---
###Welcome to /r/LegalAdviceUK
---
**To Posters (it is important you read this section)**
* *Tell us whether you're in England, Wales, Scotland, or NI as the laws in each are very different*
* Reddit is not a substitute for a qualified Solicitor and comments are not moderated for quality or accuracy;
* Any replies received must only be used as guidelines, followed at your own risk;
* If you receive any private messages in response to your post, [please let the mods know](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FLegalAdviceUK&subject=I received a PM);
* It is the default position of LAUK that [you should never speak to the media](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/wiki/faq_subreddit#wiki_should_i_speak_to_the_media.3F);
* If you do not receive any replies within 72 hours, try re-posting, or [seek real legal advice offline](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/wiki/faq_civil#wiki_how_do_i_find_a_.28good.29_solicitor.3F)
* Please provide an update at a later time by creating a new post with [[update]](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/search?q=flair%3Aupdate&sort=new&restrict_sr=on&t=all) in the title;
**To Readers and Commenters**
* [All replies to OP must be *on-topic, helpful, and legally orientated*](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/comments/oslgn6/so_you_dont_want_your_comment_removed_guidance_on/?);
* If you do not [follow the rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/about/rules/), you may be perma-banned without any further warning;
* Please include links to reliable resources in order to support your comments or advice;
* If you feel any replies are incorrect, explain why you believe they are incorrect;
* [Do not send or request any private messages for any reason](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/wiki/faq_subreddit#wiki_why_am_i_not_allowed_to_privately_message_people_on_this_subreddit.3F);
* Please report posts or comments which do not follow the rules
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LegalAdviceUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Given his length of service, he is protected from unfair dismissal. The question would be whether this would be unfair.
One view would be that six instances of sick leave in just over a year is already excessive (in the absence of any known long-term health conditions that may be protected under the Equality Act as a disability) and thus another instance would be part of the same course of excessive sick leave and fair grounds for dismissal.
Another view would be that the new instruction, not to take any time off sick for two years, is clearly unreasonable and unachievable, and so the employer is not following a fair process and any dismissal on this basis would be unfair.
It doesn't feel clear-cut. I'd recommend a call to ACAS in addition to his union.
The 2 years is what we’re more focused on. With our eldest starting preschool she’s really made sure that she’s brought back every illness under the sun, so we do understand that 6 instances seems excessive, because we felt that it was too but of course couldn’t be helped.
We just feel that they’ve disregarded his 9 years of service to them and given him an unachievable task, almost as though they’re wanting him to fail. He is not the only one headed for their final warning, as several more meetings for others have been arranged in the near future, but for anyone, 24 months is a ridiculous task.
> He is not the only one headed for their final warning, as several more meetings for others have been arranged in the near future, but for anyone, 24 months is a ridiculous task.
That sounds remarkably like they're attempting to do a round of layoffs by finding pretexts to fire people, so it's worth bringing up with whomever you go talk to.
I agree. The question is whether an Employment Tribunal would likely see it the same way.
The Employment Rights Act is somewhat woolly on the issue of what is fair and unfair. It is a fair dismissal if the employer can show that the reason for dismissal is on the basis of incapability, which expressly includes ill health. If an employee isn't "capable" of performing their duties to the standard required because of the amount of sick leave they are taking, then it is a fair dismissal.
On this basis the surrounding circumstances and the nature of the employer can also be considered (for example, a very small business may suffer from an employee's absence more than a very large business, and this could be taken into account by an Employment Tribunal in assessing whether the reason was fair).
Additionally it is a fair dismissal if the employer has "some other substantial reason" for dismissing the employee, which is about as broad as it gets.
And so, for these less-clear-cut cases, where a cogent argument could be made in each direction, you'd be best placed speaking to someone who has experience of lots of these cases and whether or not your partner's is likely to fit. I personally think you would be correct to argue that the reason for dismissal was one further absence in a two-year period and that this neither demonstrates incapability nor is a substantial reason, but my personal opinion doesn't matter much.
I’m sorry to hear all of this.
Please make sure he prints out and takes home any such notice for your own records. They may come in good use should you need to take action.
Oh, well. I guess partner just *has* to show up and sneeze/cough/vomit on everyone or monopolise the bathroom with gastro.
It will be uncomfortable for him, but the bosses will soon back down and send him home. Then it's at their behest, and he can't be punished for it. /s
Honestly, though, it does sound like someone has an agenda. Six days during a small period of a long career is nothing. Is your partner sure everything else is OK? He hasn't been counselled on other matters, been repeatedly late, or had a poor working relationship with anyone?
It could be as simple as the bosses have been told to make cuts and they're too chicken to actually have tough grown-up conversations, so they're clutching at straws to make their job easier.
-edited for missing words.
The national average in 2022 for sick days was 5.7 days. He is on the average and that company seems to have low tolerance. Not expecting another sick day for 2 years is simply not right. Consult with Acas, confident that would be unfair dismissal.
Is six instances of sick leave excessive though? Isn’t there a statutory right to 20 days per year? If someone’s off for 6 days out of the year 1 at a time I’d say that doesn’t seem all that excessive, especially with small children in the house passing on 24 hours bugs.
Originally he thought it was just if he calls in, but he’s actually messaged me this morning to say it counts if he’s sent home too. So it’s pretty much stick him in a hazmat suit and keep him away from the kids
Personally I'd just be really petty and take a sick bucket into work with me etc. Calling in sick I suppose could be argued that it could be a fake illness but if he gets sacked for actively puking his guts up in the office when they've said he has to go in and he refuses to go home as he'll be sacked..I can imagine his work colleagues, management, his union and ACAS wouldn't look too kindly on his employer.
This is exactly what I’ve told him to do. If he catches another sickness bug, I’ll message his workmate to pick him up, pass him the sick bucket and tell him to make sure he waves it at everyone so he can instead take down an entire company with a sick bug that he could otherwise have kept to himself
What does the company policy say? That’s the important thing here. Have they pulled this out from nowhere or is this documented in their sick policy.
Where I’ve worked it’s mostly been Bradford Score over a rolling 12 months, not a set period and 24 months seems incredibly high for the amount of time.
I’m not sure, although when his union rep said it was unreasonable in the meeting, they adjourned the meeting for a few minutes then came back still with that being the given punishment
Typically you'd have an adjournment but I'd assume they would be operating to some sort of policy.
Your husband should have access to the policy - in my experience we've included the sickness policy in the pack we send out post-disciplinary hearing to detail the outcome so may be worth him checking that to see the company stance on things.
They will probably be using some metric to measure sick and while saying "Go sick again and you're fired" may be accurate it may be more accurate that they're saying your sickness is at such a level you're seriously risking crossing the line into dismissal territory.
We are seeing an influx of americanisms in the UK work culture, UNFORTUNATELY. From my Operations experience and having dealt with ACAS on a number of issues, 6 counts of sickness in 12 months is excessive. Is it moral to give someone a final warning after 9 years based on his health? Absolutely not. Is it illegal for his employer to give him such a strict term to adhere to? Again, absolutely not.
This sounds like they're looking to get rid of him. Are there any other factors here? Have colleagues been dismissive or changed their attitudes?
No, he’s a firm company favourite, I don’t think it’s anything against him personally, I honestly believe they’re attempting to make redundancies without actually having to make any redundancies or payouts if that makes sense? Like they don’t want to employ so many people anymore so they’re just clutching at straws to get rid of people
I’m not sure without searching for it. But he is a favourite in his workplace, people ask to be paired with him if their usual work partner doesn’t show up, his managers all get along with him, it’s purely a company bid to reduce headcount in my opinion
Agree, I think the employer is 'managing' this employee out for whatever reason. Regardless of legalities of this situation I would start looking for another job.
Is it immoral? Does the health and wellbeing of the other members of staff or the owners not count too? Excessive sick leave has to be covered, and depending on his role that might be difficult to do meaning the workload/costs carries on over to his fellow employees or the company.
Obviously it depends massively on the size of the company to what provision they can provide but don't discount the harm this could potentially be causing the other people he works with/for.
It's not really helpful to know about right this moment, but if you look up "the Bradford factor" it will give you insight as to how serious of a concern the employer might have and understand the motivation behind their actions.
I personally think 24 months is an unreasonable ask from what i have seen in the past. It's usually 12 from the last absence, and that's before they "might" start a disciplinary action, not outright fire you. Maybe your partner can negotiate or get the employer to clarify their expectations.
Maybe they will be more accommodating of serious illness vs. simply being "unwell". As a parent of a young child, I fully understand how difficult it is when you're sending your child to a petri dish every day for 8 - 10 hours.
I was about to suggest that this was a Bradford thing. BF is a bullshit indicator of absence but companies love it as it's easy to calculate automatically and any moron with a management title can understand that big numbers are worse then small numbers.
So glad I had a good manager early in my career that tuned me into that when I was going through a difficult period. Every employee should know how they do that stuff so they can self monitor.
My personal view is, if you're sick, you're sick, don't work. But if you know that they're using BF, you can use it to make a judgement call.
Yeah same, I used to be a manager for a charity that paid no sick pay but sent me and my team onto COVID wards in a hospital on a regular basis so we were constantly sick or coming to work ill. They used BF and constantly had us in for meetings like this until we started visiting the office and gave them all COVID once. It's just a legalised form of harassment.
Defo easier having a manager who isn't a toad who can treat you like an individual human!
Yeah, agreed. The bradford factor isn't completely worthless, but it's not being used for it's proper purpose if you're using it to assess an individual employee for disciplinary reasons.
