Sick days

triple nipple

Hi all, quick question. I was recently told at work that if I'm sick 3 times in the space of one year I will be given a disciplinary meeting. Doctors notes are apparently irrelevant.

Does this sound normal ? or are my workers rights being abused ?

Thanks in advance for any answers.

Nody

Your working rights are not abused and it is normal that high absenteeism (and doctors note only explains why, it does not excuse it) leads to such discussions.

seamus

Yes, this can be standard in workplaces that suffer from high absenteeism rates. There is no law being broken or rights being denied.

Is it sick 3 times or sick for 3 days? Because the latter seems unnecessarily restrictive, but the former is probably about the minimum you could get away with.

MrWalsh

A disciplinary meeting for being sick? I presume if you can produce doctors notes etc at the meeting then there is little that the company can do without breaking employment legislation?

Is it not a bit of a blunt instrument though?

You could be sick 3 times and take a day off each time or you could be sick once and take 2 weeks off.

In the last place I worked they frowned heavily on someone being sick for a day or two - like it wasnt serious enough to take time off for. As a result lots of people who would just have taken a day or two ordinarily would go to the GP and get signed off for a week - which was never questioned, because if it was a week it must be serious right? Silly carry on by the company imo.

dodderangler

I was sick for 3 days there and although I texted my supervisor to see if I needed a doctors note he never contacted back. Despite being sick I went in and they said I need to get a doctors note now or don't bother coming back.

seamus

MrWalsh wrote: »

A disciplinary meeting for being sick? I presume if you can produce doctors notes etc at the meeting then there is little that the company can do without breaking employment legislation?

Nope. A doctor's note explains absence, it doesn't excuse it. Sick notes have no basis in employment law, an employer is not obliged to accept them.

That said, the standard of evidence required both from the employer and employee increases, the further into the disciplinary process you go.

At the first two steps in any disciplinary process, which are usually just a chat and a verbal warning, the employer can engage these steps on little more than hearsay and rumour.
For the later steps which move into formal written warnings, typically you will be allowed a witness there and a long discussion about what's going on, along with evidence from both sides about the alleged misconduct.

At the very end, if the employer moves to dismiss you they will need to be able to show that they engaged the disciplinary steps fairly.

In reality, what the OP will get on their third sickness is a verbal warning. This can't really be appealed or argued against. The aim is to issue a verbal warning at that point to discourage further sickness, not to start pushing people out the door. Most likely any formal disciplinary action wouldn't begin until they're sick another 3 times.

Polo_Mint

dodderangler wrote: »

I was sick for 3 days there and although I texted my supervisor to see if I needed a doctors note he never contacted back. Despite being sick I went in and they said I need to get a doctors note now or don't bother coming back.

But this is correct same process in most companies

If you are sick for 3 says or more in a row you need to provide a doctors note.

Since you asked your supervisor did you need a sick note you must have already known the process or not?

seamus

Polo_Mint wrote: »

Since you asked your supervisor did you need a sick note you must have already known the process or not?

Well not necessarily. And as a manager myself if a trusted employee asked if he needed a sick note I'd be inclined to say, "Nah, I don't care".

The problem is when HR come sniffing around looking for the process to be followed and demanding sick notes. I guess the defence here is that your direct line manager incorrectly advised you of the process. I would expect the supervisor to be the one to take the flak for it, and not the employee.

Pinch Flat

Place I worked in previously had a clause in the contract saying a sick day after a bank holiday was automatic disciplinary action - regardless of sick notes.

So yeah if it's been an ongoin problem I guess an employer is within their rights to pull you up on it if it's persistent

Greenmachine

I have seen similar in some work places. Where there are documented safe practices, in places, that you are quietly expected to break. I have seen numerous cases where people have had back injuries and received disciplinary for missing days.
My pain was so bad I could hack the motorcyle ride of about 35km to my own doctor so went to nearest doctor, who happened to be company doctor. They still questioned the validity of the doctors note, and quizzed me no end on the note. Sick leave was also unpaid so pretty **** of them. Not like I was sitting at home watching the bucks roll in.

Polo_Mint

seamus wrote: »

Well not necessarily. And as a manager myself if a trusted employee asked if he needed a sick note I'd be inclined to say, "Nah, I don't care".

