Afraid to call in sick. :(

BrianJD

smcgiff wrote: »

Wow. Just wow. Very little credence is given to doctor notes these days, and for good reason. Yet, the suggestion here is that an employer should report doctors to the medical council. Do you not think owners/managers have anything better to do?

Doctor certs have to be accepted at all times as there are insurance implications.

I currently have a staff member out for 4 weeks due to Frostbite having been in a freezer for 30 mins one day and 15 mins another day. She got her cert from a Dr from her own country but based in Ireland.

I sent her to our company Dr who had never seen frostbite formed in this country in 30 years and she felt that while there was inflammation, it was not frostbite. Apparently there had been a big increase in Doctors from this particular country giving long certs.

In another of our outlets we have a staff member also from this country certed out for 6 weeks over Xmas with a bad back.

I can't see how a doctor can cert somebody out for 6 weeks and not request a weekly visit.

smcgiff

30 minutes in a freezer is a very long time if it's anything like the freezer i worked in while at supermacs (student days). That was seriously below zero, and had a fan on. A minute in there and you knew about it.

The general rule is that the employee would not be paid while out sick. However, in this case the employee may be able to take a case against you if she were following orders. :-(

BrianJD

smcgiff wrote: »

30 minutes in a freezer is a very long time if it's anything like the freezer i worked in while at supermacs (student days). That was seriously below, and had a fan on. A minute in there and you knew about it.

The general rule is that the employee would not be paid while out sick. However, in this case the employee may be able to take a case against you if she were following orders. :-(

Well this freezer is about 2metres by 2 metres and the door would have been open as she tidied it and packed it so I'd say -10 at worst as the fan was turned off as she worked it. She is of course looking to claim off us as the only gloves provided were standard deli latex gloves.

gozunda

smcgiff wrote: »

Wow. Just wow. Very little credence is given to doctor notes these days, and for good reason. Yet, the suggestion here is that an employer should report doctors to the medical council. Do you not think owners/managers have anything better to do?

Doctor certs have to be accepted at all times as there are insurance implications.

However, do the ones on here that are accusing managers of bullying accept that employees (quite a lot actually) take the piss and abuse employment protection laws.

A lot of advice here is ignoring the op being on probation. A lot of good advice has been given to the op as to how he should manage the situation if he does need to call in sick.

One final point re the op - sickness is relative and open to exaggeration. The op mentions that only 10% of employees go from probation to permanent contracts. This makes no sense. You cannot be kept on probation indefinitely, and to let go 90% of staff would be VERY inefficient

Doctors are professionals that must stand over any diagnosis. Employers are not qualified to give or question such medical diagnosis no matter how much that does not suit their particular circumstances.

If an employee comes in against medical opinion and attends work because of pressure from their employer then the employer potentially faces huge legal issues if the employee has on accident or their condition worsens

As I said I find it quite incredible that some employers question medical professionals considering some of the practices of employers that come to light during EAT and labour court proceedings.

What I am saying that IF there is a perceived problem with a particular GP then do the correct thing and not cast dispersions on the whole medical profession because an employer may have sone doubts in a particular instance etc.

Obviously employers and employees both have contractural and legal obligations but it seriously concerns me that there appears to be some rather extreme draconian attitude towards employees that they should show up or else.

This is not good employment practice - as I said I can see where an issue of long term sickness may involve a meeting on the employees return to work however their use at every instance is an abuse of the employers authority. It matters not that employees may have 'signed up' to this in their contract - it is unlikely that many employees have any choice in this matter .

My suggestion to employers is to back off such dubious practices - overall they are not conducive to a good working environment especially where it results in young vulnerable employees being 'afraid to call in sick' when they really are.

Eoin

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

at the end of the day if you have a medical cert thats the end of it, its signed off and you are excused for the day/week etc.

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

And company doctors are even worse for this because they want all employees back to work as soon as possible so will downplay any recovery time or adjustments needed for your work environment for people who need to be eased back into work

So a company doctor wants you back in work no matter how sick you are, yet your own doctor would never ever give a dodgy sick cert? Do you think there should be a limit to the number of documented absences before enough is enough?

Why not blame the people who abuse sick leave (hint of a sniffle or at the end of a 2 day bender), rather than employers.

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

Its bullying plain and simple

Calling that bullying does a big disservice to the people who are actually bullied in work and are going through a lot worse.

smcgiff

Wander,

I think you may be underestimating the disruption caused by an employee taking a duvet day. Business set ups need to be cut to the bone. There's only a minimum of staff on duty, and if even one person calls in sick the business is working sub optimally, and suffers.