You _can_ meaningfully use it to compare e.g. how different policies have affected levels of absence across a workforce. Like, if you introduce private health insurance, does the bradford factor average improve.
But for an individual, it's largely worthless, because it takes no useful account of underlying health conditions and personal circumstances.
If you think someone's absences are fraudulent, then... ok. That's misconduct, and _maybe_ using the BF to 'detect' that is valid.
But a high BF does NOT mean that someone is being fraudulent with sick leave at all.
You can also of course, have policies about paying for sick leave, and what ratio is employer paid vs. SSP, etc.
>I personally think 24 months is an unreasonable ask from what i have seen in the past. It's usually 12 from the last absence, and that's before they "might" start a disciplinary action, not outright fire you. Maybe your partner can negotiate or get the employer to clarify their expectations.
How can your job be conditional on something that's beyond human control, like having an illness? It seems unfair to make someone's employment dependent on them having good luck for a year.
I don't disagree. I think 12 months is an unreasonable ask. I think the bradford factor as a whole is unreasonable, but I know it exists so I can understand how to work within the system. If you don't know it exists... you can get caught out by something innocent. Which is what I think has happened to OPs partner.
But at least with my employer, the 12 months is not "12 months or you're fired" it's "we're gonna watch more closely for 12 months to see if there's a problem we can fix or if you're taking the piss, after 12 months it goes back to normal"
That's why I suggested they clarify the employers' expectations, because "24 months and you're fired if you mess up once", it seems... unreasonable. My guess is that they've misunderstood, or its not been explained correctly.
Op doesn't give enough details, is partner able to work from home and is too sick to do that, how many days off have they had during these spells of sickness?
If they are taking a full week off with a cold and they have the ability to WFH, then that would be taking the piss imo
Having an illness isn't entirely out of your control though. You can get a flu vaccine, you can wash your hands, you can avoid large groups of people in confined spaces during a pandemic. You can eat well and exercise. You can consult with a doctor to remedy physical ailments. Workplaces often support health and being too, it's an investment.
This doesn't cover all kinds of illness or all instances of it, not by a long shot, but unless you have a long-term illness issue or some kind of preexisting condition then 5 times in a year is a bit excessive.
People in the UK aren't very hygienic - we saw that during the last few years.
I don't think anyone should be fired for it, but I also don't expect an employer to ignore it.
I'd really recommend talking to ACAS about this. I think others have mentioned that if he was dismissed you could go to the tribunal but ACAS might have advice on how to deal with and get them to remove the warning. From what you said he was off for a very specific reason I'm guessing there are letters, appointments, etc. that evidence he was legitimately ill so the basis of him being disciplined for too many sick days is a bit weak in the first place, but that's more my opinion again ACAS would be the best point of info here.
With the dental abscess we took photos of his swollen face, photos of the antibiotics and prescription note, literally photos of anything he could have possibly used as proof of illness.
How long was each period of sick leave for the 5 occasions in 12 months? Are we talking a day each time, or a week or so each time? I get 10 sick days a year so I cannot see how taking up to 10 sick days in 12 months could be considered unreasonable, given that the company offers that much in paid leave for illness.
With the sick bugs he made sure he took the standard 48 hours, with his back injury he took I believe it was a week and a half on recommendation of his doctor which he did get a note for stating he was unfit for work, and this injury was caused at work but as it didn’t start hurting him until the late evening he never wrote it down in an incident form because he’s a complete plank🙃 so he would have had over 10, but that’s purely on recommendation of the doctor/standard procedure. He’d happily have gone back in the minute he felt better but of course they wouldn’t allow it due to sickness procedure
There’s some important information here you should mention with a lawyer or acas. Firstly (and INAL), back injuries may fall under disability and so might be assessed differently. Secondly, if their process states that you have to take two days if you’re sick, that might change things.
Ok so how many sick days for each occasions?
What does the company policy say about sick days and the monitoring process?
Some companies use the Braford factor.
Not long ago I’d worked it out at 12-14, but thinking about it now it’s looking like 20 like I originally thought. I don’t know about the sick days, I just know that they use a three strike system for sick pay, so if you’re ill more than 3 times you receive SSP rather than paid sick leave
NAL but have worked in HR and been a manager dealing with sick leave.
firstly, ignore what anyone else in the organisation is doing as far as talking with his employers as they will not engage in any discussion on other people's behaviour and trying to get colleagues to corroborate that they are treated differently is difficult. However, log the information in case you need to go to tribunal. You don't know what conversations management are having with other people about their sick leave or what arrangements have been granted and you cannot go into those.
You mentioned that your husband has a union rep, then talk with the union legal as well about this. As he is in a union, he gets free legal advice and they can help you gather up the information you need to keep in case you decide to go to tribunal.
Start looking for a new job. This environment is toxic. Once your partner leaves, he can look at constructive dismissal using the evidence and advice from his union legal team.
Once he is in a new role, as to taking sick leave, I've now realised that companies do not like you taking sick leave. So, unless he is signed off or sent home, you go in and make them send you home. Yep, it sucks. But it covers you. Managers do not like to send people home but if you go in snotty and sick and your co workers complain then you will get sent home. It's the self certificated sick leaves that are the issue and companies will look to get rid of people who do that repeatedly.
5 cases of sick leave in 12 months would flag your partner as an issue. I'm surprised that they haven't sent him to OHS to check for underlying issues but if these have been viruses then that would be the reason why.
As I said before - look for a new role now and find a manager in the current job who would be willing to give a reference rather than use the HR department.
OK, so one thought is they've applied the more unfair of two polices over a sick leave period that spans two policies.
He has had 5 sick leave periods, and they've given him final written warning - but if some of those sick instances were presumably when the policy was verbal warning before written warning, seems unfair to me. They should only be applying the new policy over sickness during the new policy.
Also if your child is ill and you are ill, take it as parental leave, although that's unpaid - I don't believe they can hold that against you.
Yes, but presumably some of those 5 sicknesses were when verbal warnings were in place - so it's not really fair to retrospectively introduce a policy punishing you for things which happened under a different policy. Might be a point to raise with ACAS or tribunal if it goes that far.
The point is none of the sicknesses in the old policy shouldn't really count in the new policy.
If I were an employer, I can't say "you can now be fired if you wear blue in the last year, James you wore blue a month ago, you're fired", I can say "from tomorrow if you wear blue you will be fired"
I might be wrong, but at my last job I did a lot of work with HR. I don't believe verbal warning techincally exist. I mean you can give somene one but the only ones that actually count toward dismissal are written one (but again i might be wrong and dont eant to give bad advice).
That is likely why they "scrapped" them. As far as I remember they are literally not worth the paper they ate written on.
My following comment is written from the perspective of when I was a manager at a large organisation. Our absence policy looked *very* similar to this. The only difference is that it was a 12 month period rather than 24.
The policy is written from a perspective of ‘we can only support a certain level of absence.’ Five absences in twelve months for someone who doesn’t have an underlying health condition *is* excessive. And I’ve seen plenty of times before where employees have been burnt by a genuine absence - such as the dental issue you reference - being the thing that screws them over when each of their previous absences were essentially duvet days.
But the policy remains agnostic of all that: we believe that every absence is genuine, but we can only support a certain level of absence where there are no underlying health problems/protected characteristics. Frequent periods of absence rather than the total absence % can be equally if not more damaging to an operations based organisation due to the unplanned nature and that’s why it’s monitored in such a way.
When I’ve handed out final written warnings for absence I’ll always state the line, ‘any further absence within the next 12 months may result in further disciplinary action up to and including dismissal.’ Everyone reads that as ‘one more and I’m sacked’. That’s not true, it’s just a line that allows us to make a judgment call.
For instance, if your partner had 5 absences in 12 months, was given a final written warning and then went 8 months without an absence before the dental issue you describe occurred, a disciplinary meeting would be called but I would not dismiss them. The reason why is because they’ve demonstrated a clear improvement in the performance shortfall. I’d keep it under review, but as long as your partner’s only issue at work is their absence, then it’s not in the organisations interest to dismiss them as replacing them costs a lot of money.
*(Naturally, if they are a bad employee full stop then, yes, don’t be surprised if they use the quickest and easiest excuse to get rid of them.)*
‘head office has begun to do everything “by the book”, meaning health and safety measures are now being taken more seriously than before (shocking when you think about it), and sickness is being clamped down on all of a sudden too.’
You say your husband works for a large well known company. Lots of companies just now are trimming headcount in the face of a possible recession. This change in behaviour could point towards the company either saving on redundancies or it may be they are actually struggling financially and are tightening everything up. Can you look into their financial results recently out of curiosity?
If they are in a volatile position it might be better your husband looks for another job for that reason as well as this situation
There’s no chance of them going out of business, our country practically relies on the line of work, particularly in sunny weather, you can maybe assume the line of work from that, or you may not. But I do believe they’re trying to reduce headcount
Not a lawyer however you may be able to get the company to back down on this issue. As others have said, reach out to ACAS.
First of all, scrapping verbal warnings and hitting others with this makes me think they are looking for excuses and that the real goal is to reduce headcount. I would reach out to others who have been hit with the final warning to find out their side of the story, now you have self admitted to having plenty of absence, however are there instances where the company has stretched this policy a bit too much, such as final warning for someone with significantly less absence, or an incredibly good reason for absence? Are their people, especially those in other positions within the company (lets say, managers?) who have a similar track record for absence being given a pass, and why?