The problem is when HR come sniffing around looking for the process to be followed and demanding sick notes. I guess the defence here is that your direct line manager incorrectly advised you of the process. I would expect the supervisor to be the one to take the flak for it, and not the employee.

Every where I worked ( For Global Companies ) its in the guide line of your employment.

HR will always need sick notes if a member of staff is sick for 3 days or more.

Weather its a trusted member or not process should be followed for every employee

triple nipple

seamus wrote:

Is it sick 3 times or sick for 3 days? Because the latter seems unnecessarily restrictive, but the former is probably about the minimum you could get away with.

That's a good question, never tought to ask but i will now !

triple nipple

MrWalsh wrote:

A disciplinary meeting for being sick? I presume if you can produce doctors notes etc at the meeting then there is little that the company can do without breaking employment legislation?

Yes they said it didnt matter about notes and the rest. Crazy as it's the first time im being told this after being there nearly a year.

They also told me that it would stay on my record for 12 months which i found ott !

MrWalsh

seamus wrote: »

Nope. A doctor's note explains absence, it doesn't excuse it. Sick notes have no basis in employment law, an employer is not obliged to accept them.

Yes but surely a company cannot arbitrarily get rid of someone who has had a legitimate illness without facing a constructive dismissal case?

Eoin

MrWalsh wrote: »

Yes but surely a company cannot arbitrarily get rid of someone who has had a legitimate illness without facing a constructive dismissal case?

Constructive dismissal means that someone was forced to resign because of the company's actions (or inactions), so that wouldn't come into it. Unfair dismissal might be what you're thinking of.

Disciplinary procedures for being sick doesn't necessarily mean that they think you're pulling a sickie or doing anything wrong on purpose. But if you're unable to turn up to do the job you're paid for, then there needs to be a formal way to manage that to make sure everything is tracked and on the record - and the disciplinary process is used for this. If it is done properly, then it's the opposite of arbitrary.

Imagine there was a genuine illness (NOT a disability - that's different) that meant someone couldn't turn up for work on a regular basis. If they're simply unable to do their job because of that, then the employer needs to be able to have a way to address that.

MrWalsh

Eoin wrote: »

Constructive dismissal means that someone was forced to resign because of the company's actions (or inactions), so that wouldn't come into it. Unfair dismissal might be what you're thinking of.

Disciplinary procedures for being sick doesn't necessarily mean that they think you're pulling a sickie or doing anything wrong on purpose. But if you're unable to turn up to do the job you're paid for, then there needs to be a formal way to manage that to make sure everything is tracked and on the record - and the disciplinary process is used for this. If it is done properly, then it's the opposite of arbitrary.

Imagine there was a genuine illness (NOT a disability - that's different) that meant someone couldn't turn up for work on a regular basis. If they're simply unable to do their job because of that, then the employer needs to be able to have a way to address that.

Sorry Eoin, youre quite right I mean unfair dismissal.

I agree re a genuine illness that means the person effectively cannot do the job, but being sick 3 times in a year would hardly fall into that would it?

I just think that personally it sounds like a company trying to intimidate staff - threatening them that being sick means a disciplinary - that cant be good? We dont have control over getting sick, people get sick, we are human.

seamus

MrWalsh wrote: »

I agree re a genuine illness that means the person effectively cannot do the job, but being sick 3 times in a year would hardly fall into that would it?

I just think that personally it sounds like a company trying to intimidate staff - threatening them that being sick means a disciplinary - that cant be good? We dont have control over getting sick, people get sick, we are human.

The thing is, you're not being threatened with dismissal for being sick 3 times.

If you're unlucky enough to be genuinely sick 3 times in a year, you'll get a warning, that'll be the end of it.
If you're a piss taker, then you'll either cop on, or you'll end up getting your marching orders when you continue to take the piss after being warned.
If you suffer from a recurrent illness, likewise the company will eventually ask you to leave when you continue having to take sick leave.

I don't agree with such policies, but I do understand where they come from. I personally prefer the "do what you like so long as you get your work done" approach. But for some companies that can't work.

MrWalsh

seamus wrote: »

The thing is, you're not being threatened with dismissal for being sick 3 times.

