Probation warning for certified sick leave

Username94

I am currently working as Cabin Crew with the first 12 months of my contract as probation.

Recently I was off sick with a sinus infection. Which was certified by a doctor for 4 days. I had to offload myself from the flight which I was on as I wasn't fit to operate the flight. I filled out a cert to say I could not fly and informed my supervisors that I would go to the doctor that day as per the sickness procedure. As it is dangerous to fly with a sinus infection due to the risk of damaging or worse bursting your eardrum I went to the doctor who gave me an antibiotic, a certificate for 4 days and was told not to fly.

I followed the companies sickness procedure correctly making sure I dotted all the i's and crossed all the t's as I knew I was on probation.

Later I was issued with a probation warning over this even though I had a doctors note which covered me for ALL my days off including the partial day I had taken.

Is this legal? Do I have ground to stand on to dispute this even though I am on probation?

I know I am not entitled to sick pay which I am not looking for but this warning could potentially cost me my job at the end of the 12 months.

Any information would be a great help.

Thanks in advance.

Bepolite

Sorry to be harsh OP but you've breached your employment contract and the company is well within its rights and very sensible in dealing with it in this fashion. Just because sick leave is certified and 100% genuine doesn't negate the fact that a company has to protect itself from people unfit to do the job, that is part of the probation period.

I'd get my head down and try and keep as healthy as possible over the next few months. You could dispute it but I suspect that will make things much worse.

Username94

Thanks for the reply.

I don't understand how I have breached my contract? I was only unfit to fly for these days and was covered?

We are told not to fly when we are sick and given detailed sickness procedures to follow which I did.

I have done everything as per the company policy and procedures. Can I not call sick on probation? And does this warrant a written warning?

Bepolite

Username94 wrote: »

Thanks for the reply.

I don't understand how I have breached my contract? I was only unfit to fly for these days and was covered?

We are told not to fly when we are sick and given detailed sickness procedures to follow which I did.

I have done everything as per the company policy and procedures. Can I not call sick on probation? And does this warrant a written warning?

You weren't there, hence a breach (a minor one and one we all do).

If you need to call in sick, you need to call in sick. The number of times you do this will be a deciding factor in keeping you on after your probation or not. I'm afraid you're stuck between a rock and a hard place, because if you don't follow company procedures, this will be looked upon even less favourably.

A written warning is harsh but then you are in an exceptionally competitive industry that demands a lot from those who chose the career. While I'm sure you're absolutely genuine OP, I'm sure the company has had it's fair share of people taking the mickey.

No Pants

OP, what is the company's health and safety approach to this? Are they happy for you to fly when sick, despite the risk of you injuring yourself?

Bepolite

No Pants wrote: »

OP, what is the company's health and safety approach to this? Are they happy for you to fly when sick, despite the risk of you injuring yourself?

To be fair he/she was pretty clear in relation to that in the OP. For clarity that doesn't change the fact that a business will has a legitimate right to protect it self from taking people on who are unfit for the job through levels of sickness.

While it might be harsh at least they've put the OP on notice rather than blind-siding them at the end of the probation period.

Apologies if you are making a different point.

gozunda

Bepolite wrote: »

To be fair he/she was pretty clear in relation to that in the OP. For clarity that doesn't change the fact that a business will has a legitimate right to protect it self from taking people on who are unfit for the job through levels of sickness.

While it might be harsh at least they've put the OP on notice rather than blind-siding them at the end of the probation period.

Apologies if you are making a different point.

We are told not to fly when we are sick and given detailed sickness procedures to follow which I did

Is this in writing in your contract / employee regulations ?


The OP has not detailed what the companies contract of employment states in relation to maximum period of sick pay or disciplinary procedures.

Or even if there are disciplinary procedures for reporting in sick. If it's not in the contract then

Only a very very stupid employer would insist on an employee attending work with a risk of further injury due to a (temporary) and certified medical condition.

That said there are some very stupid employer organisations out there that can remain unnamed that appear to be the driving force behind much recent idiotic behaviour towards employees.

OP - check your contract and and employee regulations as to what they say about Health and Safety. Also check out the Health and Safety Authority website if need be.

It would be an interesting scenario where employers especially in the airline industry select to undertake such prohibitions on staff taking verified sick leave where for argument sake a highly contagious virus was in circulation thereby contributing to its spread nationally and internationally.

