I suspect employee abused sick leave.

LegacyUser

Last summer, one of the employees under my supervision (we work in retail and and annual leave requests strictly have to revolve around certain months of year) requested 2 and a half weeks off to go to Australia in mid-February. I told her I couldnt approve that much as we have a massive account active all of February and we need all hands on deck, she knew this as she is there 6 years now and is well aware of our busy times. She said how about 2 weeks as an exception and I asked the manager of the store for his approval and he said yes but only as a once off.

As you can probably guess, she took her 2 weeks and then another week "sick", so she was off for 3 weeks in total. When she came back I invited her for a back to work following sickness interview as in standard for our company. When I asked her for a cert to back up her "migraine" complaint, she said that she was so sick that she didnt make it to the doctors and had nothing to show me, I asked her did she not ring a CareDoc and she got very defensive with me, raising her voice saying "I didnt even think of that, why are you getting on to me so much", I reminded her that sick pay was only if certain conditions are met and she just shrugged and said "Take it out of my holidays".

Can I bring a disciplinary case against her for this? Im unsure as I have never faced this situation before. Im pretty sure the boss would back me up but I feel as if all trust is lost now, anyone got any advice?

Nody

You can't take a disciplinary on the basis you think she's lying; what you should have done is to request her to see a doctor of your choice on day 1 (it's usually in most company policies). Secondly you can put an extra eye on everything she does to ensure any other breaches are recorded and obviously cut off anything she had gotten away with previous (i.e. shift swaps, if she goes sick call her every day and have her see a company doctor etc.).

LegacyUser

Thanks for the reply Nody. On your point that if she is sick, have her visit a company doctor of you choice, I surely cannot insist on that if she is calling in sick from home? Do you mean that i should have sent her to company doctor on the day of her return? You see, when she left a message saying she was sick, she didnt actually mention that she had no sick cert (yet). Maybe i should have rang her that day to remind her of that rule..

davo10

So she is just back to work? The answer to your question depends on her contract of employment. If it states that a cert is required after three days out then yes you can, she was absent without leave. The excuse that she was "too sick" to get a cert does not cut muster and is likely a breach of the terms of her contract. Many companies have a clause in the contract stating they will not accept sick leave immediately after annual leave. If you do not deal with this, it sets a precedent that means other employees can do the same thing and point to your inaction with this employee as an example of company policy. You should ask your superiors for direction on this.

uck51js9zml2yt

You need to bring your concerns to HR and get their guidance on this.

While you can suspect she was lying, you cant prove it and cant accuse her.
You can make life difficult and go by the book in future.

If she is out sick you cannot as suggested phone her every day. Its harassment.

I had a staff member who was out for over a year due to an traffic accident. I sent him to our consultant every few months to confirm that he couldn't drive again.
When redundancies came around he tried to come back to work. I duly sent him off to the doctor who confirmed he couldn't drive again. Needless to say he is still employed by the company on sick leave and never got to avail of a nice redundancy package.

davo10

It really doesn't matter whether she was actually sick or not. What matters is whether her leave was required to be certified. If it is and she has no cert then she was awol. That is a disciplinary matter.

LegacyUser

Our sick leave rules means after day 3 you need a cert so technically she was awol for 2 days, then again people not being able to make it to the doctors due to nobody being able to give them a lift/mind kids etc must be fairly common? She is back now 3 weeks and I havent really said anything as I wasnt sure I had a case so I guess if such a situation occurs in the future I can learn from this. As i said my boss and HR would be supportive but I might have missed the boat for any action to be taken. The worst thing for me is the complete breakdown of trust and up to now I could always take her word as gospel. As another poster said, you cannot accuse her of lying but basically that IS what I think happened, right or wrong..

Mrs OBumble

Have you spoken to HR about this? If you didn't raise it with them at the time, you are possibly putting your own job in jeopardy.

Not being able to get a doctor's cert is BS: if someone is so sick that they need more than 3 days off, then they are so sick that they need to see a doctor, no excuses accepted.

Probably you have missed the boat this time around. But you should manage her strictly by the book from now on.

Uncle Ben

If the 'alleged offender' had of got the sick cert from a compliant gp during their leave they could have got another couple of weeks holidays!!

skallywag

I think that you have now left it too late OP. Any particular reason why you wish to act on this now rather than back then?

It's a very difficult topic to deal with in any case, i.e. an employee can anyway waltz into a doctor's office and pretty easily put on a good enough performance as to get signed off sick for a week, etc.