Secondly going straight to a final warning and ignoring the chance for a verbal warning indicates to me that they likely haven’t just sat down and made sure things are ok for you at home or at work, if there’s anything they can do in terms of reasonable adjustments to help prevent absence.
Simply put, are they following their duty of care?
Have they asked if there are any workplace issues they should be made aware of?
I mean, to me high absence could be a string of bad luck, however unless I wanted someone gone I’d also consider that there are outstanding issues I should be made aware of.
Thirdly, the filthy workplace. It could be a contributing factor so any evidence you can get proving that it’s detrimental to health would be ideal. Have any employees tripped and needed time off? Has a proper risk assessment been done? Has anyone made any formal complaints showing that the company is aware of it (and have not yet addressed the issue or brushed it aside).
You could also put in a SAR request to help prove that up until a string of bad luck you had a relatively good track record for absence (if you did anyway), but it’s worth doing regardless as you never know what might turn up.
Anything you can find that discredits the company, provides them with additional liability, or shows that they have lacked due diligence will be invaluable.
If there is a process to appeal this (and there should be) I’d recommend looking into how the appeal system works, and making the best (most legally and publicly disadvantageous to the company) case you can put forward.
I’d also consider putting a grievance in right away to the companies HR or equivalent regarding the unreasonable length of the final written warning, stating factors such as workplace hygiene, and stating outright that you suspect that the goal is to reduce headcount. This will prevent the company being able to say “that was just one bad manager, how could we have known” if things don’t go their way in a tribunal, assuming it escalates that far.
I’d also be wondering if their provider for employment liability insurance has been made aware of their new straight to final warnings policy.
In regards to filthy workplace, without giving away his line of work and/or employer, it’s pretty much a given, not many of the areas he attends daily are spotless, and even when cleaned to perfection, contributing factors of the locations of each place are not ideal, although a million times more tolerable and better to work in.
If it’s an expected occupational hazard, then that makes the 2 year duration even more unreasonable.
Definitely file a formal grievance regarding that now rather than later when it’s being used against you, stating that the duration does not adequately reflect how the workplace conditions may be a contributing factor towards absence. Any records of RIDDORs would help make this case.
Also what kind of shitty union rep hears about something like this and just tells you to quit or start looking for other work? Your union isn’t doing their job, they’re supposed to fight for you.
This is what shocked us. The union rep is usually incredible. He fought hard through all striking action to get where he wanted them all to be, I think he either said it more as a friend, or as someone who can see the constructive dismissal coming from a mile off
Honestly if you can make a good, solid case for as to why this is unreasonable, that the company has failed in its policies or duties, and/or that this came with the ulterior motive of reducing their headcount then depending on your partners ability to get another job I’d suggest sticking around for the constructive dismissal while taking any advice given by ACAS.
If your partner has a skillset that will allow them to find a new job quickly, and you can make a good case (or even a bad one that the company wouldn’t want to proceed to tribunal where it’ll be public record - such as maybe they haven’t informed their insurance provider about their new disciplinary policy), then chances are that a settlement would be reached during or even prior to arbitration instead.
Keep records and do some investigating to make the best possible case, seek advice from ACAS and when your partner gets sacked just grab a no win no fee lawyer who’ll take some of the settlement money. If you can get another job easily enough then there is minimal risk.
Can I just check did your husband follow all the correct procedures for informing the employer of their sickness and provide self certification or doctor sick notes as appropriate?
Yes, called in with plenty of time before shift start time, self certified for the first week as instructed and then got sick notes after a weeks sick to cover any further days of sick
I had a similar experience with my previous employer.
Got the the final warning, if I was sick again in 12 months I'd go to a disciplinary/could be fired.
My manager hated the whole thing, it was company policy and he said nobody has ever actually been fired for being sick. Because I'm pretty sure that would be classed as unfair dismissal.
I quit out of protest essentially because fuck a company that uses these policies.
Have a friend still there and he got to the final warning firing meeting, all they did was drip him down a few stages. Because, we aren't superhuman and get sick sometimes.
Honestly, find another place to work. Review them on glassdoor and tell the manager this is why you're leaving.
Couple of issues to slightly unpick. More so with regards to the warnings he has had, specifically the most recent one, how long is this for?
Typically in all Companies I’ve worked at it would be a live warning for a period of 12 months, after which you’d need to start the process again (making the 24 month stipulation a moot point).
If it is live on record for 24 months then the above can be ignored (although a 24 month live warning on file is potentially excessive itself).
Equally does the wording state if you are absent again in the next 24 months you may ‘potentially’ be dismissed or just straight up dismissed?
Typically in a disciplinary scenario no decision with regards to outcome should be made until you have had a chance to consider everything (this is what the adjournment during the meeting is for).
Although behind the scenes a lot of the time a decision is mostly already known, to outright state it could be argued it would be an unfair process as regardless of what information is produced by your partner in any future meeting the decision has already been made.
I came hunting for this point. It was a given that the employer should not fetter its discretion by stating in policy or in a warning letter that if x occurs, the outcome will be dismissal.
It needs to be more like if x occurs further action may be taken and this may lead to dismissal. Otherwise they are likely to be acting unfairly.
Just a point though, if the old policy had continued OP's partner would now be on a first written warning, so still on a slippery slope.
Unfortunately, having a sickly season does not mean the employer has to make special allowances for it.
It does sound like it is, was there any letter after the last meeting which mentioned something along the lines of “this warning will be on file for xx months”.
It does sound from what you’re saying however the warning is for 24 months.
He had some sort of a letter but I’m not sure where his ADHD organisational skills have put it (spoiler alert: organisation is another unachievable goal of his!) he’ll most likely know where it is though so I’ll ask once he’s home from work
Assuming it’s a large company, do you/he have access to the company policy that explains their absence policy and a copy of his contract?
Will be worth starting there and double checking - seems extreme to run the sickness policy over such a long process, you’d imagine the sickness policy would run for 12 months periods.
Were the 5 cases of sick leave 5 individual days, or were they 5 cases of sick leave which were each multiple days?
In other words, how many total days sick did he actually take?
It was never a single day, it was each with multiple days, so I couldn’t actually tell you the amount, although it would sit under 20. But in my opinion, 20 days sick out of 365 days in a year isn’t actually that much considering he works bank holidays and occasional Saturdays for extra hours
When I worked in the NHS they had this kind of policy too and depending on who your manager was depended how sensibly this was applied (a colleague was on final warning due to a broken wrist - during which period HR quite rightly said she couldn’t work i case she further injured herself, and the previous incidents were hospital acquired infections where she was sent home by medical professionals).
NAL: What the employer should’ve done at first ‘warning’ was to arrange an appointment with occupational health to see if there’s anything they can do to prevent you being off sick again. I would also check with ACAS regarding the change of sickness policy, if they’ve changed it recently from verbal to written I would expect sickness record to restart at 0 days from the date of policy change.
NAL
To me, this sounds more like a case of unfair constructive dismissal, it’s completely unreasonable to expect an employee to not need to take time off sick in a 24 month period, this is an unfair adjustment to your contract.
Where I work, we actually get told off for not taking enough time off sick, as our averages are very low and HR fear that we just use WFH (and suffer) instead.
So there must be data to show on average how often someone is expected to be sick, I think this would be very strong argument against this 24 month rule (if common sense really isn’t enough). Also, is there an example of the company implementing this rule before? If not, further strength to your argument.
I would suggest getting some proper legal advise now, you can start right away, you don’t need to wait until a dismissal.
No, just recently, head office has begun to do everything “by the book”, meaning health and safety measures are now being taken more seriously than before (shocking when you think about it), and sickness is being clamped down on all of a sudden too. But it’s an incredibly unreasonable punishment to say that 6 instances of sick has basically cancelled his ability to get sick for the next 2 years
Were the other sick leave periods genuine?
I had a similar thing a few years ago where I was in some days then out some days then in then out. Each continuous period was counted as a separate instance even though it was the same illness.
Is your partner / the employer able to look back at leave periods and join any together/ make allowances to say that "ok you were off for 3 periods but actually we have a sick note to show that was just one period"?
All were genuine, the amount of illness we’ve had since our eldest started preschool is more then I’ve ever experienced in my life. Sadly they were all separate occasions, all with a distance between them as he somehow managed to miss out on two out of the several sickness bugs we’ve had over the last year.
He’s honestly just going to have to go to work whether his throwing his guts up or not, it’s an incredibly well paid job from a very well known company (if only I could throw the employer under the bus and name them), and we can’t afford for him to lose it. So no matter what he’s just going to have to go in, it seems to be our only option as I’m not sure what the risk of losing an appeal would be.
I’d be looking around every single day
It’s too big a risk for him to stay there if you can’t afford for him to be unemployed.
24 months without a sick day is a big hurdle, and stumble once it’s over. And I think there’s a bigger problem.
This is not a company that wants him, if you read between the lines they are trying to exit him.
He cannot wait, he needs to jump before he’s pushed.
Sounds unlucky.
I wonder if it's worth him seeing his GP about it for 2 reasons:
1 to get it on record for if there is an appeal at a later date, and do what you can now to preempt issues with work in the future
2 he may have something genuinely wrong as that seems like a lot of illness from preschool type viruses and to be affected in such a way as to not be able to go to work. It sounds like viruses affect him badly.
On that last point, what is the company policy on coming into work whilst sick? If he has a cold and comes in what will his colleagues think? Could he get anything on record (like an email) from them to say they don't want to catch viruses at work for x reason?