Interesting reading from the CDC ...

http://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/air/managing-sick-travelers/commercial-aircraft/infection-control-cabin-crew.html

Bepolite

What is your point?

No company is going to tell employees they can't take sick leave. As I've already indicated breach of company H&S policies will likely be treated even more seriously that taking sick leave.

That doesn't mean a company can't warn or dismiss you over genuine, certified sick leave. That's even if you're in the job 40 years, let alone just in the door and on probation with no recourse through the unfair dismissals act.

gozunda

Bepolite wrote: »

What is your point?

No company is going to tell employees they can't take sick leave. As I've already indicated breach of company H&S policies will likely be treated even more seriously that taking sick leave.

That doesn't mean a company can't warn or dismiss you over genuine, certified sick leave. That's even if you're in the job 40 years, let alone just in the door and on probation with no recourse through the unfair dismissals act.

Context is important. OP has not stated what her contractural conditions are.

As to companies warning / dismissing employees for very short duration certified sick leave - that's a slippery slope that no decent employer would wish to descend especially where there may be significant Health and Safety Concerns that the employer may be liable for regardless of length of employment.

There has been some very arrogant posturing by the major employer organisation in this country in recent times largely due to the downturn in the economy. It would appear that at least some of the practises being advocated are sailing incredibly close to the wind in terms of employees health and safety.

I believe it is only a matter of time before the proverbial hits the fan in relation to similar practices being adopted / enforced by employers.

Unaligned but Interesting case of employee with short duration employment and serious employer H&S shortcomings ...

http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/pet-shop-worker-caught-meningitis-from-parrots-26744342.html

http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/75m-settlement-for-woman-paralysed-by-parrot-disease-26747404.html

Bepolite

gozunda wrote: »

Context is important. OP has not stated what her contractural conditions are.

No employment contract drafted by any sort of professional is going to allow for contractual sick leave. It will simply detail the procedure to be followed in the event of sickness, even then it will likely refer to a separate document to allow for changes.

gozunda wrote: »

As to companies warning / dismissing employees for very short duration certified sick leave - that's a slippery slope that no decent employer would wish to descend especially where there may be significant Health and Safety Concerns that the employer may be liable for regardless of length of employment.

It's the slope towards US style employment law. While I would tend to agree it's undesirable to allow companies free reign, you have to have a 'safety valve' for poor hiring decisions. In Ireland this is 12 months, many companies base their probation periods accordingly. This is rather off the topic of what the OP was asking though in fairness.

Practically speaking - even if we all believe these are the employers from hell - challenging it is a loser no matter what way you look at it.

In relation to your edits and H&S short comings. An Airline can't afford to have employees with high levels of absenteeism, genuine or otherwise. H&S being one reason, work life balance of who ever gets called into cover and of course, the massive cost in cancelling flights if they can't be crewed.

gozunda

Bepolite wrote: »

No employment contract drafted by any sort of professional is going to allow for contractual sick leave. It will simply detail the procedure to be followed in the event of sickness, even then it will likely refer to a separate document to allow for changes.

The OP clearly stated

We are told not to fly when we are sick and given detailed sickness procedures to follow which I did

It remains unclear if this also written down as part of the employees contract. Regardless however if the employee has been given conflicting advice from their employer then it remains a potential significant issue for any disciplinary style actions initiated by the employer. Get some advice on this if necessary.

Bepolite wrote: »

..It's the slope towards US style employment law. While I would tend to agree it's undesirable to allow companies free reign, you have to have a 'safety valve' for poor hiring decisions. In Ireland this is 12 months, many companies base their probation periods accordingly. This is rather off the topic of what the OP was asking though in fairness.

Such disciplinary practises by employers for very short duration certified sick leave were almost unheard more than 8 year ago. This is being pushed by employer organisations as a mallet to smash an effective peanut in most cases and appears to being wielded indiscriminately.

Bepolite wrote: »

Practically speaking - even if we all believe these are the employers from hell - challenging it is a loser no matter what way you look at it.