In the case that you describe yourself I would also be fully convinced that this employee was pulling a fast one. Any conscientious employee would go out of their way to provide a sick-cert in such a circumstance, considering the inevitable suspicion.

LynnGrace

I agree with those saying consult with HR, and your own manager on this. Our company policy is very clear on when a doctor's cert is required, and there is no way that someone could be off on sick leave for a week, without producing one.
Saying she was too ill to attend a doctor, I'm afraid, sounds like complete BS.
Re company doctor, this is something usually covered by policy also, as to when an employee would be asked to attend. I'd say if you let this pass, it will lead to further problems down the line, with this employee, or with others if they see her getting away with it.

dixiefly

I am not an expert on employment law so please noone jump down my throat for this.

If she still booked the two and a half weeks as originally requested then it was a big two fingers to you and assumed that you wold accept her sick excuse.
If she is genuine she should be able to show you her flight details or passport stamp or some details proving that she just went for two weeks. If she is not genuine she probably wont show you it.

If it was me I would ask her for evidence that she just booked her flights based on the time she had off. If she has nothing to hide then I reckon that she wouldn't mind showing the details to you. If it was me and I knew how much my employer's wanted me back then I would be very embarrassed looking for sick time off.

gandalf

You should probably consult with HR and with their guidance progress it.

Did she go to Australia anyway, the chances are that she booked the length of time that she originally intended to go and thought the sick leave excuse would work. If she was away I'd ask her to prove the length of holiday away with ticket receipts or the passport with stamps as suggested above. Check this with HR first though.

It does have to be addressed because if she talks to other staff members they too could try and use the same method to get around holiday policy.

Hollister11

Don't mean to hijack the thread just a quick question. Why are you always asked for a sick very if your sick. That's going to cost you €55, instead of your emoter saying grand see you in a few days

snickerpuss

To be honest, if she really had an awful migraine going to the doctor would do nothing. You often just need 3 days in a dark room. They're horrible things. Getting to the doctor and queuing would be torture with a serious migraine (assuming that's what she really had)

billie1b

The company has no right to ask her for tickets/passport stamps or any other form of proof how long her holiday lasted. Only if she had an accident in the work place can the company request her to see a doctor straight away, if its general sickness the company can only request a GP referral after a minimum of 3 months (open to correction on this) as its only then that you can start to be declared as lobg term sick.

davo10

Hollister11 wrote: »

Don't mean to hijack the thread just a quick question. Why are you always asked for a sick very if your sick. That's going to cost you €55, instead of your emoter saying grand see you in a few days

Certification. It proves to your employer that you are infact sick as opposed to taking a few days holidays.

davo10

billie1b wrote: »

The company has no right to ask her for tickets/passport stamps or any other form of proof how long her holiday lasted. Only if she had an accident in the work place can the company request her to see a doctor straight away, if its general sickness the company can only request a GP referral after a minimum of 3 months (open to correction on this) as its only then that you can start to be declared as lobg term sick.

again, the circumstances of the absence are not important, most if not all contracts require a med cert after 3 days out, if she doesn't have one she was awol for a week, that is the disciplinary matter. It could be brought up at a DH that it was a remarkable coincidence that this period of absence corresponded with a period she unsuccessfully applied for leave for and if she was able to produce booking confirmation it would go a long way to you believing that she was in fact ill. Leave the ball in her court to show that it was not an extended holiday and she was ill.

Mrs OBumble

billie1b wrote: »

Only if she had an accident in the work place can the company request her to see a doctor straight away, if its general sickness the company can only request a GP referral after a minimum of 3 months (open to correction on this) as its only then that you can start to be declared as lobg term sick.

I don't believe that any of this is correct in general.

It may be in some specific companies, if that is the company policy.

But I don't think it applies widely.

gleesonger

Have a meeting with HR and your manager, get the companies backing on everything. Read company policy. Speak to the company lawyer. Let the employee know you are discussing the matter internally. Treat her respectfully and bear in mind she could be telling the truth.

mcko

You need to bring your concerns to HR and get their guidance on this.

While you can suspect she was lying, you cant prove it and cant accuse her.
You can make life difficult and go by the book in future.

If she is out sick you cannot as suggested phone her every day. Its harassment.