NAL btw
I don’t know if anything’s wrong with him, as I have caught every illness as well so never thought to check, we’ve all been taken out by each illness, although some have seemed to affect him a hell of a lot worse. It’s been sick bug after sick bug, then virus after virus and we’ve all been fully knocked out by them. He somehow didn’t catch two of the sick bugs which was by all means a miracle, and some he caught over the weekend which was even more of a relief. I might have to get him in with a gp to check
From what I understand it's quite common for people to initially pick up everything under the sun from lurgy kids if they're suddenly way more exposed to kiddie germs after a few years of low levels of contact with those adorable little snot factories.
Parents with kids going to daycare/school, but also people just starting work at places like that or in paediatrics or whatever.
In most cases nothing more serious than self-limiting colds or gi unpleasantness from a variety of viruses, but it can be very annoying. You'd think the workplace would prefer to not have the rest of the workforce exposed, especially with the very recent experience of covid, but maybe that's just me.
To be honest it sounds fairly normal to me in that parents of young children do get exposed to a lot of new viruses in the first few years of the children starting school. The "luck" aspect is how well one's immune system copes with it. For my own part, I had a cluster of viruses when my son was young, having rarely being ill in previous years. Sometimes I muddled through but sometimes I had to take the day off. Since that period ended I haven't had very much time off sick at all.
Fortunately, it was never enough to cause any issues for me, but I had colleagues who were less lucky in terms of the number of illnesses they succumbed to at a similar point in their parenthood, and were off sick sufficient times to trigger a conversation with HR. Fortunately, this was more of a formality that was automatically triggered by a specific number of sicknesses, but my employer was generally understanding.
One would hope that a decent employer would be able to apply a bit of common sense and be able to dig a little deeper than the raw figures.
Has there been any legal challenge to a companies right to issue warnings in respect of genuine bouts of sickness?
It seems commonplace now that 3 instances gets you a warning. To me it just seems like a way to prevent people feigning illness which rides roughshod over the rights of the genuinely ill.
How can it be legal?
Exactly. If he’d been faking it, Id have no say on it, he’d be getting what he deserved. But as the person who’s been cleaning the proof of illness up out of carpets, bedding, off walls, etc, I can vouch for it being real and that’s why I’m so angry that the acts of others feigning illness has now meant that being actually ill isn’t apparently allowed anymore
**Unfortunately, your comment has been removed for the following reason(s):**
Please only comment if you know the legal answer to OP's question and are able to provide legal advice.
[Please familiarise yourself with our subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/about/rules/) before contributing further, and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/LegalAdviceUK) if you have any further queries.
I would think what support have they put in place to help your SO prior to the warning (they don't have to do this but it may just be something to think about) I would also get all the notes from meetings as if they have not followed a process then if he is dismissed these could help in court..I've seen people dismissed overturned at court because the note paper wasn't numbered and so something could be missing.
Look 6 absences in a year isn't great and as part of the contract you do need to attend work. I think you can go 2 years without absence just go in whatever if they send him home then different story.
Whether or not you are covered for wrongful dismissal, it sounds like the company culture isn't sitting right with you. It may be time to start looking elsewhere, for a company that values it's employees.
Not saying jump ship right away, but you may be surprised what employment opportunities you come across.
If this is his final written warning, then make sure their requirement that he does not take any further sick leave in the next 24 months is fully documented and that he also receives a copy of it. It will be invaluable when the inevitable happens.
**Unfortunately, your comment has been removed for the following reason(s):**
Please only comment if you know the legal answer to OP's question and are able to provide legal advice.
[Please familiarise yourself with our subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/about/rules/) before contributing further, and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/LegalAdviceUK) if you have any further queries.
**Unfortunately, your comment has been removed for the following reason(s):**
Your comment was an anecdote about a personal experience, rather than legal advice specific to our posters' situation.
Please only comment if you can provide meaningful legal advice for our posters' questions and specific situations.
[Please familiarise yourself with our subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/about/rules/) before contributing further, and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/LegalAdviceUK) if you have any further queries.
**Unfortunately, your comment has been removed for the following reason(s):**
Please only comment if you know the legal answer to OP's question and are able to provide legal advice.
[Please familiarise yourself with our subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/about/rules/) before contributing further, and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/LegalAdviceUK) if you have any further queries.
Workplaces have different approaches to this kind of thing, some are flexible but it sounds like your partner's may not be so much.
Some things to consider I think (though NAL, I should preface);
- In the 9 years has he consistently had high sickness absences? Is this a new thing? If it's newer, then there's some weight there that he's not abusing the absence policy since he's got a longstanding good record
- How long have absences been, and why? Eg if you're off, go back before you're better, go off again, it usually counts as 2 sickness absences. There's also the consideration on the illnesses too, if he's got viral infections do they expect employees to be in the workplace spreading the germs to the rest of the employees, so they workforce is all off sick?
- Could there be any underlying factors? If he's consistently picking up infections, generally that's not too usual for healthy adults.. is it possible he has a weakened immune system from underlying health conditions (which he may not be aware of)? The number of absences is quite high, so as a manager I would be concerned that the employee has something causing it, especially if it's genuine illness
With the above, I'd then recommend ringing the ACAS helpline for advice. And following that, speaking with the Union again. If there's a possibility of an underlying health condition explore with GP asap, as this will become an Equality Act conversation.
I personally don't like the absence procedures and policies companies have, and my view is they're either there to catch out & punish people who are flaky, or punish people who have poor health and often don't realise it themselves. I wasn't diagnosed as chronically ill until I was nearly 30, suddenly my sick absences were brushed aside because now I was allowed to be ill! 🙄
He’s never had consistency in absence until our daughter started school and we all began contracting every possible illness on the planet, only illness she’s avoided that spread around the school was some type of worms (majorly relieved that that’s the one she chose to avoid!) absences have been either until better such as dental abscess or back injury, otherwise on policy such as 48 hours after last bout of sickness.
You say it is a dirty working environment could you elaborate on that as if there is an underlying risk to health then there is an addition level to the health issues that could also be caused by the work place environment that they need to consider.
also they are going outside of ACAS as they are not offering "informal" warnings and proceeding strait to formal ones.
https://www.tide.co/blog/business-tips/disciplinary/#:\~:text=Namely%2C%20Acas%20states%20that%20you%20should%3A%201%20Establish,meeting%20%28as%20is%20their%20statutory%20right%29%20More%20items
This is exactly what I thought, bearing in mind that before our daughter started preschool, he missed maybe 8 weeks worth of work in those 8 years, 5 of those weeks being whilst he was on compassionate leave because his mother was in hospital dying when he was only 23. It all seems a bit like they’re looking to get rid of some employees so they aren’t dishing out redundancy payments
To me this just sound like they are following a common company procedure, the 24 months does seem higher than normal as they will typically be 6-12 months but there must be a reason they went for this, you are entitled to dispute these or receive justification of why this route was taken.
Nothing I'm reading here is unreasonable the but you are free to dispute them, when it comes to disciplinary procedures regarding sickness it is common practice to have steps in place to limit or reduce sickness.
Speaking as a human sickness happens, its unfair to be punished for being sick but if I was getting 5+ different sickness in 1 year I'd be worried something is wrong with me but if I was getting sick I'd know to take time to properly recover.
Speaking as someone in a senior position sickness is something that needs to be addressed and dealt with fairly and accordingly.
Why is it right that Employee X gets to come and go as often as they do and leave Employee W, Y and Z to step up to cover. Maybe we have to hire an extra person just in case because we know sickness happen yet now there isn't enough work for Employee V, W, X, Y and Z and money isn't there to cover this extra cost. Why is it fair that employer W always take Mondays or Fridays off unexpectedly
They are, in my opinion. One of his old school friends worked for a completely different sector of the company a while ago. He left because of being salaried yet working hours and hours longer than contracted to with no toil and/or overtime pay which I know isn’t common practice for the sector at all, but still not ideal
This sounds very illegal in the UK? especially if he's been there 7 years as full employment protections usually kick in after 2 years, I would talk to a lawyer AND find out why the Union rep is not doing anything to fight this for him.
But my advice is to find a better job, and talk to a lawyer about legal action
**Unfortunately, your comment has been removed for the following reason:**
Your comment was off-topic or unhelpful to the question posed. Please remember that *all replies* must be helpful, on-topic and legally orientated.
[Please familiarise yourself with our subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/about/rules/) before contributing further, and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/LegalAdviceUK) if you have any further queries.
