Is This Lawful?

[Coughdrop]

Hi,

 

I know next to nothing about Employment Law so hope you may be able to help.

 

A friend of ours, employed by a company set up by Staffordshire County Council and Capita (Entrust Ltd),

received a letter yesterday (dated Feb 13th) asking her to attend a meeting today to discuss whether or not

she should receive a warning regarding her absences over the past 12 months.

 

Now,

my friend has had three absences over the entire 12 months,

all accompanied by a doctor's note

- 2 lots of sickness and diarrhoea

(1 x 5 day and 1 x 3 day absence)

and a one day absence for sunstroke.

 

Today she attended the meeting.

 

I advised her last night that if she was going to attend she should do so with her supervisor (she's not in a union)

and should record everything 'for the avoidance of doubt'. I don't know whether this happened.

 

What I do know is that she received a formal warning from the company, and was told she would be receiving a letter 'that she wouldn't like'.

 

I question the lawfulness and legality of a company being able to issue a formal warning for 9 days of absence in a 12 month period.

If it is lawful, where is this stated?

Equally, if it is not lawful, where is this stated so she can appeal the warning?

 

Any comments would be very gratefully received. Thank you.

[Sidewinder]

Sadly for your friend, absolutely lawful - provided that everything has been done in line with 1) Their own sickness and absence policy and 2) That your friend was given the statutory right to be accompanied to a disciplinary hearing.

 

Any company can have an absence policy which imposes whatever restrictions they like, so long as it is applied equally - 9 days as a trigger point is actually pretty lenient!

 

So - what is the organisation's policy regarding sickness absence? This should be contained either within her contract or within the company's Handbook. Does she have a copy? If not she should ask where it is available for her to view - a noticeboard perhaps? How long is the warning to stay on her record?

 

The only grounds for appeal will be if she was genuinely unaware of the policy - and having simply not read the rules will not be enough if there is a handbook or policy document somewhere accessible to employees, or if the rules have not been applied fairly. Sorry

[porkyp1g]

I agree, it totally depends on their absence policy which your friend agreed to by signing a contract. You essentially agree to their terms. Let's not forget as well, anything under two years and they don't even have to give a reason to end the employment, it seems harsh to me, but I guess fair.

[Coughdrop]

Thank you both, that's very useful information. I've seen the letter and she clearly had the opportunity to be accompanied, and it mentioned the handbook. She's worked for the same place for over 23 years, so it would seem unlikely they're desperate to get shot of her. It is 'only' a part time cleaning job in a school - she holds down three jobs to make ends meet, so I admire her enormously.

[porkyp1g]

Yeah, sorry I mis-read I thought she had only been employed for 12 months. Drs notes aren't necessarily mitigation, but if she can show she did everything possible to attend work, she might get lucky. Is there any other mitigation that she can mention in the meeting? Worst case scenario is that warning may only be there to let her know her sickness needs to come down going forward, which hopefully she has every chance of doing.

[dx100uk]

you might find the local union rep might well like to attend.

 

I was not ever in a union, but, where the subject matter concerned the general approach toward all employees

many times I was accompanied by them.....

 

just a though

 

dx

[smokejumper]

she only needs to show an improvement, ie; one less day sickness.

 

Policies can also work against the employer, some people use it as an entitlement and abuse the system.

 

Sadly she got caught in the system, it looks like the line is 3 periods in 12 months, how has her absence been previous to this?

 

My opinion on the limited facts, another example she could have had 2 months each time and been no worse off.

 

The statement she will get a letter she will not like is puzzling .

[Grotesque]

Threatening behaviour or WOT

[Emmzzi]

threatening behaviour or wot

 

wot.

[ericsbrother]

the original post doesnt make it clear as to whether it was notified that is was a disciplinary meeting, sounds like a preliminary meeting so employer really should sort itself out and make its intentions clear.

Also garee that these Bradford type sickness schemes are a total pain as they cannot differentiate between someone who has odd days off for minor things and (for example) a cancer suferer going for chemo on a regular basis.

[porkyp1g]

Maybe that's why they fact find to establish the nature of the sickness before doing anything formal.