If you're unlucky enough to be genuinely sick 3 times, you'll get a warning, that'll be the end of it.

No, but you are being threatened with a disciplinary for being sick. Sick 3 times in a year isnt even a lot of times to be sick in the normal run of things. I would consider it extremely unfair to receive a warning over illness that I had no control over. Its a really crappy policy by a company imo and personally Id have no interest working somewhere like that.

runawaybishop

triple nipple wrote: »

Hi all, quick question. I was recently told at work that if I'm sick 3 times in the space of one year I will be given a disciplinary meeting. Doctors notes are apparently irrelevant.

Does this sound normal ? or are my workers rights being abused ?

Thanks in advance for any answers.

Did they state it was a disciplinary meeting? A meeting after being sick for a number of days is fairly standard. It is to assess if you require additional support or if you are taking the proverbial.

Polo_Mint

seamus wrote: »

The thing is, you're not being threatened with dismissal for being sick 3 times.

If you're unlucky enough to be genuinely sick 3 times, you'll get a warning, that'll be the end of it.
If you're a piss taker, then you'll either cop on, or you'll end up getting your marching orders when you continue to take the piss after being warned.
If you suffer from a recurrent illness, likewise the company will eventually ask you to leave when you continue having to take sick leave.

What type of warning could you possibly get if you provided Certs from the doctor confirming.

If I had a Sick Cert saying I need to stay at home and I turned up to work and something happen in work, You company is not insured to cover that.

You could not give a warning if it is confirmed sickness by doctors

seamus

Polo_Mint wrote: »

You could not give a warning if it is confirmed sickness by doctors

Yes you can. A sick note from a doctor is legally no better than a sick note from your mother.

It explains your absence, it doesn't mean the company have to accept your absence. You can be fully certified for all of your absences, but a company can still ultimately dismiss you if the sum of those absences means that you are functionally incapable of doing your job.

A doctors cert is not a free pass to not work that obliges the company to hold your job for you.

secondrowgal

MrWalsh wrote: »

No, but you are being threatened with a disciplinary for being sick. Sick 3 times in a year isnt even a lot of times to be sick in the normal run of things. I would consider it extremely unfair to receive a warning over illness that I had no control over. Its a really crappy policy by a company imo and personally Id have no interest working somewhere like that.

I have had one sick day in 12 years, when I had the vomitting bug and literally had to sit in the bathroom at home all day.

I have 5 staff and their cumulative sick days for the last 3 years is 6 days. And there is no problem having days off if you are sick in my company, they just haven't been sick. Being sick 3 times a year is more than a lot IMO.

triple nipple

runawaybishop wrote:

Did they state it was a disciplinary meeting? A meeting after being sick for a number of days is fairly standard. It is to assess if you require additional support or if you are taking the proverbial.

Yes a disciplinary meeting. So must be three diffrent occasions of being out sick rather than three consecutive days I would presume, Ill find out later when i ask.

MrWalsh

secondrowgal wrote: »

I have had one sick day in 12 years, when I had the vomitting bug and literally had to sit in the bathroom at home all day.

I have 5 staff and their cumulative sick days for the last 3 years is 6 days. And there is no problem having days off if you are sick in my company, they just haven't been sick. Being sick 3 times a year is more than a lot IMO.

You are lucky. Most people (in my own experience) are not so robustly healthy. I only wish I was.

Polo_Mint

seamus wrote: »

Yes you can. A sick note from a doctor is legally no better than a sick note from your mother.

It explains your absence, it doesn't mean the company have to accept your absence. You can be fully certified for all of your absences, but a company can still ultimately dismiss you if the sum of those absences means that you are functionally incapable of doing your job.

A doctors cert is not a free pass to not work that obliges the company to hold your job for you.

Well then you leave yourself wide open to unfair dismissal in the courts.

therecklessone

Polo_Mint wrote: »

Well then you leave yourself wide open to unfair dismissal in the courts.

It has been well established previously that continued absences through sickness is a legitimate excuse to dismiss staff, so he really doesn't.

MrWalsh

therecklessone wrote: »

It has been well established previously that continued absences through sickness is a legitimate excuse to dismiss staff, so he really doesn't.

It depends on how long the absences are for, 3 absences of 2 months each would be a problem Im sure but I think youd have a hard time arguing that 3 absences of a couple of days each a year are enough to dismiss staff.

