dependants leave

rushie89

I had to take my son to hospital and informed work a couple of days prior (only found out myself then aswell) I told my immediate supervisor who said it was at managers discretion if I was paid or not and that he would "have a word for me" the managers response was that the process had changed and it was a HR decision. One email later and HR confirmed it was at managers discretion, I sent an email to my supervisor asking if he gets dependent leave paid or not along with another person who is always nipping in and out of work for childcare. My supervisor then showed my email to the manager. Said supervisor comes to me asking "who the **** do you think you are" and that I was making lots of enemies, what now (we have to take block weeks at work not single days for holidays)

davo10

rushie89 wrote: »

I had to take my son to hospital and informed work a couple of days prior (only found out myself then aswell) I told my immediate supervisor who said it was at managers discretion if I was paid or not and that he would "have a word for me" the managers response was that the process had changed and it was a HR decision. One email later and HR confirmed it was at managers discretion, I sent an email to my supervisor asking if he gets dependent leave paid or not along with another person who is always nipping in and out of work for childcare. My supervisor then showed my email to the manager. Said supervisor comes to me asking "who the **** do you think you are" and that I was making lots of enemies, what now (we have to take block weeks at work not single days for holidays)

Why can't you take this as part of your annual leave/holidays? You are requesting time off, it's either annual leave or unpaid leave, there is no such thing as paid "dependants leave". Your employer might pay you while you are off but it is at their discretion and not an entitlement if it is not designated annual leave.

Gmol

You probably won't get paid especially after that email that wasn't clever.

_Brian

I think sending the email was very foolish indeed, it will be seen as second guessing management and maybe trying to tell them what to do.

Force Majoure may be an option here if you can prove that only you can attend and not your OH, you'd also need to be able to prove you got short notice of the appointment.

I'd feel you've lost any "leaniency" by sending the email. Ask about the Force Majour policy, maybe offer to make back the time in another way.

Big lesson here is keep your business to yourself as your nose out of other peoples situations.

TheBlock

_Brian wrote: »

I think sending the email was very foolish indeed, it will be seen as second guessing management and maybe trying to tell them what to do.

Force Majoure may be an option here if you can prove that only you can attend and not your OH, you'd also need to be able to prove you got short notice of the appointment.

I'd feel you've lost any "leaniency" by sending the email. Ask about the Force Majour policy, maybe offer to make back the time in another way.

Big lesson here is keep your business to yourself as your nose out of other peoples situations.

You can't have planned "Force Majeur" by it's definition it's unplanned urgent leave. OP best bet is to ask for a relaxing of the block week leave policy in this instance due to circumstances.

Mrs OBumble

davo10 wrote: »

Why can't you take this as part of your annual leave/holidays? You are requesting time off, it's either annual leave or unpaid leave, there is no such thing as paid "dependants leave". Your employer might pay you while you are off but it is at their discretion and not an entitlement if it is not designated annual leave.

Some contracts do allow people to use their own sick leave to care for dependents. And some companies do allow it on a case-by-case basis, even if their contracts don't allow for it.

But I'd say that the OP has well and truly used email to burn that bridge.

OP, you can either ask for the block-leave rule to be relaxed (and remember that this is a favour) - or you may have to take the leave as unpaid.

And the next time that someone gives you the run-around, don't be inflammatory about it, that's just a losing strategy all round.

davo10

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Some contracts do allow people to use their own sick leave to care for dependents. And some companies do allow it on a case-by-case basis, even if their contracts don't allow for it.
d.

Which companies are they or is that just a guess?

Companies issue contracts with very strict guidelines on sick leave such as pay policy and certification after a set time period. I have never heard of a contract which allows entitlement to sick leave when the employee is not sick, never mind get paid for it.

Are you think of "compassionate leave" which is not an entitlement but some employers do allow people time off to care for a loved one, it certainly is not sick leave and not paid.

InReality

OP - I'm not clear what you said in your email -
Did you ask your supervisor if they got the same type of leave you were asking for ?
And then you asked about someone else and if they got that type of leave as well ?

I would have said this rather than emailed it.,
If there is some unfairness about leave ( as your see it ) then you might as well raise it.
Of course risk is might not help your case or give you any satisfaction.

Mrs OBumble

davo10 wrote: »

Which companies are they or is that just a guess?

Companies issue contracts with very strict guidelines on sick leave such as pay policy and certification after a set time period. I have never heard of a contract which allows entitlement to sick leave when the employee is not sick, never mind get paid for it.

Are you think of "compassionate leave" which is not an entitlement but some employers do allow people time off to care for a loved one, it certainly is not sick leave and not paid.

No, I'm not thinking of compassionate leave, which is for when someone close to you dies. (And fyi, it is an entitlement in my current contract - and that's with an agency which has me placed at a multi-national!).

It was quite common where I come from (which has 5 days paid sick leave as a legal minimum) to allow sick leave to be used for dependant relatives (either children or aged parents) if you did not need it yourself. I haven't actually seen it in any contracts here in Ireland, but I would expect that it is one of the things that some companies would have to to make themselves "family friendly" - because the reality is that a parent is going to have to take some leave when their kids are sick.

