Guidance re Sick Leave, Promotion etc

[Fluffbucket]

In the past two weeks of wandering around this forum, other forums, various H&S sites, bullying-at-work sites, stuff like that ...

I've read somewhere that, if a manager says that your period of Sick Leave could adversely affect your chances of Promotion in the future, this could be construed as bullying.

Can anybody tell me where I read this, because I can't find it again! I've been to so many websites that searching my History isn't an option.

I'm hoping that, as some of you have better knowledge of this kind of guidance, you might be able to point me in the right direction. Many thanks to you all in advance!

[Sidewinder]

I don't know where you might have read that, but on it's own, that would almost certainly not be deemed bullying.

It is perfectly acceptable to deny a promotion on the basis of a poor sickness record as an employer is entitled to make an assessment of future reliability in a possibly more responsible or stressful position in the light of past performance. It would however normally be taken into consideration alongside other criteria, as to use it as the sole reason could possibly result in a complaint of discrimination (sex, disability etc) in the absence of other supporting reasons for not promoting the employee.

To warn you that promotion might not be forthcoming due to a poor sickness record would in many circumstances be regarded as encouraging an employee to improve attendance, rather than bullying - it would depend on context, correct absence procedure being applied and individual circumstances.

[Fluffbucket]

Thanks for the reply Sidewinder.

I don't disagree that periods of sick leave CAN affect chances of promotion. I just thought that I had read somewhere that your managers cannot actually SAY this to you and that to do so could be considered bullying (placing undue pressure on you to work when you are unable).

Anybody else?

[Ell-enn]

Sidewinder is quite correct in that the situation you describe would not on it's own be classed as bullying. When considering an employee for promotion there are usually several criteria to take into account and the employee's manager may just be pointing that attendance is one of them.

Kind Regards

Ell-enn

[Weird Al Yankovic]

I disagree with the above.

I think that you may have confused the term bullying with victimisation which can lead to several other claims.

And almost with all disputes it depends on the circumstances.

To answer your question then yes, if sick leave is a determining factor for promotion prospects over a disabled employee likely to have time off for their condition, for example, then that would be discrimination.

What are the circumstances to pose this particular question?

[Weird Al Yankovic]

Originally Posted by Sidewinder

I don't know where you might have read that, but on it's own, that would almost certainly not be deemed bullying.

It is perfectly acceptable to deny a promotion on the basis of a poor sickness record as an employer is entitled to make an assessment of future reliability in a possibly more responsible or stressful position in the light of past performance.

A quite astonishing statement.

To warn you that promotion might not be forthcoming due to a poor sickness record would in many circumstances be regarded as encouraging an employee to improve attendance,

Again, an astonishing view to take in these days of hightened awarness of disability.

I missed the above...

Sidewinder, I am sure you described yourself as a HR manager?

Please confirm.

[Weird Al Yankovic]

Originally Posted by Ell-enn

Sidewinder is quite correct in that the situation you describe would not on it's own be classed as bullying.

Ell-enn

Equally shocking when I am aware you too are a HR manager.

Sidewinder is not correct and using sickness as a relative marker on promotion is quite wrong and often unlawful.

I'm speechless.

[Ell-enn]

Looks like we are going to have to agree to differ then..............

[Weird Al Yankovic]

Originally Posted by Ell-enn

Looks like we are going to have to agree to differ then..............

Absolutely, provided you ignore the law and I do not.

[Ell-enn]

I'm not ignoring the law WAL, just interpreting it differently to you

[Weird Al Yankovic]

Originally Posted by Ell-enn

I'm not ignoring the law WAL, just interpreting it differently to you

Whether the law is ignored or interpretated differently by you it will still be incorrect and the result will still be the same, you lose.

It is a matter for you, or your company, to mitigate the fact that you had two equal candidates for a promotion but you decided to promote the one in excellent health over the candidate with a disability who had one more days sickness due to their condition.

This is basic employment law. Surely you must be aware that fact is king, not interpretation?

[MrShed]

I cant pretend to know employment law. But Al, you are talking about someone with a disability(which we all know you cannot discriminate against). But the OP, and everyone else, is not talking about the situation with a disability - they are talking about basic/common or garden sickness.

[Ell-enn]

Exactly - there were no other details provided other than a statement by a manager, we do not even know if it is the OP's manager. Therefore, based on the information given I stand by my advice.

[tiglet]

I think the OP would need to give a little more information before anyone talks about disability discrimination, Al.

[Weird Al Yankovic]

Originally Posted by MrShed

I cant pretend to know employment law. But Al, you are talking about someone with a disability(which we all know you cannot discriminate against). But the OP, and everyone else, is not talking about the situation with a disability - they are talking about basic/common or garden sickness.

Yes, but did Sidewinder or Ell-enn establish this possibilty in their posts? And to mention disability was the easiest and quickest way to prove them wrong.

Did either question on how a sickness record could be accrued at work?

What if that company was responsible for causing that sick record in the first place? And then denies a promotion as a result of their own negligence?

What if....??? If you re-read my first post I asked the OP to explain the particular circumstances of this situation.

Sidewinder and Ell-enn did not and simply suggested an unequivocal no.

That is simply not true.