Polo_Mint

therecklessone wrote: »

It has been well established previously that continued absences through sickness is a legitimate excuse to dismiss staff, so he really doesn't.

If I was sick for 9 days ( 3x3 ) and provided Doctors certs for all sick leave and got dismissed or even a warning, I couldnt take legal action?

seamus

Polo_Mint wrote: »

Well then you leave yourself wide open to unfair dismissal in the courts.

Not really. Provided the employer sticks to the process, you can legally dismiss someone who has excessive sickness, certified or otherwise.

All the company has to show is that you've been unable to satisfactorily carry out the job that you've been hired to do. Of course it will be important that the company is shown to make every attempt to reasonably accommodate them, but ultimately if they're unable to do the work either because they're physically unable or continually absent, it is perfectly legal for the company to take disciplinary action against the employee and ultimately dismiss them.

In many cases this doesn't happen purely because neither the company nor the employee want the indignity of doing that to someone who might otherwise be a good employee, so the employee often voluntarily leaves.

therecklessone

Polo_Mint wrote: »

If I was sick for 9 days ( 3x3 ) and provided Doctors certs for all sick leave and got dismissed or even a warning, I couldnt take legal action?

You could take whatever action you wanted, doesn't mean you'd necessarily win though.

I think seamus has explained himself pretty well just above me.

seamus

Polo_Mint wrote: »

If I was sick for 9 days ( 3x3 ) and provided Doctors certs for all sick leave and got dismissed or even a warning, I couldnt take legal action?

You can always take legal action. The question is whether you'd win.

If you got a warning you couldn't take legal action under anything but contract law. You could ask NERA or the LRC to get involved, but warnings in a disciplinary procedure aren't covered by any legislation.

Your only recourse would be civil action, and if you signed a contract which included the disciplinary process which was being applied, you would lose.

deepsilent

i cannot believe that companies would give a warning for being sick 3 times in an year.

working laws in ireland are really bad for the employees...

Polo_Mint

Seamus.

I suggest you check with your HR to check with the Insurance company

Using this policy you can and will cause alot of issues.

IF a person has a sick cert and told to stay at home, Instead comes into work fearing disciplinary action and anything happens to that employee eg, faints on a stairs etc, You may not be insured if action is taken against you.

secondrowgal

MrWalsh wrote: »

You are lucky. Most people (in my own experience) are not so robustly healthy. I only wish I was.

Sorry to hear that MrW.

Yes, I am lucky, and with my staff too. This that was also my experience at other companies where I worked before. Of course there is the odd person that has to take more sick leave, for genuine reasons, but in general most people had full attendance.

With respect to the OP, I suppose each company is different and it depends on the policy and your contract, but I don't believe that someone can be dismissed for being sick.

MrWalsh

secondrowgal wrote: »

Sorry to hear that MrW.

Yes, I am lucky, and with my staff too. This that was also my experience at other companies where I worked before. Of course there is the odd person that has to take more sick leave, for genuine reasons, but in general most people had full attendance.

With respect to the OP, I suppose each company is different and it depends on the policy and your contract, but I don't believe that someone can be dismissed for being sick.

In my experience its been swings and roundabouts. Ive had periods where I havent been sick for a couple of years then have had a run of things over a 6 month period.

With other staff, there have always been spartan types, and always been some more prone to illness. Possibly during my 20s I was only ever sick with a hangover, but older staff may have genuine ongoing medical complaints. The nature of the job can also affect illness, I remember noticing when I was redundant for 2 years that I wasnt sick once - of course I wasnt around people daily, whereas in my current job the entire office was infected with an ear/nose/throat type illness over January that just one person brought into the building.

I think the point Im rambling around is this, people are human, and experience sickness from time to time. I wouldnt have felt 3 times in a year was particularly excessive - but then again maybe it was for 2 months at a time in a year!! I would think that only to be sick once in 12 years is a very lucky experience.

Id rather people stay home when they are sick rather than infect the rest of the office mind you, and I know in some industries it is not acceptable to come to work with certain illnesses (food prep for example).

Eoin

MrWalsh wrote: »

I agree re a genuine illness that means the person effectively cannot do the job, but being sick 3 times in a year would hardly fall into that would it?