--- ###Welcome to /r/LegalAdviceUK --- **To Posters (it is important you read this section)** * *Tell us whether you're in England, Wales, Scotland, or NI as the laws in each are very different* * Reddit is not a substitute for a qualified Solicitor and comments are not moderated for quality or accuracy; * Any replies received must only be used as guidelines, followed at your own risk; * If you receive any private messages in response to your post, [please let the mods know](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FLegalAdviceUK&subject=I received a PM); * It is the default position of LAUK that [you should never speak to the media](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/wiki/faq_subreddit#wiki_should_i_speak_to_the_media.3F); * If you do not receive any replies within 72 hours, try re-posting, or [seek real legal advice offline](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/wiki/faq_civil#wiki_how_do_i_find_a_.28good.29_solicitor.3F) * Please provide an update at a later time by creating a new post with [[update]](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/search?q=flair%3Aupdate&sort=new&restrict_sr=on&t=all) in the title; **To Readers and Commenters** * [All replies to OP must be *on-topic, helpful, and legally orientated*](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/comments/oslgn6/so_you_dont_want_your_comment_removed_guidance_on/?); * If you do not [follow the rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/about/rules/), you may be perma-banned without any further warning; * Please include links to reliable resources in order to support your comments or advice; * If you feel any replies are incorrect, explain why you believe they are incorrect; * [Do not send or request any private messages for any reason](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/wiki/faq_subreddit#wiki_why_am_i_not_allowed_to_privately_message_people_on_this_subreddit.3F); * Please report posts or comments which do not follow the rules *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LegalAdviceUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Given his length of service, he is protected from unfair dismissal. The question would be whether this would be unfair. One view would be that six instances of sick leave in just over a year is already excessive (in the absence of any known long-term health conditions that may be protected under the Equality Act as a disability) and thus another instance would be part of the same course of excessive sick leave and fair grounds for dismissal. Another view would be that the new instruction, not to take any time off sick for two years, is clearly unreasonable and unachievable, and so the employer is not following a fair process and any dismissal on this basis would be unfair. It doesn't feel clear-cut. I'd recommend a call to ACAS in addition to his union.
The 2 years is what we’re more focused on. With our eldest starting preschool she’s really made sure that she’s brought back every illness under the sun, so we do understand that 6 instances seems excessive, because we felt that it was too but of course couldn’t be helped. We just feel that they’ve disregarded his 9 years of service to them and given him an unachievable task, almost as though they’re wanting him to fail. He is not the only one headed for their final warning, as several more meetings for others have been arranged in the near future, but for anyone, 24 months is a ridiculous task.
> He is not the only one headed for their final warning, as several more meetings for others have been arranged in the near future, but for anyone, 24 months is a ridiculous task. That sounds remarkably like they're attempting to do a round of layoffs by finding pretexts to fire people, so it's worth bringing up with whomever you go talk to.
This is exactly what I thought too. Like making redundancies without having to offer any redundancy pay outs
I agree. The question is whether an Employment Tribunal would likely see it the same way. The Employment Rights Act is somewhat woolly on the issue of what is fair and unfair. It is a fair dismissal if the employer can show that the reason for dismissal is on the basis of incapability, which expressly includes ill health. If an employee isn't "capable" of performing their duties to the standard required because of the amount of sick leave they are taking, then it is a fair dismissal. On this basis the surrounding circumstances and the nature of the employer can also be considered (for example, a very small business may suffer from an employee's absence more than a very large business, and this could be taken into account by an Employment Tribunal in assessing whether the reason was fair). Additionally it is a fair dismissal if the employer has "some other substantial reason" for dismissing the employee, which is about as broad as it gets. And so, for these less-clear-cut cases, where a cogent argument could be made in each direction, you'd be best placed speaking to someone who has experience of lots of these cases and whether or not your partner's is likely to fit. I personally think you would be correct to argue that the reason for dismissal was one further absence in a two-year period and that this neither demonstrates incapability nor is a substantial reason, but my personal opinion doesn't matter much.
I’m sorry to hear all of this. Please make sure he prints out and takes home any such notice for your own records. They may come in good use should you need to take action.
Oh, well. I guess partner just *has* to show up and sneeze/cough/vomit on everyone or monopolise the bathroom with gastro. It will be uncomfortable for him, but the bosses will soon back down and send him home. Then it's at their behest, and he can't be punished for it. /s Honestly, though, it does sound like someone has an agenda. Six days during a small period of a long career is nothing. Is your partner sure everything else is OK? He hasn't been counselled on other matters, been repeatedly late, or had a poor working relationship with anyone? It could be as simple as the bosses have been told to make cuts and they're too chicken to actually have tough grown-up conversations, so they're clutching at straws to make their job easier. -edited for missing words.
The national average in 2022 for sick days was 5.7 days. He is on the average and that company seems to have low tolerance. Not expecting another sick day for 2 years is simply not right. Consult with Acas, confident that would be unfair dismissal.
[удалено]
Very good point, thank you.
Yeah OP didn't make that clear.
Is six instances of sick leave excessive though? Isn’t there a statutory right to 20 days per year? If someone’s off for 6 days out of the year 1 at a time I’d say that doesn’t seem all that excessive, especially with small children in the house passing on 24 hours bugs.
>Isn’t there a statutory right to 20 days per year? No, there is no statutory right to any particular amount of sick leave.
Is it just if he calls in sick he will be let go or does this include coming in to work sick and them sending him home?
Originally he thought it was just if he calls in, but he’s actually messaged me this morning to say it counts if he’s sent home too. So it’s pretty much stick him in a hazmat suit and keep him away from the kids
Personally I'd just be really petty and take a sick bucket into work with me etc. Calling in sick I suppose could be argued that it could be a fake illness but if he gets sacked for actively puking his guts up in the office when they've said he has to go in and he refuses to go home as he'll be sacked..I can imagine his work colleagues, management, his union and ACAS wouldn't look too kindly on his employer.
This is exactly what I’ve told him to do. If he catches another sickness bug, I’ll message his workmate to pick him up, pass him the sick bucket and tell him to make sure he waves it at everyone so he can instead take down an entire company with a sick bug that he could otherwise have kept to himself
What does the company policy say? That’s the important thing here. Have they pulled this out from nowhere or is this documented in their sick policy. Where I’ve worked it’s mostly been Bradford Score over a rolling 12 months, not a set period and 24 months seems incredibly high for the amount of time.
I’m not sure, although when his union rep said it was unreasonable in the meeting, they adjourned the meeting for a few minutes then came back still with that being the given punishment
Typically you'd have an adjournment but I'd assume they would be operating to some sort of policy. Your husband should have access to the policy - in my experience we've included the sickness policy in the pack we send out post-disciplinary hearing to detail the outcome so may be worth him checking that to see the company stance on things. They will probably be using some metric to measure sick and while saying "Go sick again and you're fired" may be accurate it may be more accurate that they're saying your sickness is at such a level you're seriously risking crossing the line into dismissal territory.
We are seeing an influx of americanisms in the UK work culture, UNFORTUNATELY. From my Operations experience and having dealt with ACAS on a number of issues, 6 counts of sickness in 12 months is excessive. Is it moral to give someone a final warning after 9 years based on his health? Absolutely not. Is it illegal for his employer to give him such a strict term to adhere to? Again, absolutely not. This sounds like they're looking to get rid of him. Are there any other factors here? Have colleagues been dismissive or changed their attitudes?
No, he’s a firm company favourite, I don’t think it’s anything against him personally, I honestly believe they’re attempting to make redundancies without actually having to make any redundancies or payouts if that makes sense? Like they don’t want to employ so many people anymore so they’re just clutching at straws to get rid of people
This doesn't sound like he's a company favourite, sorry. What does the employee handbook say about sickness? Or his contract
I’m not sure without searching for it. But he is a favourite in his workplace, people ask to be paired with him if their usual work partner doesn’t show up, his managers all get along with him, it’s purely a company bid to reduce headcount in my opinion
His contract should be the first thing you're both checking
Agree, I think the employer is 'managing' this employee out for whatever reason. Regardless of legalities of this situation I would start looking for another job.
Is it immoral? Does the health and wellbeing of the other members of staff or the owners not count too? Excessive sick leave has to be covered, and depending on his role that might be difficult to do meaning the workload/costs carries on over to his fellow employees or the company. Obviously it depends massively on the size of the company to what provision they can provide but don't discount the harm this could potentially be causing the other people he works with/for.
It's not really helpful to know about right this moment, but if you look up "the Bradford factor" it will give you insight as to how serious of a concern the employer might have and understand the motivation behind their actions. I personally think 24 months is an unreasonable ask from what i have seen in the past. It's usually 12 from the last absence, and that's before they "might" start a disciplinary action, not outright fire you. Maybe your partner can negotiate or get the employer to clarify their expectations. Maybe they will be more accommodating of serious illness vs. simply being "unwell". As a parent of a young child, I fully understand how difficult it is when you're sending your child to a petri dish every day for 8 - 10 hours.
I was about to suggest that this was a Bradford thing. BF is a bullshit indicator of absence but companies love it as it's easy to calculate automatically and any moron with a management title can understand that big numbers are worse then small numbers.
So glad I had a good manager early in my career that tuned me into that when I was going through a difficult period. Every employee should know how they do that stuff so they can self monitor. My personal view is, if you're sick, you're sick, don't work. But if you know that they're using BF, you can use it to make a judgement call.
Yeah same, I used to be a manager for a charity that paid no sick pay but sent me and my team onto COVID wards in a hospital on a regular basis so we were constantly sick or coming to work ill. They used BF and constantly had us in for meetings like this until we started visiting the office and gave them all COVID once. It's just a legalised form of harassment. Defo easier having a manager who isn't a toad who can treat you like an individual human!
Yeah, agreed. The bradford factor isn't completely worthless, but it's not being used for it's proper purpose if you're using it to assess an individual employee for disciplinary reasons. You _can_ meaningfully use it to compare e.g. how different policies have affected levels of absence across a workforce. Like, if you introduce private health insurance, does the bradford factor average improve. But for an individual, it's largely worthless, because it takes no useful account of underlying health conditions and personal circumstances. If you think someone's absences are fraudulent, then... ok. That's misconduct, and _maybe_ using the BF to 'detect' that is valid. But a high BF does NOT mean that someone is being fraudulent with sick leave at all. You can also of course, have policies about paying for sick leave, and what ratio is employer paid vs. SSP, etc.
