Loss of sick leave

Teyla Emmagan

I was hoping someone could give me some advice for a friend please.

She's been on a fixed term contract with a company for 2 years in September. She's now moving onto a new project, in the same company etc, around the time her current project finishes up. So they want her to sign a new contract etc.

The issue is that the new contract doesn't include a sick leave entitlement. She will be working in more or less the same role but instead of being employed directly by her current company, her contract will be with a third party who will 'place' her in her current position. There are no changes to the Ts&Cs of her employment bar the lack of sick leave.

This is a real issue for my friend as she's about to start a course of radiation (malignant lump found in one breast). When she was offered the new project she explained her position to the company, and they have been quite good facilitating days off for hospital trips and sick days over the last few weeks (this is not going on very long). However she told them when she accepted the new role that she didn't know how she would feel once she started the treatment, and they accepted that.

Now however, this new contract is on the table with no sick leave. And she of course feels she has to sign it.

What I'm wondering is, that given her length of employment with the company etc, is there any way she can have her previous entitlement to sick leave carried onto the new contract?

Does anyone have any thoughts or advice?

Nody

Paid sick leave is not a right and that means it can be changed in future contracts.

Teyla Emmagan

I know it's not a right, but I was wondering if, based on the fact she's had it in this role for nearly 2 years now would the company be required to still offer this to her. She's not a brand new employee, so I'm just asking if anything carries forward.

I thought that once you had been a role a year you were entitled to the same rights as a permanent member of staff with regard to that type of thing. All the permanent staff have sick leave. I could be totally wrong, but just hoping someone might have had some experience with a similar issue.

tatli_lokma

Teyla Emmagan wrote: »

I know it's not a right, but I was wondering if, based on the fact she's had it in this role for nearly 2 years now would the company be required to still offer this to her. She's not a brand new employee, so I'm just asking if anything carries forward.

if they are offering a new contract, then it is totally open for negotiation what is contained in that contract - there is no rule that they have to continue the same entitlements of the old contract.

Teyla Emmagan wrote: »

I thought that once you had been a role a year you were entitled to the same rights as a permanent member of staff with regard to that type of thing. All the permanent staff have sick leave. I could be totally wrong, but just hoping someone might have had some experience with a similar issue.

Not quite - you are confusing two seperate things. If you are in contracted employment, and have been on 2 consecutive contracts, with a total duration of 4 years, then you are considered permanent.

In regards to getting the same treatment as permanent staff, if she is employed by the same company, this applies, but from your post, it appears that she is changing employer to an agency. So for this purpose, only things such as annual leave, maternity leave, should be the same as the permanent staff. Sick leave and how it is dealt with is at the employers discretion.

see here:

citizens information wrote:

The Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act 2003 applies to most employees on fixed-term contracts. However, it does not apply to agency workers placed by a temporary work agency at the disposition of a user enterprise or to apprentices, trainees and people in publicly-funded employment schemes such as Community Employment. The Act does apply to agency workers employed directly by an employment agency.
The Act provides that fixed-term employees may not be treated less favourably than comparable permanent employees unless the employer can objectively justify the different treatment. Any justification offered cannot be connected with the fact that the employee is on a fixed-term contract. The definition of comparable employees, the conditions attached and the enforcement mechanisms are similar to those for part-time employees.

Aside from being paid for sick leave, I would be more concerned with the number of sick days she will need to take off. There could be a clause in the contract stating a maximum number of days off within a year. If so, and she needs regular treatment, this could be more of an issue than being paid for sick leave.

Many companies now do not pay for sick leave. Instead you can only claim your SW allowance within 7 days of becoming sick.

coffee_cake

She's not entitled to anything no, but it might be an idea to ask nicely if it could be an option based on their previous discussions, with an upper limit on max sick days per annum

Teyla Emmagan

Ok, thanks a lot for your feedback guys and for taking the time to respond.

I'll follow up on both those points.

Teyla

TheDoc

Teyla Emmagan wrote: »

This is a real issue for my friend as she's about to start a course of radiation (malignant lump found in one breast).

Not to be invasive, but is this fact known to the contractor?

Its entirely plausible that if they are aware there is potential sick leave on the horizon, that during contract negotiations it has been removed with the view that the company will be loosing out.

As outlined above sick leave is not a legal requirement, most companies simply offer it as its normal practice. Definitly not uncommon for it to be removed during a new contract negotiation if a long bout of sick leave is on the horizon.