I had a staff member who was out for over a year due to an traffic accident. I sent him to our consultant every few months to confirm that he couldn't drive again.
When redundancies came around he tried to come back to work. I duly sent him off to the doctor who confirmed he couldn't drive again. Needless to say he is still employed by the company on sick leave and never got to avail of a nice redundancy package.

lazeedaisy

It's very simple,

You don't pay her for the whole week, if a cert is not forthcoming, the initial 3 days are also not paid.

All you can do is warn her she will not get paid for the week, get her to sign sick policy, saying she must produce a cert. This s to let her know it's her responsibility to produce cert next time.

It's not disciplinary, you have to take her word for it, but you can refuse to pay for the week. don't even attempt to go there.

That's what the company I worked for for ten years did.

The first 3 days are not paid if no cert was issued.

We were not allowed go sick from annual leave, must show up and be sent home, for this particular reason.

iPhone.

lazeedaisy wrote: »

We were not allowed go sick from annual leave, must show up and be sent home, for this particular reason.

How does that work if you are incapacitated by illness? Just curious.

Queen-Mise

I'm going against everyone here.

She asked for 2 1/2 weeks holidays so she can go to Australia. From the information given she has been a model employee for the past 6 years. And she was refused the request. Going to Australia for most people is a once in a lifetime holiday.

I think she was right to take the sick leave, as she was absolutely backed into a corner. Your job is a job, not your life and shouldn't run your life.
Although she did screw herself over in not having a cert. The most you can really do I'd imagine is a strike on record for not having cert, and secondly not pay for week.

For your benefit, I would use the policies of the company. Tell HR what happened, and ask their advice (don't mention the Oz bit), tell them that she went straight from 2 weeks holiday onto sick leave.

Although I think your company was mean-spirited not giving the time off, so really I think you should let it go.

Nody

Queen-Mise wrote: »

Although I think your company was mean-spirited not giving the time off, so really I think you should let it go.

Sorry but I see it the other way around; the employee knew that February was normally a no holiday month for everyone but OP got them an exception to that rule and the employee then pissed all over OP by abusing it further.

Mrs OBumble

Queen-Mise wrote: »

I think she was right to take the sick leave, as she was absolutely backed into a corner. Your job is a job, not your life and shouldn't run your life.
Although she did screw herself over in not having a cert. ...

Although I think your company was mean-spirited not giving the time off, so really I think you should let it go.

I tend to agree with the mean spirit bit: The difference was 2-3 extra days (which presumably would have been spent getting over the jetlag on 2 round-the-world trips in a fortnight). If the employee was highly specialised and hard to cover for (surgeon etc) then I might be sympathetic - but this is retail, not rocket science. If you had a temp to cover for 2 weeks, you could have them for 2.5 weeks.

But - the employee's response was absolutely wrong. She should have offered to resign if the extra leave wasn't available. This would have been more honest all around. What the OP has now is a situation where the employee has basically lost the trust of her employer. Messy all round.

LegacyUser

Thanks for the replies, people. I suppose the reason I sat on my laurels and left the issue go was I just wasnt that familiar with the law in this regard plus I was a bit taken aback by her response to our interview, where she did get upset and basically accused me of pressing her too hard. Now I was never the best of friends with this worker but I respected her work and its also worthwhile to say she never has an issue with absenteeism and has only been sick a handful of times in 6 years. To hear her accuse me of getting heavy handed on the issue (she stormed out of the meeting and told me to "take it out of my holidays if it really matters") shocked me as I was only following procedure.

I have since told her Im not in a position to let her take her "sick" week as holidays and I spoke to my boss and HR for advice. HR just confirmed the rules and it doesnt actually state we dont accept sick leave after annual leave but since she doesnt have a cert its not really sick leave. They advised I have an informal chat with her reminding her of the rules of sick leave. I guess the main thing is though that i have lost all trust in her. I will have to just accept that and move on for the future, I dont want to see her sacked for this but its a lesson for me as well to enforce the policies.

lazeedaisy

iPhone. wrote: »

How does that work if you are incapacitated by illness? Just curious.

The procedure was written for cases like this. If you were in hospital, that was the only way you got paid. People showed up on crutches from various accidents, but it did away with people abusing the system.

