Sick pay restructure

Soilse

Workplace have created new sick pay guidelines part ov which I am extremely uncomfortable with. would a person be terminated if they refused to sign

A employee must tell work the medical reason for sick leave

B if a person hasn't called in sick within 24hrs then their full pay for that time will not be paid so if biweekly or monthly it's potentially a lot if money.

I know it's a theoretical scenario but I have seen enough horrible things happen yo people to know the unknown can always happen.

dennyk

A is not enforceable; your employer has no right to demand any of your private medical details. They can require certification from your health care provider that you are unable to work due to illness and what date you will be able to return to work, but that's it.

B is not really clear from your description, but probably isn't legal as well. Your employer can determine procedures and deadlines for calling in sick, and you could be disciplined for failing to meet those deadlines (provided they are fair and reasonable, and contacting your employer within 24 hours to advise them that you are absent due to illness generally would be). However, your employer cannot withhold your statutory sick pay just for failing to notify them of your illness in time (though they could most likely withhold any additional sick pay they voluntarily provide over and above the statutory requirement of 70% of your normal pay up to €110 a day, if your contract or their policy allows). They absolutely cannot withhold any of your other pay for hours you actually worked during the same pay period, however; that would not be a legal deduction from your pay.

As far as changes to your terms, you are under no obligation to agree to a material change in your contract terms unless it's something that would fall under a variation clause in your current contract. You can't be dismissed or disciplined for declining to agree to a proposed change in your contract. There are cases where declining a change could potentially put you at risk for redundancy (e.g. if your employer no longer requires your current role but you decline to accept a change in your job duties), but declining a proposed change to sick leave terms wouldn't generally create such a situation.

SharkMX

I know someone who had a medical condition and were certified by their doctor.

The company said they wouldnt accept it and insisted the person go to their doctor.

The person said no, i have my own doctor, im not going to yours and if you have a problem with that see you in court.

That was the end of it.

TokTik

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121669696#Comment_121669696

Afaik a company can ask you to see their own doctor.

limnam

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121669712#Comment_121669712

And you can refuse.

SharkMX

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121669712#Comment_121669712

They can ask, but you dont have to. At least thats what ive seen.

Jim2007

OP under what circumstances to you see yourself being unable to inform your employer within 24 hours of going sick on a regular basis? In thirty years I can only remember a single incident when one of my team was unable to report in on the morning they were out sick and that was because he had been hit by a tram and hand temporarily lost his memory.

And in what circumstances are you required to give a reason for taking sick leave? certified or uncertified?

Jim2007

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121669732#Comment_121669732

Well if you are only interested in your statutory sick leave that will probably work but beyond that it may not fly.... Many places have an insurance policy to cover such losses and the insurance company may require attendance at the company doctor before they pay out.

SharkMX

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121669805#Comment_121669805

Insurance companies have their own doctors. Nothing to do with the companies choice of doctor.

limnam

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121669784#Comment_121669784

reporting in on the morning is not 24 hours before the shift.

Reporting of the morning is standard enough. most people won't know 24 hours before their shift they're not going to be able to attend work due to sickness.

An hour or so before your shift should be fine for any company.

dennyk

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121669849#Comment_121669849

I took that line in the OP as meaning "within 24 hours after the start of your absence", which would certainly be reasonable, but if it actually means 24 hours before your absence, that would of course be ridiculous.

Soilse

It's 24hours before absence and yes there was a situation where I was unable to notify work of absence within 24hrs of my work start date due to sn emergency surgery after an accident. In this case apparently I will no longer be paid for any days i had worked since my last pay day.

Jim2007

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121669849#Comment_121669849

The OP does not mention shift work:

B if a person hasn't called in sick within 24hrs then their full pay for that time will not be paid so if biweekly or monthly it's potentially a lot if money.

dennyk

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121669712#Comment_121669712

Yes, but the company's doctor also can't legally share any of your private health information with the company, only whether the employee is unfit for work or not, and when they might be able to return if they are deemed unfit. It's not likely a company would send an employee to a company doctor over a brief illness, though; that would be costly for the company, so it would usually only done in cases of extended absences due to illness, or when returning to work following an extended absence to ensure that the employee is actually fit to return and avoid any potential liability for the employer in allowing them to return.

dennyk

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121669997#Comment_121669997

Yep, that's absolutely illegal. If your employer tries to pull that, make a complaint to the WRC. Requiring 24 hours advance notice of sick leave would be a highly questionable policy even for the purpose of voluntary additional sick leave benefits (and arguably discriminatory against employees with a disability or chronic illness that can render them unfit for work without any advance warning), and would almost certainly not be allowed as a reason to deny statutory sick leave pay, and withholding your pay for hours you actually worked wouldn't be allowed under any circumstances.

