Sickness at Work

[simon4amiee]

morning not sure if these forums deal with this but worth a try. Our company operates strict disciplinary procedures and triggers, 1 of which is if an employee if ill twice in a 3 month period, they are given a warning by their supervisor. I am now very ill again and am shivering yet hot, and am fully of cold/flu symptoms, and have had to come to work when I should be in bed, if I had not come in I would have had a written warning, and if were ill again within 3 months after this I would have been sacked. Please also note I have only had 5 sick days off in the last 2 years up until these short incidents. Surely its wrong to get punished if you are genuinly ill.

[PPMAN159]

Surely if you are able to get a note signed by your doc to say that you were too ill in his opinion to go to work then they would not be able to enforce the policy.

 

Failing that give your local Citizens Advice Bureau a call to see if they can help.

[simon4amiee]

you can only get a not if its more than 3 days, chances are i will feel a little better tomorrow, I can usually shake these in a day or 2, as we speak am sat here in an office freezing, with a big sweater on. I wont do any work, because I can barely concentrate on this never mind on anything else.

[racer1]

You can get a note for a shorter period but you often have to pay (£10).

 

I've had this discussion with my company as they want a doctor's note just for one day, and it is possible but most likely they will charge a fee.

 

if I had not come in I would have had a written warning, and if were ill again within 3 months after this I would have been sacked.

 

I don't believe by law they can do that - everyone's sick once in a while.

[andy07]

As a former shop steward of the largest trade union in europe this has always been a bit of a dicey area to me , you will find that the sickness terms at your place will be in the terms and conditions of your employment that you signed or agreed to when starting your employment , the only way that these things dont apply is if they are illegal or discriminating , if you want to take it on (which i wouldnt advise) you could challenge you could use health & safety regs , as in duty of care for the employer to his employees ..... to you and all the others in the same work place that are likley to catch your bug , or to take things higher your illness is caused by a germ , a germ is a substance hazzardous to health so maybe could be covered by COSHH (long shot)

[borisbeaver]

For Statutory Sick Pay purposes, you can self-certificate for up to 7 calendar days. 8 days or more requires a certification from your GP.

[yaffsimone1]

you can only get a not if its more than 3 days, chances are i will feel a little better tomorrow, I can usually shake these in a day or 2, as we speak am sat here in an office freezing, with a big sweater on. I wont do any work, because I can barely concentrate on this never mind on anything else.

 

No, the 3 days is the period that you wont get paid for after that the SSP comes in. The days start from the day the sick note is issued.

[Guest strangewayofsavin]

hi, simon4aimee, how long have you worked for this company, and in what industry?

[borisbeaver]

No, the 3 days is the period that you wont get paid for after that the SSP comes in. The days start from the day the sick note is issued.

These three days must be a local arrangement. You get it straight away where I work.

[oojakapipi]

The 3 days 'waiting' is used by many, but not all employers.

 

Each individual employer has different terms and conditions and, as andy07 pointed out it is agreed by the employee when signing the employment contract. I would suggest you go through your contract and employee handbook with a fine-tooth-comb.

 

It would be very difficult to argue COSHH for a cold as I suspect the employer would want proof that your symptoms were a hazzard, by which time your symptoms would have disappeared. I worked at a company where an employee was claiming that her health condition was a hazzard, and that she had obtained the condition in the working environment. It was eventually proved that she was right (about her condition being a hazzard), but it took months. In the mean time she was forced to come into work and put everyone else at risk!

 

Personally, I would be secretly looking around for more understanding employers.

[patdavies]

Right.

 

Sick Pay

 

Statutory Sickness Pay (SSP) has to be paid by the employer for the first 3 days. After this time, the employer can claim the statutory rate from HMG - it's done via HMRC.

 

Because of this, many employers do not pay the first 3 days - this is entirely up to them and is legal if in your T&Cs. After 3 days, then either they pay you SSP or you can claim it yourself.

 

Many employers (like mine) will continue to pay full salary and defray their costs by reclaiming SSP.

 

Sick Notes

 

Any employee may self-certify up to 6 working days; beyond that a doctor's certificate is required for SSP. An employer may let you self-certify for as long as they like, but without the official doctor's note, SSP cannot be claimed.

 

Any employer is within their rights to reduce this self-certification time and require a doctor's note, but it will be a private sick note and the doctor is entitled to charge for this (usually about £10). If your employer requires such a sick note, then they should repay the costs of obtaining one upon production of a receipt - however, I don't believe that this is legally enforceable.

 

The only official function of the NHS doctor's certificate is in the SSP regime - although most employers use it as 'evidence' that you are genuinely unfit for work.