Sick pay costs businesses a horrendous amount, and you need to be ahead of people, have the right prcesses in place, because the law protects them when you don't.

lazeedaisy

Whatcanido? wrote: »

Thanks for the replies, people. I suppose the reason I sat on my laurels and left the issue go was I just wasnt that familiar with the law in this regard plus I was a bit taken aback by her response to our interview, where she did get upset and basically accused me of pressing her too hard. Now I was never the best of friends with this worker but I respected her work and its also worthwhile to say she never has an issue with absenteeism and has only been sick a handful of times in 6 years. To hear her accuse me of getting heavy handed on the issue (she stormed out of the meeting and told me to "take it out of my holidays if it really matters") shocked me as I was only following procedure.

I have since told her Im not in a position to let her take her "sick" week as holidays and I spoke to my boss and HR for advice. HR just confirmed the rules and it doesnt actually state we dont accept sick leave after annual leave but since she doesnt have a cert its not really sick leave. They advised I have an informal chat with her reminding her of the rules of sick leave. I guess the main thing is though that i have lost all trust in her. I will have to just accept that and move on for the future, I dont want to see her sacked for this but its a lesson for me as well to enforce the policies.

I was a procedures and policy writer for years. You have to tie everything down, we had policy overkill, but that's how life is now unfortunately. But a bad policy or procedure is just not worth the effort.

It's a shame things have changed between you, but people can and will push as far as they can go.

Tobyglen

Queen-Mise wrote: »

I'm going against everyone here.

She asked for 2 1/2 weeks holidays so she can go to Australia. From the information given she has been a model employee for the past 6 years. And she was refused the request. Going to Australia for most people is a once in a lifetime holiday.

I think she was right to take the sick leave, as she was absolutely backed into a corner. Your job is a job, not your life and shouldn't run your life.
Although she did screw herself over in not having a cert. The most you can really do I'd imagine is a strike on record for not having cert, and secondly not pay for week.

For your benefit, I would use the policies of the company. Tell HR what happened, and ask their advice (don't mention the Oz bit), tell them that she went straight from 2 weeks holiday onto sick leave.

Although I think your company was mean-spirited not giving the time off, so really I think you should let it go.

Agreed, if she has been a model employee for 6 years then I think she deserves a bit more respect. Better management would have seen her needs and got her the extra days off, now they have a disgruntled employee and the relationship is ruined. 6 years of service deserves that. What's so important in retail that she couldn't have got 2/3 extra days off?

Uncle Ben

lazeedaisy wrote: »

The procedure was written for cases like this. If you were in hospital, that was the only way you got paid. People showed up on crutches from various accidents, but it did away with people abusing the system.

Sick pay costs businesses a horrendous amount, and you need to be ahead of people, have the right prcesses in place, because the law protects them when you don't.

Thats some shower you're working for. Expecting people to show up on crutches following an accident.

Mrs OBumble

Uncle Ben wrote: »

Thats some shower you're working for. Expecting people to show up on crutches following an accident.

It's actually a very foolish policy: if someone has a doctor's certificate, they are simply not supposed to be on the premises - even just coming in to be sent home could well delay their recovery, and having a policy that requires it leaves the company wide open to being sued for damages if someone's recovery is delayed.

I got a viral infection (mild for the flu, but still way worse than a col) after three days leave, a couple of months back. There as literally no way I could have crawled in to the office just to show them that I was sick - and luckily my current employers are willing to accept a doctor's certificate rather than trying to second guess things themselves.

HiGlo

Tobyglen wrote: »

Agreed, if she has been a model employee for 6 years then I think she deserves a bit more respect. Better management would have seen her needs and got her the extra days off, now they have a disgruntled employee and the relationship is ruined. 6 years of service deserves that. What's so important in retail that she couldn't have got 2/3 extra days off?

I kind of agree with this.
Fair enough she asked for holidays at a dodgy time. Is it written into contracts that holidays are not allowed in this period? (I work in a company where for 5 months of the year holidays are not permitted and no one would dare ask). I understand you managed to secure 2 weeks for her, but what difference would a few more days have made?? Like, 14 days v 17??

I can see how after being a good reliable employee for 6 years that she felt a bit slighted by not being allowed the 2/3 days extra holidays for a (most likely) one off big trip to Australia. I get that that doesn't mean she can just unofficially take them and I think she was prob a little cheeky to do that, but I completely understand why.

You say that for you the trust is gone with her and you'll keep closer eye on her, but I think that works both ways. I would imagine as a long term reliable employee she feels unappreciated and disrespected. That's how I would feel anyway....

I think there are lessons to be learned on both sides here and I think it would be unfair if she was punished for it.

irish_goat

If an employer went on your Facebook page and saw you had checked in/taken photos at certain places when you were "sick" could they do anything?

