Guidance re Sick Leave, Promotion etc

[Sidewinder]

Some people can start an argument in an empty room!

 

I don't know where you might have read that, but on its 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.

 

And where in the above do I not suggest that sickness should be a sole reason to deny promotion? Where do I not say that to deny solely for reasons of sickness might be discriminatory? Where in the above do I not say that the facts would be dependant on the context of the sickness, correct absence procedures and individual circumstances? Where in the above do I not suggest that correct absence procedures should be applied to the sickness which would have established the nature and cause of the absence, including any disability?

 

Then why not ask for more details before answering? Sidewinder always seems to bypass this

 

And would you not consider that if disability were an issue then the OP would have mentioned this? The OP was asking whether it was bullying - my reply was that on the facts presented it was not, but would possibly be discriminatory depending on context and individual circumstances. The OP can then elaborate in response if he or she wishes. I think you will find that I answered the question as it was asked before you decided to jump in and hypothesise.

 

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?

 

Highlighted by my stating that it would depend on correct absence procedures being applied which would have recorded the nature of and reasons for the sickness record. Providing that procedures already used to manage the absence have been used correctly, do you seriously think that employers cannot use this as one criteria in deciding whether to promote one candidate over another? It is a key aspect not only for promotion, but in reviewing pay or selection for redundancy. When considering promotion, with quite possibly an increased workload, increased responsibility and probably more stressful working conditions, do you seriously believe that an employer would not consider the likelihood of a previously poor absence record being repeated? The crucial thing to consider is why the candidate had been absent - determined through good absence management procedures - context, correct procedures and individual circumstances.

 

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

 

And you are...?

 

As usual you seem more keen to attack others ahead of actually being constructive. Anybody is entitled to question advice given but as usual your own interpretation and obvious authority on the subject has to take precedence and therefore everybody else is wrong.

[tiglet]

But you are bound to say something like this simply because it is Ell-enn and not because you have anything useful to say. So how is that constructive?

 

And a disability example was just that. Would you not feel a bit foolish if the OP is indeed diabled?

 

The answer to the OP's question is that sickness will not be used, or at least, should not be a deciding factor considering promotion.

 

Sidewinder and Ell-enn say it should.

 

That is not correct advice considering the question as posed.

 

Why not recognise that fact?

 

I will disagree with mods and people I regularly agree with if I feel they are incorrect, Al - I have done both on and off-forum so I don't feel that your first comment carries any merit at all.

 

You give no reason why sickness should not be used as a factor, other than it is your opinion. If you want people to agree with you, why not provide statute or legal examples for your basis. Ascertaining that you are right and others are wrong is not, in my opinion, constructive and then attacking them personally makes you seem like a bully, rather than someone who actually has something to add to the discussion.

 

I believe Sidewinder has clarified his position, which was easily identifiable if his earlier post was read correctly anyway, and Ell-enn appears to have chosen to be very sensible and say all she has needed to say on the subject so far.

 

Therefore, if you can quantify your ascertations with proof, then I will happily accept your opinion. If you cannot, I will accept the opinions of those who work within the Human Resources industry.

[Allwood]

Removed it my post as it appears that it has nothing to do with disability - do not want to steps on anyone toes.

Edited June 8, 2008 by Allwood

[cal37]

I would like to point out that even if a person is disabled and had more days off; am employer can in fact not promote them if they can show that the promotion needs someone to be reliable and not off work often. They would need to prove this but if they can it’s perfectly legal to do so.

There are many migrating factors when choosing promotion and yes a company has the right to take sickness levels as one of those factors.

 

 

Allword, i have to ask, what has your post got to do with the ops post??

[Allwood]

I would like to point out that even if a person is disabled and had more days off; am employer can in fact not promote them if they can show that the promotion needs someone to be reliable and not off work often. They would need to prove this but if they can it’s perfectly legal to do so.

 

There are many migrating factors when choosing promotion and yes a company has the right to take sickness levels as one of those factors.

 

Allword, i have to ask, what has your post got to do with the ops post??