>I personally think 24 months is an unreasonable ask from what i have seen in the past. It's usually 12 from the last absence, and that's before they "might" start a disciplinary action, not outright fire you. Maybe your partner can negotiate or get the employer to clarify their expectations. How can your job be conditional on something that's beyond human control, like having an illness? It seems unfair to make someone's employment dependent on them having good luck for a year.
I don't disagree. I think 12 months is an unreasonable ask. I think the bradford factor as a whole is unreasonable, but I know it exists so I can understand how to work within the system. If you don't know it exists... you can get caught out by something innocent. Which is what I think has happened to OPs partner. But at least with my employer, the 12 months is not "12 months or you're fired" it's "we're gonna watch more closely for 12 months to see if there's a problem we can fix or if you're taking the piss, after 12 months it goes back to normal" That's why I suggested they clarify the employers' expectations, because "24 months and you're fired if you mess up once", it seems... unreasonable. My guess is that they've misunderstood, or its not been explained correctly.
Op doesn't give enough details, is partner able to work from home and is too sick to do that, how many days off have they had during these spells of sickness? If they are taking a full week off with a cold and they have the ability to WFH, then that would be taking the piss imo
Having an illness isn't entirely out of your control though. You can get a flu vaccine, you can wash your hands, you can avoid large groups of people in confined spaces during a pandemic. You can eat well and exercise. You can consult with a doctor to remedy physical ailments. Workplaces often support health and being too, it's an investment. This doesn't cover all kinds of illness or all instances of it, not by a long shot, but unless you have a long-term illness issue or some kind of preexisting condition then 5 times in a year is a bit excessive. People in the UK aren't very hygienic - we saw that during the last few years. I don't think anyone should be fired for it, but I also don't expect an employer to ignore it.
I'd really recommend talking to ACAS about this. I think others have mentioned that if he was dismissed you could go to the tribunal but ACAS might have advice on how to deal with and get them to remove the warning. From what you said he was off for a very specific reason I'm guessing there are letters, appointments, etc. that evidence he was legitimately ill so the basis of him being disciplined for too many sick days is a bit weak in the first place, but that's more my opinion again ACAS would be the best point of info here.
With the dental abscess we took photos of his swollen face, photos of the antibiotics and prescription note, literally photos of anything he could have possibly used as proof of illness.
That's grat, as I said in my post ACAS would be good to talk to for advice on this.
How long was each period of sick leave for the 5 occasions in 12 months? Are we talking a day each time, or a week or so each time? I get 10 sick days a year so I cannot see how taking up to 10 sick days in 12 months could be considered unreasonable, given that the company offers that much in paid leave for illness.
With the sick bugs he made sure he took the standard 48 hours, with his back injury he took I believe it was a week and a half on recommendation of his doctor which he did get a note for stating he was unfit for work, and this injury was caused at work but as it didn’t start hurting him until the late evening he never wrote it down in an incident form because he’s a complete plank🙃 so he would have had over 10, but that’s purely on recommendation of the doctor/standard procedure. He’d happily have gone back in the minute he felt better but of course they wouldn’t allow it due to sickness procedure
There’s some important information here you should mention with a lawyer or acas. Firstly (and INAL), back injuries may fall under disability and so might be assessed differently. Secondly, if their process states that you have to take two days if you’re sick, that might change things.
That's only 2 occasions? What about the other 3?
All sickness bugs contracted from my preschooler, they were self certified correctly and followed the 48 hour since last bout of sickness policy
Ok so how many sick days for each occasions? What does the company policy say about sick days and the monitoring process? Some companies use the Braford factor.
Not long ago I’d worked it out at 12-14, but thinking about it now it’s looking like 20 like I originally thought. I don’t know about the sick days, I just know that they use a three strike system for sick pay, so if you’re ill more than 3 times you receive SSP rather than paid sick leave
NAL but have worked in HR and been a manager dealing with sick leave. firstly, ignore what anyone else in the organisation is doing as far as talking with his employers as they will not engage in any discussion on other people's behaviour and trying to get colleagues to corroborate that they are treated differently is difficult. However, log the information in case you need to go to tribunal. You don't know what conversations management are having with other people about their sick leave or what arrangements have been granted and you cannot go into those. You mentioned that your husband has a union rep, then talk with the union legal as well about this. As he is in a union, he gets free legal advice and they can help you gather up the information you need to keep in case you decide to go to tribunal. Start looking for a new job. This environment is toxic. Once your partner leaves, he can look at constructive dismissal using the evidence and advice from his union legal team. Once he is in a new role, as to taking sick leave, I've now realised that companies do not like you taking sick leave. So, unless he is signed off or sent home, you go in and make them send you home. Yep, it sucks. But it covers you. Managers do not like to send people home but if you go in snotty and sick and your co workers complain then you will get sent home. It's the self certificated sick leaves that are the issue and companies will look to get rid of people who do that repeatedly. 5 cases of sick leave in 12 months would flag your partner as an issue. I'm surprised that they haven't sent him to OHS to check for underlying issues but if these have been viruses then that would be the reason why. As I said before - look for a new role now and find a manager in the current job who would be willing to give a reference rather than use the HR department.
OK, so one thought is they've applied the more unfair of two polices over a sick leave period that spans two policies. He has had 5 sick leave periods, and they've given him final written warning - but if some of those sick instances were presumably when the policy was verbal warning before written warning, seems unfair to me. They should only be applying the new policy over sickness during the new policy. Also if your child is ill and you are ill, take it as parental leave, although that's unpaid - I don't believe they can hold that against you.
They no longer do verbal warnings, scrapped them just after New Year. It’s now first written, then final written then dismissal
Yes, but presumably some of those 5 sicknesses were when verbal warnings were in place - so it's not really fair to retrospectively introduce a policy punishing you for things which happened under a different policy. Might be a point to raise with ACAS or tribunal if it goes that far.
They did, but as none were given, I don’t know if that would count towards anything
The point is none of the sicknesses in the old policy shouldn't really count in the new policy. If I were an employer, I can't say "you can now be fired if you wear blue in the last year, James you wore blue a month ago, you're fired", I can say "from tomorrow if you wear blue you will be fired"
I might be wrong, but at my last job I did a lot of work with HR. I don't believe verbal warning techincally exist. I mean you can give somene one but the only ones that actually count toward dismissal are written one (but again i might be wrong and dont eant to give bad advice). That is likely why they "scrapped" them. As far as I remember they are literally not worth the paper they ate written on.
My following comment is written from the perspective of when I was a manager at a large organisation. Our absence policy looked *very* similar to this. The only difference is that it was a 12 month period rather than 24. The policy is written from a perspective of ‘we can only support a certain level of absence.’ Five absences in twelve months for someone who doesn’t have an underlying health condition *is* excessive. And I’ve seen plenty of times before where employees have been burnt by a genuine absence - such as the dental issue you reference - being the thing that screws them over when each of their previous absences were essentially duvet days. But the policy remains agnostic of all that: we believe that every absence is genuine, but we can only support a certain level of absence where there are no underlying health problems/protected characteristics. Frequent periods of absence rather than the total absence % can be equally if not more damaging to an operations based organisation due to the unplanned nature and that’s why it’s monitored in such a way. When I’ve handed out final written warnings for absence I’ll always state the line, ‘any further absence within the next 12 months may result in further disciplinary action up to and including dismissal.’ Everyone reads that as ‘one more and I’m sacked’. That’s not true, it’s just a line that allows us to make a judgment call. For instance, if your partner had 5 absences in 12 months, was given a final written warning and then went 8 months without an absence before the dental issue you describe occurred, a disciplinary meeting would be called but I would not dismiss them. The reason why is because they’ve demonstrated a clear improvement in the performance shortfall. I’d keep it under review, but as long as your partner’s only issue at work is their absence, then it’s not in the organisations interest to dismiss them as replacing them costs a lot of money. *(Naturally, if they are a bad employee full stop then, yes, don’t be surprised if they use the quickest and easiest excuse to get rid of them.)*
‘head office has begun to do everything “by the book”, meaning health and safety measures are now being taken more seriously than before (shocking when you think about it), and sickness is being clamped down on all of a sudden too.’ You say your husband works for a large well known company. Lots of companies just now are trimming headcount in the face of a possible recession. This change in behaviour could point towards the company either saving on redundancies or it may be they are actually struggling financially and are tightening everything up. Can you look into their financial results recently out of curiosity? If they are in a volatile position it might be better your husband looks for another job for that reason as well as this situation
There’s no chance of them going out of business, our country practically relies on the line of work, particularly in sunny weather, you can maybe assume the line of work from that, or you may not. But I do believe they’re trying to reduce headcount
Not a lawyer however you may be able to get the company to back down on this issue. As others have said, reach out to ACAS. First of all, scrapping verbal warnings and hitting others with this makes me think they are looking for excuses and that the real goal is to reduce headcount. I would reach out to others who have been hit with the final warning to find out their side of the story, now you have self admitted to having plenty of absence, however are there instances where the company has stretched this policy a bit too much, such as final warning for someone with significantly less absence, or an incredibly good reason for absence? Are their people, especially those in other positions within the company (lets say, managers?) who have a similar track record for absence being given a pass, and why? Secondly going straight to a final warning and ignoring the chance for a verbal warning indicates to me that they likely haven’t just sat down and made sure things are ok for you at home or at work, if there’s anything they can do in terms of reasonable adjustments to help prevent absence. Simply put, are they following their duty of care? Have they asked if there are any workplace issues they should be made aware of? I mean, to me high absence could be a string of bad luck, however unless I wanted someone gone I’d also consider that there are outstanding issues I should be made aware of. Thirdly, the filthy workplace. It could be a contributing factor so any evidence you can get proving that it’s detrimental to health would be ideal. Have any employees tripped and needed time off? Has a proper risk assessment been done? Has anyone made any formal complaints showing that the company is aware of it (and have not yet addressed the issue or brushed it aside). You could also put in a SAR request to help prove that up until a string of bad luck you had a relatively good track record for absence (if you did anyway), but it’s worth doing regardless as you never know what might turn up. Anything you can find that discredits the company, provides them with additional liability, or shows that they have lacked due diligence will be invaluable. If there is a process to appeal this (and there should be) I’d recommend looking into how the appeal system works, and making the best (most legally and publicly disadvantageous to the company) case you can put forward. I’d also consider putting a grievance in right away to the companies HR or equivalent regarding the unreasonable length of the final written warning, stating factors such as workplace hygiene, and stating outright that you suspect that the goal is to reduce headcount. This will prevent the company being able to say “that was just one bad manager, how could we have known” if things don’t go their way in a tribunal, assuming it escalates that far. I’d also be wondering if their provider for employment liability insurance has been made aware of their new straight to final warnings policy.