Kristopherus

irish_goat wrote: »

If an employer went on your Facebook page and saw you had checked in/taken photos at certain places when you were "sick" could they do anything?

Yes, you could end up sacked. What do you expect - a handshake to welcome you back?:D

irish_goat

Kristopherus wrote: »

Yes, you could end up sacked. What do you expect - a handshake to welcome you back?:D

Ah I didn't do anything myself but just curious if it's a done thing these days.

Nody

HiGlo wrote: »

Is it written into contracts that holidays are not allowed in this period?

Actually it's written black and white in the law that the company has the right to decide when an employee takes their holidays...

I also don't find anything odd with two weeks only as everyone keeps harping on about "it's only another three days"; most companies have a very clear policy on holidays exceeding a certain amount of days (usually two weeks) which require more senior manager sign off (for example in my current company it goes from direct line manager to HR manager & department manager at at certain number of days in a row). Assuming this is the case there's a very real possibility that there was no way in hell she'd get those three more days and a chance the senior manager would simply refuse the holiday outright!

Only one final point to add and that is the employee's career is most likely over at this company now because she could not follow the rules. No; I don't mean she'll be fired but between the lost trust (i.e. more reviews of work done) and future prospects (i.e. unlikely she'll be trusted with more responsibility/more important tasks etc.) I don't see her staying out the year but that's my personal guess only.

daheff

I think this situation was badly handled by both parties.

Yes the employee was wrong to not provide a sick cert in accordance with the company policy.

However if the employee is sick, then they are sick. End of.

From the retailers perspective to not give the employee the 2 and a bit weeks holidays is extremely bad form on the retailers behalf. This will be known to all the staff now that even people with long service aren't respected enough to be allowed a holiday of a lifetime. I guarantee you that staff morale is damaged by this.

As another poster said, its retail...its not brain surgery. I doubt this staff member (or any other) is that important that they couldn't take time off. I understand that certain times of the year are busy seasons and limits to the number of people who can go on holidays need to be in place, but blanket bans of large parts of the year means you force everybody to take it at times that mightn't suit them. Companies have to remember that if they treat their staff like partners (rather than required costs) that they get more from the staff & over all the company benefits more.

I'd think that this staff member is now looking for a new job after this.

davo10

daheff wrote: »

However if the employee is sick, then they are sick. End of.
.

I can only assume this statement was made with your tongue firmly in your cheek. Just in case it wasn't, it's daft. All employees must be treated fairly and equally so if policy is not to require sick cert then the employer cannot demand it from another when they are off sick, you referenced brain surgery, you don't have to be a brain surgeon to realise that this policy is open to abuse.

Two weeks is a long break and typical of the longer durations which tend to be approved, anything beyond that is a bonus not a right. All companies restrict holidays during busy periods and periods when they are short handed, not to do so would show a lack of business acumen.

AndyBoBandy

Have a look through her social media, i.e. Facebook status/pictures posted during the 'sick' leave,

people love to tell the world about how awesome their lives are..

gandalf

daheff wrote: »

I think this situation was badly handled by both parties.

Yes the employee was wrong to not provide a sick cert in accordance with the company policy.

However if the employee is sick, then they are sick. End of.

No it is their responsibility to provide proof that they were indeed sick. They didn't do that. I have worked in companies where that would have been seen as a disciplinary situation.

From the retailers perspective to not give the employee the 2 and a bit weeks holidays is extremely bad form on the retailers behalf. This will be known to all the staff now that even people with long service aren't respected enough to be allowed a holiday of a lifetime. I guarantee you that staff morale is damaged by this.

Again it is not the norm to grant more than 2 weeks holidays in a row in an awful lot of employers unless there is a compelling reason. You normally have to have a very good reason and it has to fit around the companies actual needs. In this case the OP went to bat for the employee but was told it was their busiest time and that the employee could have two weeks. That employee then put in what looks like a spurious sickie to cover the days they wanted off in addition for their holidays.

The reason you apply for holiday leave is so your employer can assess if they have adequate cover available and if they determine they do they will green light the leave. It sounds to me that this employee booked the holidays first and then applied for leave.

As another poster said, its retail...its not brain surgery. I doubt this staff member (or any other) is that important that they couldn't take time off. I understand that certain times of the year are busy seasons and limits to the number of people who can go on holidays need to be in place, but blanket bans of large parts of the year means you force everybody to take it at times that mightn't suit them. Companies have to remember that if they treat their staff like partners (rather than required costs) that they get more from the staff & over all the company benefits more.