 

As you can see Cal, I have removed my post, I was under the impression that this thread was in relation to disability and guidances to sick leave.

 

Sorry to ops if I have obstructed any replies to your posting, however this is an open forum for employers and employees to make posting as they see necessary or perhaps I have overstep the mark??

[Weird Al Yankovic]

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.

 

 

Right, I shall point out your contradictory remarks and then I shall post up case law where sickness has been used unlawfully by employers and which, as above, you feel it is acceptable.

 

1 In effect the question posed was 'Can a record of sick leave be a barrier to promotion and, if so, is that bullying?'

 

Re-read you very first sentence-

 

'but on it's own that would almost certainly not be bullying.'

 

The beginning of your second paragraph reads-

 

It is perfectly acceptable to deny a promotion on the basis of a poor sickness record

 

You initially suggest, twice, that firstly, sickness on it's own...certainly not be bullying when sick leave periods is used to deny promotion and it is not bullying.

 

You then state it is perfectly acceptable to do so on the basis of poor sickness records.

 

You are incorrect on both. To do so, and you have said as the basis and on it's own, could be unfair treatment, victimisation and discrimination.

 

Yet your last sentence in that same paragraph contradicts your earlier statements-

 

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

 

Now what is it?

 

You claim it can be the basis and on it's own and is perfectly acceptable to do so but, oh wait a minute!, if used as the sole reason it could end in trouble!

 

Your post mention nothing about unfair treatment and the fact that being regularly sick can be unavoidable yet you believe promotion can be denied on this sole basis and it may even encourage better attendance!

 

That is what you posted however way you wish to dress it up.

[Weird Al Yankovic]

I would like to point out that even if a person is disabled and had more days off; am employer can in fact not promote them if they can show that the promotion needs someone to be reliable and not off work often. They would need to prove this but if they can it’s perfectly legal to do so.

 

There are many migrating factors when choosing promotion and yes a company has the right to take sickness levels as one of those factors.

 

 

What is being argued here is that sidewinder has said it is perfectly acceptable to deny promotion on the basis of a sick record, on it's own etc etc.

 

I think you will find that an employer cannot, it has to be as you say.

Or at least if they do then they are on very shaky ground.

[Weird Al Yankovic]

I will disagree with mods and people I regularly agree with if I feel they are incorrect, Al - I have done both on and off-forum so I don't feel that your first comment carries any merit at all.

 

As per this comment too.

 

You give no reason why sickness should not be used as a factor, other than it is your opinion.

 

Not what I have posted actually.

I disagreed with sidewinder's assertion that sickness can be used as a sole defining factor when denying promotion.

And I am correct.

 

 

If you want people to agree with you, why not provide statute or legal examples for your basis.

 

I posted the legal basis for you on another thread, 'Royal Mail,' to justify my answers on there were correct but you suddenly went quiet after that didn't you?

Or did you just want to dispute just for the sake of it?

As for the legal basis with this thread-try reading the DDA for starters.

 

 

Ascertaining that you are right and others are wrong is not, in my opinion, constructive and then attacking them personally makes you seem like a bully, rather than someone who actually has something to add to the discussion.

 

It is a forum with members giving often conflicting advice. Which is essentially what a forum does.

I asked sidewinder to confirm if he/she is indeed a HR bod. How then you decide this is acting like a bully is quite odd.

In fact, how you decided this in the first place is even more odd.

 

I believe Sidewinder has clarified his position, which was easily identifiable if his earlier post was read correctly anyway, and Ell-enn appears to have chosen to be very sensible and say all she has needed to say on the subject so far.

 

Are you their spokesperson?

 

Therefore, if you can quantify your ascertations with proof, then I will happily accept your opinion. If you cannot, I will accept the opinions of those who work within the Human Resources industry.

 

Completely up to you.

However, my posts are intended for the OP and not just to please you.

Had you read my first post you will see I asked the OP a question to clarify what they had posted.

It was right to dispute what sidewinder had posted initially as it is incorrect.