It's not a matter for 'challenging' - employees (especially young and vulnerable employees) need to know exactly their conditions of employment but also importantly that employers have serious obligations to their employees under present H&S legislation that is potentially not negated by length of employment service

Bepolite wrote: »

.. relation to your edits and H&S short comings. An Airline can't afford to have employees with high levels of absenteeism, genuine or otherwise. H&S being one reason, work life balance of who ever gets called into cover and of course, the massive cost in cancelling flights if they can't be crewed.

The OP is not detailing high levels of absenteeism. Companies of any decent standard will have decent contingency planning - especially a higher risk area of employment such as the airline industry.


I will refer back to case I highlighted in relation to H&S risks

http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/pet-shop-worker-caught-meningitis-from-parrots-26744342.html

Bepolite

I'm sorry that you're not seeing my point. Employers during probation will, naturally, be over cautious.

I'm afraid you, in my opinion, are simply misunderstanding how an employment contract is drafted but I've been wrong before and I will be again so I'll leave it at that.

Bepolite

Sorry could not resist.

gozunda

Bepolite wrote: »

I'm sorry that you're not seeing my point. Employers during probation will, naturally, be over cautious.

I'm afraid you, in my opinion, are simply misunderstanding how an employment contract is drafted but I've been wrong before and I will be again so I'll leave it at that.

I see your point and meet it with knowledge of the relatively recent trend towards over zealous and aggressive 'disciplinary' style actions against employees in some potentially very shady circumstances / situations. And the importance of employees being fully aware of the rights as well as obligations in employment, H&S etc

Perhaps the OP will clarify about what they were instructed to do regarding certified illness and how this varies if any with their written contract and conditions of employment.

gozunda

Bepolite wrote: »

Sorry could not resist.

I like Monty Python ...

however I think that is particularly sick considering the person involved in the highlighted case was left effectively paralysed at a very young age.

The other point is that the individuals family may come across that.

I really hope you don't work in HR ...

Pm me if you remove it and I will remove your quote ...

Bepolite

It was designed to highlight the ridiculousness of your comparison to be honest rather than make light of the persons concerned in that case. Given the tangential nature of Monty python's comedy I think it's rather fitting.

If you have a problem with it please report it.

gozunda

Bepolite wrote: »

It was designed to highlight the ridiculousness of your comparison to be honest rather than make light of the persons concerned in that case. Given the tangential nature of Monty python's comedy I think it's rather fitting.

If you have a problem with it please report it.

I never stated it was 'a comparison' -that was made quite clear. :mad: The case referred to the H&S obligations of employers regardless of length of employment which is relevant to the matter discussed.

Your inference between the PARROT SKETCH and the incident linked to
is fairly clear imo but I did provide the above on the chance you posted rashly

Your 'sense of humour' is dubious at best - tangential or otherwise. I leave it stand for what it is.

CIARAN_BOYLE

1. during probation you can be let go for any reason.

2. Its rare that sickness will come as suddenly as you describe. It sounds like you were in work on a plane about to fly off when you decided no you didn't feel well. It would be easier logistically had you called in sick in the morning.

Personally I would suggest asking your supervisor or whoever gave you notice for details on why you got a warning.

Bepolite

gozunda wrote: »

I never stated it was 'a comparison' -that was made quite clear. :mad: The case referred to the H&S obligations of employers regardless of length of employment which is relevant to the matter discussed.

Your inference between the PARROT SKETCH and the incident linked to
is fairly clear imo but I did provide the above on the chance you posted rashly

Your 'sense of humour' is dubious at best - tangential or otherwise. I leave it stand for what it is.

You keep banging on about H&S - there has been no H&S breach here by anyone. The Airline has clear procedures and the OP followed them. What you're failing to understand is; notwithstanding any of that, being off is a breach (albeit a minor one) of your employment contract which all said and done says 'Be here for 39 hours a week on the days and at the times we specify.

If you aint there you aint complying with the terms of the contract. What part of this leads you to link articles about parrots and meningitis is beyond me.

As for your faux outrage, if you were that bothered about it you'd have not quoted it and reported it. Careful now getting down off that high horse.

The OP has absolutely nothing to gain from challenging this. The company are within their rights to do this. Is it a bit harsh? Perhaps but we've really flogged that particular dead horse enough. The very best that will happen if the OP raises a grievance is that HR might remove the warning. What's more likely, especially given how evil Irish employers are according to you is they'll be out the door.