I'd think that this staff member is now looking for a new job after this.

It doesn't matter what the role is. Do we know the size of the company, do we know how many employees there are available to pick up the slack? Being an experienced member of staff is a two way street. This employee is there six years, they should have realised that getting leave of that length was going to be difficult at this time of the year.

TBH if I was there manager I would be delighted if they were looking for employment elsewhere because as far as I would be concerned they would have abused my trust and I certainly would not be relying on them in future.

Mrs OBumble

gandalf wrote: »

Again it is not the norm to grant more than 2 weeks holidays in a row in an awful lot of employers

Personally I've never seen a rule like that.

In fact, I've only ever seen the opposite: in many cases, an employee is required to be on leave for two continuous weeks (or more) at least once per calendar year.

gandalf

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Personally I've never seen a rule like that.

In fact, I've only ever seen the opposite: in many cases, an employee is required to be on leave for two continuous weeks (or more) at least once per calendar year.

Well most of the companies I have worked for would be in the SME field. I have actually never worked for a company that has required me to take two weeks together.

MarkAnthony

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Personally I've never seen a rule like that.

In fact, I've only ever seen the opposite: in many cases, an employee is required to be on leave for two continuous weeks (or more) at least once per calendar year.

Pretty standard in retail, usually because a site has a limited number of people and cover can only be got for so long. Anywhere I managed needed an area manager to approve anything more than two weeks - it had to be managed on an area level for cover.

Usually there would be a requirement/request for employees to take two weeks over the summer as it's usually the quietest time.

daUbiq

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Personally I've never seen a rule like that.

In fact, I've only ever seen the opposite: in many cases, an employee is required to be on leave for two continuous weeks (or more) at least once per calendar year.

I've never seen the two continuous weeks rule anywhere...

It sounds to me like she knew exactly what she was doing...

ted1

Hollister11 wrote: »

Don't mean to hijack the thread just a quick question. Why are you always asked for a sick very if your sick. That's going to cost you €55, instead of your emoter saying grand see you in a few days

Prevents employees taking the piss. Especially if they are getting paid during their absence

IRE60

Few points. I ran a business where there was a period where no annual leave could be taken - by anyone. Made crystal to anyone joining. Company entitled to do that - it was a window of about 3 to 4 weeks. I'm sure the same would apply in retail.

My wife has to take two weeks back to back each year - under corporate governance policy.

Specifically:
a) this is being dealt with very retrospectively and is not helping the situation or indeed might not help general moral if its pursued so late after the event.
b) I'd like to think that the cert issue is specifically dealt with contract/terms.
c) even contracts you scrape off the 'net have a policy of 3 days out = cert.
d) no cert = written warning i'd suggest.

It's really fcuked up at this point: the delay, the lack of enforcement of policy necessitating a cert - the disregard to that policy (again I assume one exists).

I think that the only way to redress this is as follows.
a) always look for a cert on immediate return in future!
b) meet with the holiday maker, specify that this was overlooked at the time, but it would not be in future. Only that the time elapsed it would have been a written warning - but not this time.

No more said - both move away bruised and a little more knowledgeable

IRE60

daUbiq wrote: »

I've never seen the two continuous weeks rule anywhere...

Parts of the Banks and financial institutions you'll find that commonplace.

Mrs OBumble

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Pretty standard in retail, usually because a site has a limited number of people and cover can only be got for so long. Anywhere I managed needed an area manager to approve anything more than two weeks - it had to be managed on an area level for cover.

Usually there would be a requirement/request for employees to take two weeks over the summer as it's usually the quietest time.

I'm really surprised to hear it's not enforced in retail - businesses with lots of cash and stock floating around are prime candidates for people working out personal-and-dishonest "systems" that only get discovered when the compulsory leave period rolls around and someone else does the job for a complete cycle.

MarkAnthony

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

I'm really surprised to hear it's not enforced in retail - businesses with lots of cash and stock floating around are prime candidates for people working out personal-and-dishonest "systems" that only get discovered when the compulsory leave period rolls around and someone else does the job for a complete cycle.

That would be stocktake day, and no one gets that off!

ted1

daUbiq wrote: »

I've never seen the two continuous weeks rule anywhere...

It sounds to me like she knew exactly what she was doing...

Banks do it. It helps them to identify irregularities