You then decided to post for no other reason than to seemingly attack me.

 

 

...

[Sidewinder]

Al - we can all be selective and 'dress things up' if we are trying to score petty points and you have taken my first line completely out of context in order to do both.

 

The OP asked whether to deny promotion on the basis of sickness would be deemed BULLYING. My reply was that ON ITS OWN (ie to deny promotion for this reason alone) would almost certainly not be BULLYING (for to allege BULLYING would normally involve a catalogue of incidents or systematic mistreatment of the employee not an isolated example). My second paragraph qualifies this quite clearly by saying that employers can quite legitimately deny promotion for a poor sickness or absence record, but would normally do so alongside other factors in order to not be accused of discrimination. If you stopped for a minute to read my initial post from A to Z rather than misquoting it you would see that I agree that sickness alone cannot be used as a factor without the risk of being discriminatory. It does not on its own however constitute bullying neccessarily.

 

What is being argued here is that sidewinder has said it is perfectly acceptable to deny promotion on the basis of a sick record, on it's own etc etc.

 

Your underline emphasis is taken from two separate paragraphs, one stating that denial of promotion on its own is almost certainly not bullying, the second saying that sickness records can be used as one criteria in assessing suitability for promotion, but may be discrimination if it is the sole reason used for denying promotion.

 

You are confusing the two issues - bullying and discrimination. If you don't understand what people have written, why not simply say so rather than lift selected words to make your own opinion fit? Either that or refrain from comment until you do understand.

 

I would be intrigued to read case law where the employer has correctly used sickness management procedures to establish that there is no underlying cause for a poor attendance record but then cannot use that as a criteria in assessing suitability for promotion. It is a fundamental question in determining promotion - 'will I be able to rely on this candidate to do the job if I give them the promotion?'. Previous records must be a factor in determining this, and providing that they are viewed with regard for the reasons for absence it is perfectly correct to do so. Nobody is suggesting that a candidate with a disability which has resulted in periods of absence should not have the same opportunities as a candidate with fewer absences, but I cannot believe for one minute that you are seriously suggesting that the fact that a third candidate who regularly takes Fridays and Mondays off without a plausible explanation should be be considered without regard for that fact.

Edited June 8, 2008 by Sidewinder

[Weird Al Yankovic]

Sidewinder, let me put this to you then-

 

If you were to promote one of two candidates would you only use sickness records as the basis of determination?

 

A simple yes or no would suffice.

[Sidewinder]

No

[Weird Al Yankovic]

No

 

And would you use a sickness record, obviously with other criteria considered as you now state, but as the basis of determination?

[Sidewinder]

Not as the sole basis, but as one of several scoring factors.

 

A poor sickness record may though be the only difference between two equally qualified candidates so could be the single determining factor.

Edited June 8, 2008 by Sidewinder

[tiglet]

Originally Posted by tiglet

I will disagree with mods and people I regularly agree with if I feel they are incorrect, Al - I have done both on and off-forum so I don't feel that your first comment carries any merit at all.

 

As per this comment too.

 

You give no reason why sickness should not be used as a factor, other than it is your opinion.

 

Not what I have posted actually.

 

I disagreed with sidewinder's assertion that sickness can be used as a sole defining factor when denying promotion.

 

And I am correct.

 

 

If you want people to agree with you, why not provide statute or legal examples for your basis.

 

I posted the legal basis for you on another thread, 'Royal Mail,' to justify my answers on there were correct but you suddenly went quiet after that didn't you?

 

Or did you just want to dispute just for the sake of it?

 

As for the legal basis with this thread-try reading the DDA for starters.

 

 

Ascertaining that you are right and others are wrong is not, in my opinion, constructive and then attacking them personally makes you seem like a bully, rather than someone who actually has something to add to the discussion.

 

It is a forum with members giving often conflicting advice. Which is essentially what a forum does.

 

I asked sidewinder to confirm if he/she is indeed a HR bod. How then you decide this is acting like a bully is quite odd.

 

In fact, how you decided this in the first place is even more odd.