PmMeUrDogs

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121669997#Comment_121669997

Nah, they can't refuse to pay you for hours worked just because you called in sick with less than 24 hours notice. They can't refuse to pay you for hours worked even if you didn't bother calling sick.

If you've called in sick, you're also entitled to standard sick pay up to 5 days per year, provided you give a cert

puddles22

Due to gdpr we got a new policy saying that we don't have to disclose what the reason for being sick is, just have to have a doctors cert

28064212

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058333128/sick-pay-restructure

OP, are these direct quotes from the new sick leave policy? On the face of it, they seem unfair at best, illegal at worst. Can you post the full sick leave clause(s)?

limnam

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121669999#Comment_121669999

Huh.

The time he starts work. That's the start of a shift. Regardless if work is regarded "shift" work or not

sham58107

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121669997#Comment_121669997

Is it just me , or is this confusing OP.

How can anybody know they are going to be sick 24 hours before ?? Unless you have a hospital stay booked . Usually you need to inform employer as soon as possible, usually withing 1 hour of shift start, of course a lot depend on the work you do , A surgeon can not call 10 mins before scheduled operation . Normally if you wake feeling sick ,give employer a call.

On your other point , you cannot be stopped pay for work done, maybe only time you missed.

I would have a word with HR in company first to ensure you are reading the policy right .

Jim2007

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121670516#Comment_121670516

Where are you getting this before he starts stuff?

B if a person hasn't called in sick within 24hrs then their full pay for that time will not be paid so if biweekly or monthly it's potentially a lot if money.

The OP clearly states within 24 hours...

28064212

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121671484#Comment_121671484

The opening post doesn't say which 24 hours, before or after. Then the OP stated (post 12) that it was 24 hours before, which sounds completely wrong.

But unless the OP posts the exact wording that is used, all this is pointless speculation

limnam

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121671484#Comment_121671484

Since Calling in sick 24 hours after been sick wouldn't make such as you're just most likely back in work.

I'm assuming that the company want to be notified within 24 hours of the time you're suppose to be in work.......

He states 24 hours, but not which one before or after. After dosn't make much sense. and before doesn't make much sense as you don't know your sick.....

cml387

24 hours would seem reasonable. There are of course the odd occasion when it might not be possible and under those circumstances you could plead mitigation (you have no partner , relations or friends and you have been unconscious for more than 24 hours, for example).

As for the reason, it will be on the sick cert you provide so I can't see the issue.

limnam

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121671715#Comment_121671715

Why would the reason be on the sick cert?

The cert should advise the dates you will not be fit for work and the expected return date

The cert should have no information on the nature of the illness. It's none of the companies business what the nature of the illness is.

cml387

I've dealt with loads of sick certs over the years and they all have a very brief description. They do not give details.

boetstark

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121670034#Comment_121670034

Not sure about this statutory sick pay scheme, lots of grey areas. I had a heart operation in Nov 2020. I was off work for a total of 67 days.

I work for a large American multinational who provides a sick pay scheme.

Upon returning to work I was put off the company sick pay scheme until Nov 2026. They say that should I go sick they are not obliged to pay the statutory sick pay.

PmMeUrDogs

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121674991#Comment_121674991

If their own sick policy is better than statutory, they're correct. The SSP policy only really benefits people who work in companies with no sick pay scheme tbh

boetstark

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121675365#Comment_121675365

Yes but the terms of their sick pay policy isn't more beneficial if you are not entitled to it. I have heard of this scenario in a few different companies

bigslick

I know changes of policies can sometimes be confusing however in general I would advise in such circumstances to have their first call be to HR or management to discuss and clarify rather than posting on a forum where most of response will be "Thats illegal" or "Can take a case to WRC" etc. In most instances it is a case of misunderstanding or miscommunication from the company/HR to the individual and such confusion is easily resolved.

dennyk

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121670604#Comment_121670604

How can anybody know they are going to be sick 24 hours before ??

They can't under most circumstances, clearly. Usually these policies are a **** employer's way of saying "You will not get sick, and if you are sick you'll come in anyway because we're not going to hire enough staff to cover any unexpected absences..."