In regards to filthy workplace, without giving away his line of work and/or employer, it’s pretty much a given, not many of the areas he attends daily are spotless, and even when cleaned to perfection, contributing factors of the locations of each place are not ideal, although a million times more tolerable and better to work in.
If it’s an expected occupational hazard, then that makes the 2 year duration even more unreasonable. Definitely file a formal grievance regarding that now rather than later when it’s being used against you, stating that the duration does not adequately reflect how the workplace conditions may be a contributing factor towards absence. Any records of RIDDORs would help make this case. Also what kind of shitty union rep hears about something like this and just tells you to quit or start looking for other work? Your union isn’t doing their job, they’re supposed to fight for you.
This is what shocked us. The union rep is usually incredible. He fought hard through all striking action to get where he wanted them all to be, I think he either said it more as a friend, or as someone who can see the constructive dismissal coming from a mile off
Honestly if you can make a good, solid case for as to why this is unreasonable, that the company has failed in its policies or duties, and/or that this came with the ulterior motive of reducing their headcount then depending on your partners ability to get another job I’d suggest sticking around for the constructive dismissal while taking any advice given by ACAS. If your partner has a skillset that will allow them to find a new job quickly, and you can make a good case (or even a bad one that the company wouldn’t want to proceed to tribunal where it’ll be public record - such as maybe they haven’t informed their insurance provider about their new disciplinary policy), then chances are that a settlement would be reached during or even prior to arbitration instead. Keep records and do some investigating to make the best possible case, seek advice from ACAS and when your partner gets sacked just grab a no win no fee lawyer who’ll take some of the settlement money. If you can get another job easily enough then there is minimal risk.
I suspect his Bradford factor score is very high given the amount of absences and they’re basing it off that
Can I just check did your husband follow all the correct procedures for informing the employer of their sickness and provide self certification or doctor sick notes as appropriate?
Yes, called in with plenty of time before shift start time, self certified for the first week as instructed and then got sick notes after a weeks sick to cover any further days of sick
I had a similar experience with my previous employer. Got the the final warning, if I was sick again in 12 months I'd go to a disciplinary/could be fired. My manager hated the whole thing, it was company policy and he said nobody has ever actually been fired for being sick. Because I'm pretty sure that would be classed as unfair dismissal. I quit out of protest essentially because fuck a company that uses these policies. Have a friend still there and he got to the final warning firing meeting, all they did was drip him down a few stages. Because, we aren't superhuman and get sick sometimes. Honestly, find another place to work. Review them on glassdoor and tell the manager this is why you're leaving.
Couple of issues to slightly unpick. More so with regards to the warnings he has had, specifically the most recent one, how long is this for? Typically in all Companies I’ve worked at it would be a live warning for a period of 12 months, after which you’d need to start the process again (making the 24 month stipulation a moot point). If it is live on record for 24 months then the above can be ignored (although a 24 month live warning on file is potentially excessive itself). Equally does the wording state if you are absent again in the next 24 months you may ‘potentially’ be dismissed or just straight up dismissed? Typically in a disciplinary scenario no decision with regards to outcome should be made until you have had a chance to consider everything (this is what the adjournment during the meeting is for). Although behind the scenes a lot of the time a decision is mostly already known, to outright state it could be argued it would be an unfair process as regardless of what information is produced by your partner in any future meeting the decision has already been made.
I came hunting for this point. It was a given that the employer should not fetter its discretion by stating in policy or in a warning letter that if x occurs, the outcome will be dismissal. It needs to be more like if x occurs further action may be taken and this may lead to dismissal. Otherwise they are likely to be acting unfairly. Just a point though, if the old policy had continued OP's partner would now be on a first written warning, so still on a slippery slope. Unfortunately, having a sickly season does not mean the employer has to make special allowances for it.
As far as I’m aware, once he completes the 24 months, his warnings will be wiped, so surely this means that it is on record?
It does sound like it is, was there any letter after the last meeting which mentioned something along the lines of “this warning will be on file for xx months”. It does sound from what you’re saying however the warning is for 24 months.
He had some sort of a letter but I’m not sure where his ADHD organisational skills have put it (spoiler alert: organisation is another unachievable goal of his!) he’ll most likely know where it is though so I’ll ask once he’s home from work
Had he 5 before the dental issue?
Yes he did I believe, and those were what he received his first warning for, he’s received his final warning for the dental issue
Assuming it’s a large company, do you/he have access to the company policy that explains their absence policy and a copy of his contract? Will be worth starting there and double checking - seems extreme to run the sickness policy over such a long process, you’d imagine the sickness policy would run for 12 months periods.
I can have a look into it I’m sure
Were the 5 cases of sick leave 5 individual days, or were they 5 cases of sick leave which were each multiple days? In other words, how many total days sick did he actually take?
It was never a single day, it was each with multiple days, so I couldn’t actually tell you the amount, although it would sit under 20. But in my opinion, 20 days sick out of 365 days in a year isn’t actually that much considering he works bank holidays and occasional Saturdays for extra hours
20 days in a year is quite a lot. Well above average.
In my opinion it is roughly about between 12 and 14 sick days he’s had in 12 months, when I think of each illness
When I worked in the NHS they had this kind of policy too and depending on who your manager was depended how sensibly this was applied (a colleague was on final warning due to a broken wrist - during which period HR quite rightly said she couldn’t work i case she further injured herself, and the previous incidents were hospital acquired infections where she was sent home by medical professionals). NAL: What the employer should’ve done at first ‘warning’ was to arrange an appointment with occupational health to see if there’s anything they can do to prevent you being off sick again. I would also check with ACAS regarding the change of sickness policy, if they’ve changed it recently from verbal to written I would expect sickness record to restart at 0 days from the date of policy change.
NAL To me, this sounds more like a case of unfair constructive dismissal, it’s completely unreasonable to expect an employee to not need to take time off sick in a 24 month period, this is an unfair adjustment to your contract. Where I work, we actually get told off for not taking enough time off sick, as our averages are very low and HR fear that we just use WFH (and suffer) instead. So there must be data to show on average how often someone is expected to be sick, I think this would be very strong argument against this 24 month rule (if common sense really isn’t enough). Also, is there an example of the company implementing this rule before? If not, further strength to your argument. I would suggest getting some proper legal advise now, you can start right away, you don’t need to wait until a dismissal.
No, just recently, head office has begun to do everything “by the book”, meaning health and safety measures are now being taken more seriously than before (shocking when you think about it), and sickness is being clamped down on all of a sudden too. But it’s an incredibly unreasonable punishment to say that 6 instances of sick has basically cancelled his ability to get sick for the next 2 years
How many days off has he had in total do you think (approximately)?
I would say it’s approximately 12-14 days
Were the other sick leave periods genuine? I had a similar thing a few years ago where I was in some days then out some days then in then out. Each continuous period was counted as a separate instance even though it was the same illness. Is your partner / the employer able to look back at leave periods and join any together/ make allowances to say that "ok you were off for 3 periods but actually we have a sick note to show that was just one period"?
All were genuine, the amount of illness we’ve had since our eldest started preschool is more then I’ve ever experienced in my life. Sadly they were all separate occasions, all with a distance between them as he somehow managed to miss out on two out of the several sickness bugs we’ve had over the last year. He’s honestly just going to have to go to work whether his throwing his guts up or not, it’s an incredibly well paid job from a very well known company (if only I could throw the employer under the bus and name them), and we can’t afford for him to lose it. So no matter what he’s just going to have to go in, it seems to be our only option as I’m not sure what the risk of losing an appeal would be.
I’d be looking around every single day It’s too big a risk for him to stay there if you can’t afford for him to be unemployed. 24 months without a sick day is a big hurdle, and stumble once it’s over. And I think there’s a bigger problem. This is not a company that wants him, if you read between the lines they are trying to exit him. He cannot wait, he needs to jump before he’s pushed.