Of course there are rules, including certification after a certain number of days. But really it not a silly thing to do, because it allows employees to tell the truth rather than lying about who's sick.

davo10

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

It was quite common where I come from (which has 5 days paid sick leave as a legal minimum) to allow sick leave to be used for dependant relatives (either children or aged parents) if you did not need it yourself. I haven't actually seen it in any contracts here in Ireland,

Ah, so it wasn't here, it was in another country, that's helpful but unfortunately not relevant to OPs situation. In Ireland you have not entitlement to pay while off sick nor are you entitled to claim sick leave when you yourself are not sick.

Lying about it can lead to disciplinary measures, I think I saw on another post of yours you used to be a union rep or something of the like, you should know this.

and other disasters

I had a similar issue with an employee recently OP and after a lot of googling of forums frequented by parents (not sure I am allowed to name them?) the approach from employers varies from unpaid leave, to annual leave, to paid discretionary leave etc. with some allowing you to use your own sick days. Interestingly the approach from the parents also differed with regard to what they thought was fair/appropriate to expect from an employer when their child is sick.

If your company is large enough to warrant a HR department I'd be surprised if company policy on this issue wasn't written down - do you have an employee handbook?

Mrs OBumble

and other disasters wrote: »

If your company is large enough to warrant a HR department I'd be surprised if company policy on this issue wasn't written down - do you have an employee handbook?

Company policy sets out the minimum which a company says it will do.

For valued employees, many companies or individual will do a lot more than their policy - if the question is asked the right way. This may range from formally granting discretionary leave, to turning a blind eye about the employee working from home or being away for a few hours.

davo10

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Company policy sets out the minimum which a company says it will do.

For valued employees, many companies or individual will do a lot more than their policy - if the question is asked the right way. This may range from formally granting discretionary leave, to turning a blind eye about the employee working from home or being away for a few hours.

If the company formally sets out its policy on leave, you cannot allow "valued employees" to have one set of rules and others to have another. The employer leaves themselves open to charges if bias, favouritism or worse, discrimination. If you have one employee who is granted discretionary leave and another who is refused, takes it any way and is punished, as a union rep Mrs O'Bumble, what would have said about this?

It is exactly this point which has got the OP in the bind he is in, he believes that his supervisor is allowed leave while he is not, and questioned this policy, rightly or wrongly, in the email.

OP, you have no entitlement to time off in this instance, nor to be paid for it as per your contract. But if your employer is allowing other colleagues this type if leave , you are entitled to ask why they get it and you don't. However, whether you should have asked in the way you you did via email is debatable, my opinion is you shouldn't, this is likely to be shown to supervisors and management who could earmark you.

Mrs OBumble

davo10 wrote: »

If the company formally sets out its policy on leave, you cannot allow "valued employees" to have one set of rules and others to have another. The employer leaves themselves open to charges if bias, favouritism or worse, discrimination. If you have one employee who is granted discretionary leave and another who is refused, takes it any way and is punished, as a union rep Mrs O'Bumble, what would have said about this?

It is exactly this point which has got the OP in the bind he is in, he believes that his supervisor is allowed leave while he is not, and questioned this policy, rightly or wrongly, in the email.

Employers regularly have different sets of rules for different employees - and so long as the difference isn't based on one of the nine factors which it's illegal to discriminate based on the, that is not a problem. Employers may say "no, I cannot give you X because no one else gets it" - but that's just a line. They can always give more.

It's also common for companies to have widely published policies that apply to staff at certain levels, and other more favourable policies that only apply to higher-level employees, and are only published to those higher level employees. (Management salary scales are the most obvious example of these.)

Some employers might regard it as not-best-practise to apply more favourable conditions to some employees than others. But even that's debatable. They are also required to provide "reasonable accommodation" to staff with disabilities - and I've even seen a case where that accommodation included the right to take an extra 10 days paid sick leave during a particular year. It was when I was a union delegate, and I personally thought they were being overly generous, the union was certainly not going to turn against it's member and kick up a stink about other people beign discriminated against because they don't suffer from depression.)

davo10

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Employers regularly have different sets of rules for different employees - and so long as the difference isn't based on one of the nine factors which it's illegal to discriminate based on the, that is not a problem. Employers may say "no, I cannot give you X because no one else gets it" - but that's just a line. They can always give more.

It's also common for companies to have widely published policies that apply to staff at certain levels, and other more favourable policies that only apply to higher-level employees, and are only published to those higher level employees. (Management salary scales are the most obvious example of these.)

Some employers might regard it as not-best-practise to apply more favourable conditions to some employees than others. But even that's debatable. They are also required to provide "reasonable accommodation" to staff with disabilities - and I've even seen a case where that accommodation included the right to take an extra 10 days paid sick leave during a particular year. It was when I was a union delegate, and I personally thought they were being overly generous, the union was certainly not going to turn against it's member and kick up a stink about other people beign discriminated against because they don't suffer from depression.)

Ah right, that's much clearer. The problem arises when everyone has the same rules except they are applied differently to different people. Now back to the OP, he asked was his supervisor entitled to this type of leave while he was not, a valid question though perhaps asked in the wrong way. The discrimination in this case may arise (I'm not sure it does by the way) because a co worker who happens to be female and a mother was allowed leave under these circumstances while he was not.

Rorster_123

Is your contract of employment not with the agency rather than the multi national? What applies to permanent staff in the multi national may not apply to you.