It is too important to just accept a medical cert that are too easily given.

A business needs to use all the weapons in its disposal to cut out duvet days, or even slight colds and I'm taking a day off scenarios. Look at the public sector absentee rates. They are untouchable and see the results. In that case there can be true bullying by co-workers that antagonize others for not taking paid "sick days".

It's a tough environment out there for employers as a lot of laws are in favour of even quite poor employees.

smcgiff

Gozunda.

In the spirit of christmas and because I've only 5 or 6 decades of life left l'll have to agree to disagree.

smcgiff

BrianJD wrote: »

Well this freezer is about 2metres by 2 metres and the door would have been open as she tidied it and packed it so I'd say -10 at worst as the fan was turned off as she worked it. She is of course looking to claim off us as the only gloves provided were standard deli latex gloves.

You have my sympathies.

I'm looking to start up a new (sideline) business early in the new year that would most likely grow faster with an employee or two, but I'd be very reluctant to employ someone. In my day job I've seen the heart ache it can cause. Yours is another example of it.

Qualitymark

BrianJD wrote: »

Well this freezer is about 2metres by 2 metres and the door would have been open as she tidied it and packed it so I'd say -10 at worst as the fan was turned off as she worked it. She is of course looking to claim off us as the only gloves provided were standard deli latex gloves.

Good God. Why on earth not provide correct workwear?

Surely any suspect claims for colds and flu can be simply sorted out by taking a throat swab, if you want to do such things?

Amazing the distrust of staff shown on this thread.

smcgiff

Qualitymark wrote: »

Good God. Why on earth not provide correct workwear?

Surely any suspect claims for colds and flu can be simply sorted out by taking a throat swab, if you want to do such things?

Amazing the distrust of staff shown on this thread.

I've never seen anyone wearing gloves to clean out a freezer - i never did. Although, I'm sure it would be good practice.

Do you realise how cold you have to get to get frostbite? The length of time in the freezer seems to be an issue here. Why didn't the employee have enough sense to stop working if was that cold? Are employers not allowed to expect common sense from staff?

Re your shock at distrust. You seem to be very naive - do you accept that not ALL distrust is misplaced?

BrianJD

Qualitymark wrote: »

Good God. Why on earth not provide correct workwear?

Surely any suspect claims for colds and flu can be simply sorted out by taking a throat swab, if you want to do such things?

Amazing the distrust of staff shown on this thread.

In this case we have never had an issue with the gloves worn for years by other staff. Because we have to handle the food in the freezer (traying up for ovens) we have always used disposable gloves.

There has to be an onus on the employee to use common sense. In this case the employee should have left the freezer when she felt pain and also, if she had mentioned it on the Sunday then we would not have expected her to go back to the freezer for the 10 minutes then.

When you deal with a staff member like this who has already claimed payment for 2 other work accidents then its hard not to be mistrustful of staff.

Qualitymark

BrianJD wrote: »

There has to be an onus on the employee to use common sense. In this case the employee should have left the freezer when she felt pain and also, if she had mentioned it on the Sunday then we would not have expected her to go back to the freezer for the 10 minutes then.

Yes, there seems to be a communications breakdown.

Could I suggest that a limit on time spent in the freezer should be part of the agreed work conditions?

BrianJD

What did you end up doing OP?

twowheelsonly

smcgiff wrote: »

Wander,

I think you may be underestimating the disruption caused by an employee taking a duvet day. Business set ups need to be cut to the bone. There's only a minimum of staff on duty, and if even one person calls in sick the business is working sub optimally, and suffers.

It is too important to just accept a medical cert that are too easily given.

A business needs to use all the weapons in its disposal to cut out duvet days, or even slight colds and I'm taking a day off scenarios. Look at the public sector absentee rates. They are untouchable and see the results. In that case there can be true bullying by co-workers that antagonize others for not taking paid "sick days".

It's a tough environment out there for employers as a lot of laws are in favour of even quite poor employees.

Overall I agree with your post but have to take issue with the PS reference. I'm a PS Employee and a private sector employer and to be honest the Public Sector to me is far worse.
In my Public Service job EVERY day that I'm off sick is counted - i.e. I break my leg, 6 weeks out sick, 42 days. However I'll only be due on for 21 of those (Mostly 11/12 hr shifts). In that way the figures that you read in the papers are skewed.
In my private sector company the excuses that we hear are laughable at times. I've sacked people that claimed to be sick while boasting on FB of partying all night. Also, nobody has ever asked me for a breakdown of our sick days or even a total of those days. Other company owners hat I know are the same - nobody ever asks yet figures comparing both sectors regularly appear in print. My best guess is that they're using SW certs to estimate the sick leave of employees but leaving out the 1 or 2 day sicknesses that are more of a problem for small businesses.