[delboytrotter]

If you were of sick then the company sacked you , surely they would not stand a chance in court as the terms of your contract can not be fair, if you are sick i doubt they can actually sack you regardless of what the contract says...taking you to work when you are ill is against you human rights i am sure, as they are not only allowing you to work when unfit, the bugs are spreading etc etc and you are more likely to have an accident, there is no real way ot test the water without them sacking you first though...i hope you get better soon..

[oojakapipi]

Sick Pay

 

Statutory Sickness Pay (SSP) has to be paid by the employer for the first 3 days. After this time, the employer can claim the statutory rate from HMG - it's done via HMRC.

 

Because of this, many employers do not pay the first 3 days - this is entirely up to them and is legal if in your T&Cs. After 3 days, then either they pay you SSP or you can claim it yourself.

 

Many employers (like mine) will continue to pay full salary and defray their costs by reclaiming SSP.

 

 

 

I think you might like to adjust this statement. Employers are not responsible for paying SSP for the first 3 days, and many employers choose not to. Which is why I referred to it as 'waiting' time (as referred to by all employers)#

 

I advised the best I could (e.g.find a better employer) There are plenty out there, go for it!

[Guest ArthurP]

Sorry to be blunt but it appears you work for a bunch of losers.

 

As previously advised look elsewhere. I worked for rubbish employers in the past until I decided to tell them to stick their job up their leg.

 

If you ignore this then just put up with it-it's your choice.

[patdavies]

I think you might like to adjust this statement. Employers are not responsible for paying SSP for the first 3 days, and many employers choose not to. Which is why I referred to it as 'waiting' time (as referred to by all employers)#

 

I advised the best I could (e.g.find a better employer) There are plenty out there, go for it!

 

Sorry, you are right.

 

When I re-read it, I can see your point. I meant by employers as opposed to HMG. However , there is an ambiguity that makes it appear as though employers will pay the first 3 days.

 

This is entirely untrue - employers may pay sick pay for the first 3 days, but they are not obliged to, and they cannot reclaim the first three days via HMRC

[Guest strangewayofsavin]

If you were of sick then the company sacked you , surely they would not stand a chance in court as the terms of your contract can not be fair, if you are sick i doubt they can actually sack you regardless of what the contract says...taking you to work when you are ill is against you human rights i am sure, as they are not only allowing you to work when unfit, the bugs are spreading etc etc and you are more likely to have an accident, there is no real way ot test the water without them sacking you first though...i hope you get better soon..

 

Just because something is written in a contract, does not make it legal or ethical, if you have worked for a company for under 6 months, it would be very difficult to even get a hearing, yes if you have a sick note you should be covered from dismissal, however, there are some people who do take the mick with sick pay, and use it as extra holidays, in certain circumstances an employee or a worker can be dismissed for being sick too often, especially if you are in the first 3 months of a new job.

[oojakapipi]

I used to work for another employer who set the trial period as 12 months, most employers set it at 3 months. This made it incredibly easy for them to sack individuals they considered to have been sick or late too often. It was my job to give new employees their contract and I felt really guilty asking them to sign as there were other T&C's in the contract that I considered were also unfair. I used to quietly suggest thay they joined the Union while they were signing.

 

It is perfectly reasonable to ask potential employers for a copy of their contractual terms and conditions when at interview stage. I would like to see it made an obligation, then these underhand employers will have to change their terms as people will refuse to work for them.

[Zamzara]

It is perfectly reasonable to ask potential employers for a copy of their contractual terms and conditions when at interview stage. I would like to see it made an obligation, then these underhand employers will have to change their terms as people will refuse to work for them.

 

I totally agree. It always rubs me the wrong way a bit when people say, "if it's in the conditions of employment, you have agreed to it", when in reality, employees are usually not able to even see the conditions until they have already committed to the job. I feel this violates the principle that terms must be incorporated before the contract is formed.

[Guest strangewayofsavin]

Acas or employment law will tell you you have a right to see the full terms of contract, before you start the job, terms and conditions are not set in stone, as some can be deemed unfair, in the case of a 12month trial period this would not be reasonable, it should be a 12 month temp contract with an option to going full time, all workers are intitled to core rights, and after a 3month period it them becomes difficult (if challenged) to just tell an employee to go for no reason.

[oojakapipi]

in the case of a 12month trial period this would not be reasonable, it should be a 12 month temp contract with an option to going full time, all workers are intitled to core rights, and after a 3month period it them becomes difficult (if challenged) to just tell an employee to go for no reason.

 

They didn't sack for no reason, but they did have a very strict method of issuing warnings that led to dismissal, they used to target employees that were not (in the employers opinion) up to scratch and try to gather as much info as they could to fire them before the 12 month period. It was also my job to collect the information and issue the warnings and I wasn't impressed about that to say the least as I felt it was very harsh and unfair. The union never challenged the trial period and I got sick of being hated by the employees and voted with my feet!