 

I believe Sidewinder has clarified his position, which was easily identifiable if his earlier post was read correctly anyway, and Ell-enn appears to have chosen to be very sensible and say all she has needed to say on the subject so far.

 

Are you their spokesperson?

 

Therefore, if you can quantify your ascertations with proof, then I will happily accept your opinion. If you cannot, I will accept the opinions of those who work within the Human Resources industry.

 

Completely up to you.

 

However, my posts are intended for the OP and not just to please you.

 

Had you read my first post you will see I asked the OP a question to clarify what they had posted.

 

It was right to dispute what sidewinder had posted initially as it is incorrect.

 

You then decided to post for no other reason than to seemingly attack me.

 

...

 

Whoa there boy, I suggest you take the chip off your shoulder - I believe I was being very fair in saying that if you could back up what you were saying in this particular case with statute law.examples I would support you.

 

I don't attack anyone on forum, although I may question, and I am genuinely upset that you feel that because I have posted on another thread you have posted on and "have suddenly gone silent" that I am in some involved in some contretemps with you - I'm not - I simply have a life which involves going out on a Sunday as family with my husband and children.

 

If you feel you have some sort of legal basis for an argument, please post it. To be quite frank, you are making yourself appear incredibly rude and confrontational by attacking people who may disagree with your arguement in this way.

 

Anyone who knows me knows that I will question what is not apparent, not just agree with supposition or forceful and, if I may say so, arrogant arguments.

 

If you believe I post for no other reason than to attack you, I would suggest reading my other nearly 4,000 posts and, to be quite frank, to consult your doctor.

[tiglet]

Al, can you point me to the thread where I have apparently gone silent as I cannot find it?

 

Genuinely not being sarcastic here, but I cannot find the thread you are referring to ...

[cal37]

I think WeL and sidewinder are both right. However sidewinder is being practical and WEL is talking in an ideal world.

 

The op asked if being passed up for promotion because of a sickness level was bulling.....................the simple answer is no its not.

 

Let’s say you have two people, both equally qualified for the promotion. One has 30 days sickness, one has none.

 

Now the company is well within its right not to promote the one with 30 days only because of his sickness level, it would not be bulling nor would it be discriminating.

 

Now take the same case but one has 30 days and one has 25 days BUT the one with 30 days has bad acne and the promotion was to meet clients face to face and the company gave the job to the one with 25 days. Then it could be argued that it was discriminating because of the acne.

 

It has to be looked at on a case by case basis and there is no generalisation, however the op`s question was answered by sidewinder correctly. WeL was correct to point out that you can not generalise where employment in concerned.

[tiglet]

Which, I believe, Was why I said more info was needed from the OP before a pointless argument was persued.

 

It is pointless, at this stage, to speculate without further information. Without it, let's all just agree to disagree.

[cal37]

Which, I believe, Was why I said more info was needed from the OP before a pointless argument was persued.

 

It is pointless, at this stage, to speculate without further information. Without it, let's all just agree to disagree.

 

 

Totally agree

[Weird Al Yankovic]

Not as the sole basis, but as one of several scoring factors.

 

A poor sickness record may though be the only difference between two equally qualified candidates so could be the single determining factor.

 

Ok, well that appears to be a little different to what I disagreed with in the first place and what you first posted.

 

You originally stated that 'on the basis of a poor sick record...it is perfectly acceptable to deny promotion'

You then further stated 'normally be taken into consideration with other criteria...' all within the same paragraph.

 

1 I initially disagreed with this perception of yours and I believe I was correct in doing so.

 

You can now add sole to the term basis but it would still be the same-the basis of a decision.

 

A sick record should never be the basis of such a selection unless you want to invite a whole host of trouble.

 

Further, you used the term normally, as an indication that there are actually occasions you would just use a sick record as the basis.

 

What are they?

 

2 I note you say, two candidates could be equally qualified for promotion and a poor sickness record could be the single determining factor.

 

What if the two equally qualified candidates happen to be a man and woman of about the same age in their 30's and one has a poorer sick record than the other?