OP Sorry for derailing your thread. I'll also leave it there.

gozunda

Bepolite wrote: »

You keep banging on about H&S - there has been no H&S breach here by anyone. The Airline has clear procedures and the OP followed them. What you're failing to understand is; notwithstanding any of that, being off is a breach (albeit a minor one) of your employment contract which all said and done says 'Be here for 39 hours a week on the days and at the times we specify.

If you aint there you aint complying with the terms of the contract. What part of this leads you to link articles about parrots and meningitis is beyond me.

As for your faux outrage, if you were that bothered about it you'd have not quoted it and reported it. Careful now getting down off that high horse.

The OP has absolutely nothing to gain from challenging this. The company are within their rights to do this. Is it a bit harsh? Perhaps but we've really flogged that particular dead horse enough. The very best that will happen if the OP raises a grievance is that HR might remove the warning. What's more likely, especially given how evil Irish employers are according to you is they'll be out the door.

OP Sorry for derailing your thread. I'll also leave it there.

Determined to be less than accurate again I see.

The OP clearly states

We are told not to fly when we are sick and given detailed sickness procedures to follow which I did

The OP didn't clarify if this was detailed in contradiction to what was written. It is not clear whether there is 'any breach of contract'

BePolite - if you don't comprehend the issues relevant to H&S then I can't help you.

Additionally If you wish to post derogatory references relevant in the case detailed then on your head be it. I allowed that you posted without thinking about it - if you are happy with that as it is, I am under no obligation to deflate your ego.

To clarify to the OP you will note I mentioned no challenge either. As stated Previously I would advise seeking further advice on this. Get fully independent advice where possible. Not all employers are bad or are using such tactics but its worthwhile to be fully aware where they are. Best of luck with it.

Bepolite

Gozunda, our argument aside, what you are failing to understand is a sickness procedure does not negate the breach of contract. It is simply what to do if you are going to breach the contract.

It may be that the sickness procedure forces you to breach the contract of employment, where if you worked in another industry you might grin and bear it and carry on. Another example would be an upset tummy is not an issue in a call centre but would be an issue in food prep.

All of this does not detract from the fact that if someone is off too much to do the job they can be fired on that basis completely legally, notwithstanding that the sickness is genuine and certified.

At this point I hope I've clarified it for the OP if not for yourself. As for your advice to seek further advice, at least that we can agree on. I highly recommend union membership and the use of their services.

Addle

I had my probation extended after having a (short) period of certified sick leave during the original probation period.
My probation period was extended by 50%.
No warning received on return to work from sick leave.
I thought it was unfair at the time, the length of the extension.
I work in the civil service.
What is the warning that you have received?

gozunda

Addle wrote: »

I had my probation extended after having a (short) period of certified sick leave during the original probation period.
My probation period was extended by 50%.
No warning received on return to work from sick leave.
I thought it was unfair at the time, the length of the extension.
I work in the civil service.
What is the warning that you have received?

I would advise checking the following

http://employmentrightsireland.com/unfair-dismissal-during-the-probationary-period/

Scroll down to section on
Extending the Probationary Period which states:

To extend the probationary period of an employee there must first be provision for an extension, either in the contract of employment itself or in the staff handbook.

The procedure should be detailed -if in doubt check the situation with your work representative

Details concerning some recent changes in specific civil service sick leave arrangements are detailed further here

http://www.inmo.ie/tempDocs/Sick%20Leave%20sep12.pdf

Again this recent changes making ordinary sick leave a disciplinary offence appear to have been led by employer organisation with a disproportionate and biased level of influence at both informal and formal employment policy.

At least some of the treatment of employment rights would appear to be borderline in terms of procedure. There have been a number of cases which have highlighted this recently.

Carawaystick

I'd keep a copy of documentation/emails/any thing in writing,
as you may change your mind if you get let go.

FreudianSlippers

Username94 wrote: »

It's a catch 22 with this company. I think anything goes here. Someone must be taking some very big brown envelopes because crap like this happens all the time, even to those not on probation, on a daily basis and nothing is being done. (Mainly to do with our flight time limitations being broken, our rest periods being interupted etc)

Your employer is easily identifiable from this thread, has an extremely zealous little legal department and has a history of going after online posters for defamation. I think a written warning is now the last of your problems.:o