Yes, I think that's on the low side to be getting heavy handed. And maybe they won't even go that far - it could be just a case of making people think twice about having a duvet day.

It's not as easy as some make out to let someone go for being sick - you need to prove either a regular (and I think a likely to be continued) pattern of short term absences, or a serious long term issue that affects their ability to do their job.

Employers need some protection here - they're paying someone to do a job, and even if they don't pay sick leave, it's still disruptive to the business if someone can't be relied on to turn up when they should. And for the employees' protection, the best way to do that is have a formal process that can track this stuff, and let it be on the record that your unscheduled absence is an issue.

If you think of disciplinary action as less of a blame game for something an employee did wrong on purpose, and more of a way to formally let the employee know that there's a problem at work, then it makes more sense.

deepsilent wrote:

working laws in ireland are really bad for the employees...

No, they're not. Far from it.

We've lots of protection here. Look at all the labour court cases where people who blatantly took the piss win their case because due process wasn't followed.

Try working in the US where you can be marched out the door, carrying your personal belongings in a box at the drop of a hat. Where annual leave is not even legally required in some states.

MrWalsh

Eoin wrote: »

If you think of disciplinary action as less of a blame game for something an employee did wrong on purpose, and more of a way to formally let the employee know that there's a problem at work, then it makes more sense.

I agree. I think it is being used as a blame game in this case. Then again perhaps lots of the staff take the mick.

Eoin

Well, my point was really that because the disciplinary process is used to manage these cases, it doesn't mean they're blaming you - it's just the best way to track all this stuff. The same as you'd use the disciplinary process with someone who isn't capable of doing their job on competence reasons. They might want to and they might be able to with training etc, but you have to record this stuff in case the situation gets worse.

Tarzana2

secondrowgal wrote: »

I have had one sick day in 12 years, when I had the vomitting bug and literally had to sit in the bathroom at home all day.

I have 5 staff and their cumulative sick days for the last 3 years is 6 days. And there is no problem having days off if you are sick in my company, they just haven't been sick. Being sick 3 times a year is more than a lot IMO.

That's great but serious illness can come out of nowhere. It could happen you tomorrow. Being sick three times in a years isn't really that much either.

seamus

Polo_Mint wrote: »

IF a person has a sick cert and told to stay at home, Instead comes into work fearing disciplinary action and anything happens to that employee eg, faints on a stairs etc, You may not be insured if action is taken against you.

This is an entirely different issue. Why would someone get a sick cert and then come to work anyway?

If someone said they were sick, had a sick cert, but were going to come in anyway, the manager could tell them to stay at home and then apply the policy and issue disciplinary proceedings anyway.

If an employee gets a sick cert and then comes to work without revealing that cert, then the employer cannot be held liable for any incidents as a result of that sickness.

You seem to be getting confused here and assuming that if you have a sick cert you're immune to your employer taking any action about your absence.

You're wrong.

Also I'd like to state for the record that neither me or my company operate any policy like this. If someone had a sick cert, I'd tell them to stay at home. If they had a sick cert covering them for six months, I'd still tell them to stay at home and then talk to HR about what we can do to replace them.

triple nipple

So it turns out it's 3 instances rather than 3 days which is much fairer. If i get sick ill be taking more than a day off in the future !

Thanks everyone for the info and advice.

by the seaside

secondrowgal wrote: »

I have had one sick day in 12 years, when I had the vomitting bug and literally had to sit in the bathroom at home all day.

I have 5 staff and their cumulative sick days for the last 3 years is 6 days. And there is no problem having days off if you are sick in my company, they just haven't been sick. Being sick 3 times a year is more than a lot IMO.

So do you want people in with bad colds spreading them around?

Eoin

You've most likely already passed it on before the symptoms appear, but aside from that, a lot of people don't seem to think they can scrape through a day of work when they've a bit of the sniffles.

It's very disruptive to have a staff member who is liable to call in sick at even a hint of a sore throat.

Eugene Norman

seamus wrote: »

This is an entirely different issue. Why would someone get a sick cert and then come to work anyway?

If someone said they were sick, had a sick cert, but were going to come in anyway, the manager could tell them to stay at home and then apply the policy and issue disciplinary proceedings anyway.