[Weird Al Yankovic]

Originally Posted by tiglet

 

 

Whoa there boy, I suggest you take the chip off your shoulder - I believe I was being very fair in saying that if you could back up what you were saying in this particular case with statute law.examples I would support you.

 

I don't attack anyone on forum, although I may question, and I am genuinely upset that you feel that because I have posted on another thread you have posted on and "have suddenly gone silent" that I am in some involved in some contretemps with you - I'm not - I simply have a life which involves going out on a Sunday as family with my husband and children.

 

If you feel you have some sort of legal basis for an argument, please post it. To be quite frank, you are making yourself appear incredibly rude and confrontational by attacking people who may disagree with your arguement in this way.

 

Anyone who knows me knows that I will question what is not apparent, not just agree with supposition or forceful and, if I may say so, arrogant arguments.

 

If you believe I post for no other reason than to attack you, I would suggest reading my other nearly 4,000 posts and, to be quite frank, to consult your doctor.[/quote]

 

No, I don't feel attacked by you in any way tiglet.

 

I initially disagreed with what sidewinder had posted and I believe I displayed good reason to. If a forum with conflicting opinions are unable to be challenged it is quite useless otherwise.

[Sidewinder]

A sick record should never be the basis of such a selection unless you want to invite a whole host of trouble.

 

Agreed in general terms, hence the need for anything used in this manner to be suported with a robust absence management procedure in order that those absences caused by disability, bereavement, family crises etc are not counted unfairly against the employee in the first place.

 

Further, you used the term normally, as an indication that there are actually occasions you would just use a sick record as the basis.

 

What are they?

 

As an example, two candidates apply for an internal supervisory position. Both have similar skillsets and experience as non-supervisory staff, but one with a history of short term absence, usually with little or no notice which caused inconvenience and cost to the business to cover. The absences were the sole reason for this candidate not being successful for the following reasons. His absences had in the past created extra work for his colleagues which would make it difficult to gain their respect as a Supervisor. It was also felt that although the frequency of absence had improved there was a risk in awarding a position of sole responsibility for a busy shift to somebody who may be absent more than the other candidate, and moreover the fact that the candidate had experienced problems with alcohol, which led to many of the absences meant that the employer would have to accept a risk, however small that he could be a Health & Safety liability in addition to possibly being unreliable. In managing the attendance issue the employee had been given the full support of the company with regard to the drink problem, but it was felt that his record had not sufficiently improved at that time, and could not be ignored in terms of his suitability for promotion.

It is not so much that the denial of promotion is a punishment for a past sickness or absence record, but more that one is able to qualify the decision with reasoning as to how that might have a bearing on the candidate's suitability. Similarly the candidate should in those circumstances not be precluded from applying for future promotional opportunities.

 

2 I note you say, two candidates could be equally qualified for promotion and a poor sickness record could be the single determining factor.

 

What if the two equally qualified candidates happen to be a man and woman of about the same age in their 30's and one has a poorer sick record than the other?

 

Then the reasoning behind the decision would be documented and scoring criteria available for scrutiny if required. The interview assessments would show that the only thing splitting the two was an inferior attendance record. To prove sex discrimination, he or she would have to show that they were more suited to the job but were denied due to their sex. Inevitably the unsuccesful candidate would feel hard done by, but if the criteria used to score each were identical then it would be very difficult to make an allegation of discrimination stick.

I have interviewed staff on several occasions and have asked them directly about past absenteeism and whether I should have any concerns if I were to offer them the position. An employee whose absences were mainly caused by dental problems and was able to assure me that having received treatment they did not anticipate further absences (or abscesses), would stand a better chance that one who shrugged their shoulders and said that they used to throw sickies as they found the work boring but hoped that this job would be more to their liking.

Mind you I did once take a chance on one girl who had been absent without notice 'to bury the budgie' on one occasion, and because 'the goldfish died' on another, and she turned out to be perfect for the job she had applied for!

Context, procedure and individual circumstances!

 

...