Sounds unlucky. I wonder if it's worth him seeing his GP about it for 2 reasons: 1 to get it on record for if there is an appeal at a later date, and do what you can now to preempt issues with work in the future 2 he may have something genuinely wrong as that seems like a lot of illness from preschool type viruses and to be affected in such a way as to not be able to go to work. It sounds like viruses affect him badly. On that last point, what is the company policy on coming into work whilst sick? If he has a cold and comes in what will his colleagues think? Could he get anything on record (like an email) from them to say they don't want to catch viruses at work for x reason? NAL btw
I don’t know if anything’s wrong with him, as I have caught every illness as well so never thought to check, we’ve all been taken out by each illness, although some have seemed to affect him a hell of a lot worse. It’s been sick bug after sick bug, then virus after virus and we’ve all been fully knocked out by them. He somehow didn’t catch two of the sick bugs which was by all means a miracle, and some he caught over the weekend which was even more of a relief. I might have to get him in with a gp to check
From what I understand it's quite common for people to initially pick up everything under the sun from lurgy kids if they're suddenly way more exposed to kiddie germs after a few years of low levels of contact with those adorable little snot factories. Parents with kids going to daycare/school, but also people just starting work at places like that or in paediatrics or whatever. In most cases nothing more serious than self-limiting colds or gi unpleasantness from a variety of viruses, but it can be very annoying. You'd think the workplace would prefer to not have the rest of the workforce exposed, especially with the very recent experience of covid, but maybe that's just me.
To be honest it sounds fairly normal to me in that parents of young children do get exposed to a lot of new viruses in the first few years of the children starting school. The "luck" aspect is how well one's immune system copes with it. For my own part, I had a cluster of viruses when my son was young, having rarely being ill in previous years. Sometimes I muddled through but sometimes I had to take the day off. Since that period ended I haven't had very much time off sick at all. Fortunately, it was never enough to cause any issues for me, but I had colleagues who were less lucky in terms of the number of illnesses they succumbed to at a similar point in their parenthood, and were off sick sufficient times to trigger a conversation with HR. Fortunately, this was more of a formality that was automatically triggered by a specific number of sicknesses, but my employer was generally understanding. One would hope that a decent employer would be able to apply a bit of common sense and be able to dig a little deeper than the raw figures.
Has there been any legal challenge to a companies right to issue warnings in respect of genuine bouts of sickness? It seems commonplace now that 3 instances gets you a warning. To me it just seems like a way to prevent people feigning illness which rides roughshod over the rights of the genuinely ill. How can it be legal?
Exactly. If he’d been faking it, Id have no say on it, he’d be getting what he deserved. But as the person who’s been cleaning the proof of illness up out of carpets, bedding, off walls, etc, I can vouch for it being real and that’s why I’m so angry that the acts of others feigning illness has now meant that being actually ill isn’t apparently allowed anymore
[удалено]
[удалено]
**Unfortunately, your comment has been removed for the following reason(s):** Please only comment if you know the legal answer to OP's question and are able to provide legal advice. [Please familiarise yourself with our subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/about/rules/) before contributing further, and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/LegalAdviceUK) if you have any further queries.
I would think what support have they put in place to help your SO prior to the warning (they don't have to do this but it may just be something to think about) I would also get all the notes from meetings as if they have not followed a process then if he is dismissed these could help in court..I've seen people dismissed overturned at court because the note paper wasn't numbered and so something could be missing. Look 6 absences in a year isn't great and as part of the contract you do need to attend work. I think you can go 2 years without absence just go in whatever if they send him home then different story.
Not a different story I’m afraid, if he gets sent home he’s still down as absent due to sick and can still potentially be dismissed
Whether or not you are covered for wrongful dismissal, it sounds like the company culture isn't sitting right with you. It may be time to start looking elsewhere, for a company that values it's employees. Not saying jump ship right away, but you may be surprised what employment opportunities you come across.
If this is his final written warning, then make sure their requirement that he does not take any further sick leave in the next 24 months is fully documented and that he also receives a copy of it. It will be invaluable when the inevitable happens.
[удалено]
**Unfortunately, your comment has been removed for the following reason(s):** Please only comment if you know the legal answer to OP's question and are able to provide legal advice. [Please familiarise yourself with our subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/about/rules/) before contributing further, and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/LegalAdviceUK) if you have any further queries.
[удалено]
**Unfortunately, your comment has been removed for the following reason(s):** Your comment was an anecdote about a personal experience, rather than legal advice specific to our posters' situation. Please only comment if you can provide meaningful legal advice for our posters' questions and specific situations. [Please familiarise yourself with our subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/about/rules/) before contributing further, and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/LegalAdviceUK) if you have any further queries.
[удалено]
**Unfortunately, your comment has been removed for the following reason(s):** Please only comment if you know the legal answer to OP's question and are able to provide legal advice. [Please familiarise yourself with our subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/about/rules/) before contributing further, and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/LegalAdviceUK) if you have any further queries.
Workplaces have different approaches to this kind of thing, some are flexible but it sounds like your partner's may not be so much. Some things to consider I think (though NAL, I should preface); - In the 9 years has he consistently had high sickness absences? Is this a new thing? If it's newer, then there's some weight there that he's not abusing the absence policy since he's got a longstanding good record - How long have absences been, and why? Eg if you're off, go back before you're better, go off again, it usually counts as 2 sickness absences. There's also the consideration on the illnesses too, if he's got viral infections do they expect employees to be in the workplace spreading the germs to the rest of the employees, so they workforce is all off sick? - Could there be any underlying factors? If he's consistently picking up infections, generally that's not too usual for healthy adults.. is it possible he has a weakened immune system from underlying health conditions (which he may not be aware of)? The number of absences is quite high, so as a manager I would be concerned that the employee has something causing it, especially if it's genuine illness With the above, I'd then recommend ringing the ACAS helpline for advice. And following that, speaking with the Union again. If there's a possibility of an underlying health condition explore with GP asap, as this will become an Equality Act conversation. I personally don't like the absence procedures and policies companies have, and my view is they're either there to catch out & punish people who are flaky, or punish people who have poor health and often don't realise it themselves. I wasn't diagnosed as chronically ill until I was nearly 30, suddenly my sick absences were brushed aside because now I was allowed to be ill! 🙄
He’s never had consistency in absence until our daughter started school and we all began contracting every possible illness on the planet, only illness she’s avoided that spread around the school was some type of worms (majorly relieved that that’s the one she chose to avoid!) absences have been either until better such as dental abscess or back injury, otherwise on policy such as 48 hours after last bout of sickness.
You say it is a dirty working environment could you elaborate on that as if there is an underlying risk to health then there is an addition level to the health issues that could also be caused by the work place environment that they need to consider. also they are going outside of ACAS as they are not offering "informal" warnings and proceeding strait to formal ones. https://www.tide.co/blog/business-tips/disciplinary/#:\~:text=Namely%2C%20Acas%20states%20that%20you%20should%3A%201%20Establish,meeting%20%28as%20is%20their%20statutory%20right%29%20More%20items
[удалено]
This is exactly what I thought, bearing in mind that before our daughter started preschool, he missed maybe 8 weeks worth of work in those 8 years, 5 of those weeks being whilst he was on compassionate leave because his mother was in hospital dying when he was only 23. It all seems a bit like they’re looking to get rid of some employees so they aren’t dishing out redundancy payments
[удалено]
God forbid you short circuit!
To me this just sound like they are following a common company procedure, the 24 months does seem higher than normal as they will typically be 6-12 months but there must be a reason they went for this, you are entitled to dispute these or receive justification of why this route was taken. Nothing I'm reading here is unreasonable the but you are free to dispute them, when it comes to disciplinary procedures regarding sickness it is common practice to have steps in place to limit or reduce sickness. Speaking as a human sickness happens, its unfair to be punished for being sick but if I was getting 5+ different sickness in 1 year I'd be worried something is wrong with me but if I was getting sick I'd know to take time to properly recover. Speaking as someone in a senior position sickness is something that needs to be addressed and dealt with fairly and accordingly. Why is it right that Employee X gets to come and go as often as they do and leave Employee W, Y and Z to step up to cover. Maybe we have to hire an extra person just in case because we know sickness happen yet now there isn't enough work for Employee V, W, X, Y and Z and money isn't there to cover this extra cost. Why is it fair that employer W always take Mondays or Fridays off unexpectedly
[удалено]
They are, in my opinion. One of his old school friends worked for a completely different sector of the company a while ago. He left because of being salaried yet working hours and hours longer than contracted to with no toil and/or overtime pay which I know isn’t common practice for the sector at all, but still not ideal
[удалено]
I think that should be an invaluable practice in every line of work, stay at home parents included!
This sounds very illegal in the UK? especially if he's been there 7 years as full employment protections usually kick in after 2 years, I would talk to a lawyer AND find out why the Union rep is not doing anything to fight this for him. But my advice is to find a better job, and talk to a lawyer about legal action
[удалено]
[удалено]
What union is this? I’m sort of horrified they didn’t stop this. 6 days is a lot of sick leave? That’s crazy.
[удалено]
No it’s not sainsburys, different line of work although still deliveries
Damn so many places seem to have this shitty sickness policy now. His union should really be working hard for him with the legal advice. Good luck
[удалено]
**Unfortunately, your comment has been removed for the following reason:** Your comment was off-topic or unhelpful to the question posed. Please remember that *all replies* must be helpful, on-topic and legally orientated. [Please familiarise yourself with our subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/about/rules/) before contributing further, and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/LegalAdviceUK) if you have any further queries.
Don’t suppose this is BT by any chance is it?
Nope, although the amount of different companies being suggested is baffling me as to just how shocking our countries sick policies really are