If an employee gets a sick cert and then comes to work without revealing that cert, then the employer cannot be held liable for any incidents as a result of that sickness.

You seem to be getting confused here and assuming that if you have a sick cert you're immune to your employer taking any action about your absence.

You're wrong.

Also I'd like to state for the record that neither me or my company operate any policy like this. If someone had a sick cert, I'd tell them to stay at home. If they had a sick cert covering them for six months, I'd still tell them to stay at home and then talk to HR about what we can do to replace them.

Do you have any links to prove this? I haven't ever gotten a doctors note and generally average or max take only one sick day a year ( most likely a very heavy flu or cold) in any job but I'm very dubious that somebody with a chronic complaint could be disciplined in the sense you are saying.

Collie D

MrWalsh wrote: »

It depends on how long the absences are for, 3 absences of 2 months each would be a problem Im sure but I think youd have a hard time arguing that 3 absences of a couple of days each a year are enough to dismiss staff.

I think the opposite could be the case. Three absences of long periods would suggest a genuine health problem to me. Three absences of one or two days would suggest long weekenditis.

MrWalsh

Collie D wrote: »

I think the opposite could be the case. Three absences of long periods would suggest a genuine health problem to me. Three absences of one or two days would suggest long weekenditis.

Maybe, but if certified by a doctor then it doesn't matter what you would suggest (unless you are a doctor).

luckyboy

secondrowgal wrote: »

I have had one sick day in 12 years, when I had the vomitting bug and literally had to sit in the bathroom at home all day ... Being sick 3 times a year is more than a lot IMO.

Just to give a perspective on this point. Personally, I haven't taken a sick day in 9 years, but that's not to say I have never been sick in that time. In fact, and maybe this is a particularly bad run I am going through right now, but I have actually been sick 3 times in the last 7 months. I have had two ear infections and a flu since late September. I have gone into work every day throughout all these illnesses, whether that was the correct thing to do or not.

I am not asking for a medal. The point I am making is that it is possible to get sick quite often, through no fault of one's own ...

by the seaside

luckyboy wrote: »

Just to give a perspective on this point. Personally, I haven't taken a sick day in 9 years, but that's not to say I have never been sick in that time. In fact, and maybe this is a particularly bad run I am going through right now, but I have actually been sick 3 times in the last 7 months. I have had two ear infections and a flu since late September. I have gone into work every day throughout all these illnesses, whether that was the correct thing to do or not.

I am not asking for a medal. The point I am making is that it is possible to get sick quite often, through no fault of one's own ...

Last time I had flu, I had to time my bathroom trips for 1 hour after taking paracetamol because I could then crawl the five metres. So you deserve a medal.

by the seaside

Eoin wrote: »

You've most likely already passed it on before the symptoms appear, but aside from that, a lot of people don't seem to think they can scrape through a day of work when they've a bit of the sniffles.

It's very disruptive to have a staff member who is liable to call in sick at even a hint of a sore throat.

If your symptoms start Sunday night then you probably weren't infectious on the Friday so you haul yourself in and spread it around in case someone thinks we've got long weekenditis. It's what I do, as I'm self employed and it takes a lot to make me miss a day's work. But I'm not sure it's a great idea.

2Mad2BeMad

don't understand how anyone can be sick more then 3 days a year, its an excuse to get out of work

if you suffer with a bad cold, the worst of it only last a day or 2 at most, the rest is perfectly manageable to work with.

its no wonder most companies are strict on it, because most people every year take the piss and take a sick day if their not sick

I have not had a sick day in 4 years, I was dying with a cold last week, my job is all manual labour so I was constant on the move, I didnt want to be, I could of took the day of and went home and stayed in bed.

If I can do it believe me anyone else can. Only time someone should take a sick day is if they have to be in hospital, anything else its just you wanting a day off,
a common cold a sore throat might be horrible to work with, but you can work with it.

(if you're in an office environment its fair enough, you don't want it passing around to other people) but taking more then 3 days a year even in an office area, is still taking the piss

2Mad2BeMad

2Mad2BeMad wrote: »

don't understand how anyone can be sick more then 3 days a year, its an excuse to get out of work

What an utterly ridiculous thing to say.