Re: Sickness from work : Wed Feb 27, 2013 1:54 pm  

ROBINSON wrote:

SO basically, he's damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't, in your opinion.

That's a bit silly, isn't it?

Let's be clear though: what you have suggested is not even opinion, but the foisting of a scenario from a different case onto this one.

Re: Sickness from work : Wed Feb 27, 2013 1:58 pm  

cod'ead wrote:

If this is correct: "Her boss (local authority) rang her today to tell her that he is giving her a formal warning for her sick record"

Then what he did is beyond "silly", whether he was "following orders" or not is completely immaterial. The bloke's an imbecile

OK, I get what you're saying.

So you're saying he should refuse to do the warning, then possibly end up with a warning (or worse) himself?

That said, for both parties, there will be a right to appeal, which is all well and good, if not a pain in the arsse to go through.

What none of us know, is the boss's attitude to it all. Did he ring and say "look, I'm sorry, but I HAVE to give you a warning as it's policy, but you can appeal, I'll back you up, you should be ok and I believe the policy is rubbish" or did he say "you're off sick, I'm warning you, tough titty"

There's a world of difference between those two attitudes - the former is not that of an imbecile, but the latter certainly would be.

Re: Sickness from work : Wed Feb 27, 2013 2:04 pm  

I think we could deduce that her boss was a clown by the fact the words works for local authority were used

Re: Sickness from work : Wed Feb 27, 2013 2:09 pm  

Just looked up my companys for an example

There are 3 clear stages to the trigger system:
• Every occurrence of absence will trigger a Return to Work Interview
• Where an individual has 3 occurrences of absence in a rolling 12-month period, this will trigger a meeting where a File Note will be issued
• Where there are 4 plus occurrences of sickness absence in a rolling 12-month period, disciplinary action may follow, if it is established that there is no underlying health issue

Long-term absence will continue to be managed sympathetically, in a considered way, but is clearly defined in the new Policy as absence of four weeks or longer, which again, will ensure that there is consistency of approach going forward.

The RRTWI is fairly common these days and a good way to cover both parties in a semi-informal way, a good chance to discuss any problmes, but is not disciplinary.

The File Note is similar, but more formal, but still not disciplinary.

Trigger point 3 is and thats for 4 absences, but thats only if theres no great reason. If there is good reason then its referred to our Occ Health advisors etc

Re: Sickness from work : Wed Feb 27, 2013 3:17 pm  

Hutchie wrote:

I think we could deduce that her boss was a clown by the fact the words works for local authority were used

As opposed to, say, the bloke who runs Iceland?

Re: Sickness from work : Wed Feb 27, 2013 3:20 pm  

ROBINSON wrote:

... What none of us know...

... is very much. You're assuming, for instance, that the boss did not decide to make the call off his own bat.

You don't know that. Neither do I. He might have been told to do it. He might not have. But you're making an assumption.

Re: Sickness from work : Wed Feb 27, 2013 3:24 pm  

ROBINSON wrote:

OK, I get what you're saying.

So you're saying he should refuse to do the warning, then possibly end up with a warning (or worse) himself?

That said, for both parties, there will be a right to appeal, which is all well and good, if not a pain in the arsse to go through.

What none of us know, is the boss's attitude to it all. Did he ring and say "look, I'm sorry, but I HAVE to give you a warning as it's policy, but you can appeal, I'll back you up, you should be ok and I believe the policy is rubbish" or did he say "you're off sick, I'm warning you, tough titty"

There's a world of difference between those two attitudes - the former is not that of an imbecile, but the latter certainly would be.

Any of that SHOULD be done when someone returns to work or be dealt with by HR, the manager here has over stepped his authority.

Re: Sickness from work : Wed Feb 27, 2013 4:03 pm  

Mintball wrote:

... is very much. You're assuming, for instance, that the boss did not decide to make the call off his own bat.

You don't know that. Neither do I. He might have been told to do it. He might not have. But you're making an assumption.

Lets have a think about this

I know where you work, you know what I do, we both know what ROBINSON does.......

waste of time anyone?

Re: Sickness from work : Wed Feb 27, 2013 5:06 pm  

Standee wrote:

Lets have a think about this

I know where you work, you know what I do, we both know what ROBINSON does.......

waste of time anyone?

I'd say lettings are a bit quiet and the girls in the office are having none of his "shenanigans" after the whole Rennard thing...

Re: Sickness from work : Wed Feb 27, 2013 9:14 pm  

rover49 wrote:

Anyone help on this.

My wife had an accident at work and ended up with a fracture and a pot on, she has been on sick with it for 4 weeks and does not get the pot off for another 4 weeks. Her boss (local authority) rang her today to tell her that he is giving her a formal warning for her sick record (last sick was 3 years ago), which has really upset her.

Can they do this, especially as she did it working for them.

Her work mates had told her to claim, but she refused saying it was an accident and no-one was to blame. Loyalty eh!!

Hope you get things sorted.