If I were the OP I'd suck it up and go in. If they're genuinely sick then the employer will send them home anyway and at least they made an effort which should stand to them for their probation.

Nody

Qualitymark wrote: »

Good God. Why on earth not provide correct workwear?

Surely any suspect claims for colds and flu can be simply sorted out by taking a throat swab, if you want to do such things?

Amazing the distrust of staff shown on this thread.

For a good reason; I've had several employees who come down with various issues after being denied holidays (funnily enough their sickness was on the same day their denied holidays were as well; my favorite was the guy who "broke a leg" and needed 4 weeks off but refused to see a company doctor about it). In one place I worked part of the team even planned their sick leave in advance (yes planned it) so they would not be to many sick at the same time.

I've had employees who've we called back the doctor who wrote the certificate and have the doctor deny they wrote it (but told us one or more pads had been stolen). Heck I've even been to doctors who gave me a week off from a 5 min discussion involving two questions in total (beyond basic what's your name); no tests, no nothing and 50 EUR on the way out please. Yes, I do distrust sick leave because I've seen it abused so damn much and that will sadly also hinder the really sick people.

As to the frostbite comment; having worked in minus 30 and below for a full winter I can fully appreciate frostbite and how easy it comes but trust me when I say no one will ever have frostbite and be in doubt about it (yes I had a mild version of it twice).

Let me give you an idea of what would have happened based on my personal experience; time zero the person is now so cold that their skin is completely white. Pressing the skin there will be no reaction. Still not frostbite at a serious level but this is the warning point to do something about it. Second stage the skin will start to die; you'll notice this by the fact that the top layer is going white and lose (dead top layer of the skin) but you will not feel this; this is usually pointed out to you by someone else who notices it. About 20ish min after this point assuming you get in to something warm (as I did) you'll start to get a prickling feeling back in the area along with warmth as blood starts to pump back properly again. This goes on for about 5 min with increasing warmth and pain starting to set in. The pain starts out as mild and annoying and will end with head shattering "omg make it stop" level which lasts for about 15 to 30 min and starts to go away (took me about 2h to be functional again). Over the next days the area will be very sensitive to touch and will be peeling with raw pink skin below it.

Now in the case mentioned do you not think the employee and employeer would have noticed if said person was unable to do anything due to being in pain 15 to 30 min after having closed the fridge for half an hour because if they had even a mild frostbite they would be in no doubt about it.

gozunda

smcgiff wrote: »

Gozunda.

In the spirit of christmas and because I've only 5 or 6 decades of life left l'll have to agree to disagree.

Fair nuff - but perhaps what I have said may give some pause for thought before such practices are taken to the extreme by employers. At the end of the day a good working environment will benefit both the employee and the employer.

And in the spirit of Christmas present....

At length the hour of shutting up the counting-house arrived. With an ill-will Scrooge dismounted from his stool, and tacitly admitted the fact to the expectant clerk in the Tank, who instantly snuffed his candle out, and put on his hat.

'You'll want all day tomorrow, I suppose?'' said Scrooge.

``If quite convenient, Sir.''

``It's not convenient,'' said Scrooge, ``and it's not fair. If I was to stop half-a-crown for it, you'd think yourself ill-used, I 'll be bound?''

The clerk smiled faintly.

``And yet,'' said Scrooge, ``you don't think me ill-used, when I pay a day's wages for no work.''

The clerk observed that it was only once a year.

``A poor excuse for picking a man's pocket every twenty-fifth of December!'' said Scrooge, buttoning his great-coat to the chin. ``But I suppose you must have the whole day. Be here all the earlier next morning!''


Merry Christmas....

smcgiff

To be honest I don't know how the private sector sick leave is calculated. I can only go on the private sector and the one semi state company i've worked for and the published absentee figures. Plus the culture of PS employees being pressurised into taking up their sick day allowance. I appreciate our own personal experiences may differ.

Qualitymark

twowheelsonly wrote: »

I'm a PS Employee and a private sector employer.

How does that work?

Edit: OP, you say that when you came back from your mother's sickbed, you were told in a work interview that any sick days would be taken into consideration at the end of your probation. Not offering any advice, but if this were myself, I'd be looking seriously for other work.

