: »

If any of sick leaves were from the same condition you can have them treated as one instance.

I had quite a number of days over 5 years, but as were all for recurring back problems, they were one instance. This is standard labour law. It's the persistent Mondays and Fridays that they want to catch.

I've never heard of that, but I don't think it makes a difference either way. If you're unable to do your job for a large number of days, then there's a good chance you'll find yourself in disciplinary proceedings, regardless of whether it's certified, or taken in one block or whatever.

surestew

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

OP, what exactly is your problem here?

The fact that some of your sick leave is certified is irrelevant, the cert explains your absence but does not excuse it.

Many employers would see that number of days, over that number of instances, as indicating that you have a problem with capacity for the job.

Your employer is simply following normal practice, giving you the warning so as to give you the chance to prove that you are fit for the job.


(Hard-assed? Yes. But it seems that is the normal practise in this country.)

Problem would of been catchin me off guard with the warning and not giving a reasonable chance to defened it, the appeal would be a waste of time as a number of co workers were told they lost the appeal under the same circumstance. i however will just take it as it is and take the warning
to make life a little easyier

Procrastastudy

surestew wrote: »

Problem would of been catchin me off guard with the warning and not giving a reasonable chance to defened it, the appeal would be a waste of time as a number of co workers were told they lost the appeal under the same circumstance. i however will just take it as it is and take the warning
to make life a little easyier

I once asked the HR director for a statistical break down of how many disciplinaries resulted in a finding of misconduct, how many were appealed and how many resulted in a finding being overturned.

Suffice it to say I got a large sum of money rather than an answer but I suspect the break-down was something like 95%, 50% and ZERO. I suppose you could put that down to the decision in the first instance being bullet proof with a robust investigation procedure... yeah...

delthedriver

The reaction of your employers does seem a bit over the top.
Keep notes , times dates etc in case you may need to refer back at some stage.
You may be unlucky in that your total days of absenteeism has exceeded the latest formula being applied by a new HR Boffin.
However in the current climate it may be advisable to accept the warning and keep the head down. There may be bigger battles ahead, worth fighting, not sure I would use up the bullets over this.

Corruptedmorals

When I was there, they called in anyone with more than 5, with an emphasis on those missing Saturdays and Sundays after christmas parties or birthdays. Single days here and there were worse than blocks. Their policy for a written warning is that it says on your file for 6 months. You are perfectly entitled to clarify how long this one is on your record for, if it is or if it's an unofficial precursor to a real written warning. You can also request to view your file. In any HR meeting you are entitled to a witness.

They have a bigger problem with absenteeism than they should, because of how understaffed they are. I think they are seeing the increase in your absences year on year as you taking the piss as you feel safe and are permanent etc. as your record is a bit inconsistent. Potentially a highly unfair viewpoint to have, but that is often the attitude of their HR.

Procrastastudy

Corruptedmorals wrote: »

In any HR meeting you are entitled to a witness.

Only a disciplinary meeting. Smart HR people have come up with investigations which you are not entitled to a witness. To be fair if you take the most extreme example of this in Ireland - being questioned by the Gardai - you are not entitled to a witness/representation to be present either, only access which is why most will say you can request an adjournment at any time.