Guidance re Sick Leave, Promotion etc

[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.

[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.

[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

[Sidewinder]

No

[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

[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!

 

...