As for whether you should go in with a serious infection - if your employer thinks that is the correct thing to do, then perhaps it's what you should do. I'd think myself you should consider whether you're likely to infect co-workers (and the public if you're dealing with people, and food, if you're handling food).

I would be personally surprised that a doctor's sick not should not be enough evidence of illness, whatever the opinions of HR.

smcgiff

Bah humbug, gozunda, you flaming commie!

gozunda

smcgiff wrote: »

Bah humbug, gozunda, you flaming commie!

Didn't realise Dickins was a commie

But for all you employers out there - you might wish to take note of this

http://touch.boards.ie/thread/2056839648?page=1

....

Wanderer2010

Eoin wrote: »

So a company doctor wants you back in work no matter how sick you are, yet your own doctor would never ever give a dodgy sick cert? Do you think there should be a limit to the number of documented absences before enough is enough?

Why not blame the people who abuse sick leave (hint of a sniffle or at the end of a 2 day bender), rather than employers.



Calling that bullying does a big disservice to the people who are actually bullied in work and are going through a lot worse.

The company doctor is biased in favor of the employer and will always suggest the minimum amount of time to recover, example I had a very sore knee injury 2yrs back and my doc advised 3 weeks off which I took and when I returned to work I was carted off to the company doc who said in a very disapproving manner "I wouldnt have signed you off for that long, a week and a half would have been enough tut tut", I told him I wasnt taking his opinion as gold because I already had a doctor certify me, he didnt like that at all.

Being subjected to more than one back to work interview is corporate bullying, it might not be the same as someone roaring at you and demeaning you in front of your workmates but its bullying nonetheless. Management have a load of ways of bullying staff and covering it up in official policy. When you have to explain yourself AGAIN to a boss after already getting signed off for a geuine reason then thats bang out of line and suggesting that your absences will work against you is bullying plain and simple. People arent even allowed get sick anymore, what a world :rolleyes:

smcgiff

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

The company doctor is biased in favor of the employer and will always suggest the minimum amount of time to recover, example I had a very sore knee injury 2yrs back and my doc advised 3 weeks off which I took and when I returned to work I was carted off to the company doc who said in a very disapproving manner "I wouldnt have signed you off for that long, a week and a half would have been enough tut tut", I told him I wasnt taking his opinion as gold because I already had a doctor certify me, he didnt like that at all.

Being subjected to more than one back to work interview is corporate bullying, it might not be the same as someone roaring at you and demeaning you in front of your workmates but its bullying nonetheless. Management have a load of ways of bullying staff and covering it up in official policy. When you have to explain yourself AGAIN to a boss after already getting signed off for a geuine reason then thats bang out of line and suggesting that your absences will work against you is bullying plain and simple. People arent even allowed get sick anymore, what a world :rolleyes:

I think you're still missing Eoin's point. Doctor's are not objective, and likely to certify in line with who is paying them.

Procrastastudy

Two things are being fundamentally misunderstood in this thread - one has already been mentioned.

a) Genuine sickness might be explained by a sick note but that does not mean it is excused by one. If someone is constantly off sick, for genuine reasons, it's still grounds for termination of their contract and rightly so. It's not the role of private business to provide a quasi-welfare state.

b) Back to work interviews are there for everyone's benefit. Any company not performing them probably doesn't give a toss about health and safety and isn't checking to see why that member of staff was out sick. It could be any number of reasons including an internal problem such as them being bullied by someone in the work place.

If an employer wants to manage someone out there are much more efficient ways than back to work interviews. The attitude to 'sick-days' by many is what's staggering in my opinion.

monkeypants

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

Wow, I would hate to be working under you. Your anti-union views are very obvious and your comment about the solicitor being no good is borderline bullying. You say you have fired people for absenses, of course thats a disciplinary issue and the employee has the right of appeal and a union rep. In most normal companies, if the absences are an issue, they are given a verbal warning, then written etc until all avenues are exhausted. All these meetings are done with a rep, should the employee want one. Its not a case of "Oh you are out a lot, come in here and we fire you"! You are the one who was saying you are hardly ever sick, I think you are expecting the same standards from your employees, which is unfair. People get sick, they have lives, things happen. Thats life and employee absense is just a fact of working life.

Where's the hostility coming from? In fact, I'm pro-union. I think they're very useful. They just don't happen to have one where I work. As for firing people, they went through a verbal warning, a written warning and a final warning before the dismissal stage was reached. This typically takes months. They employees in question were allowed representation. Some avail themselves of it, some don't. The guy with the solicitor didn't have much use for him because it was all documented beforehand.

Can you please explain how my comment about the solicitor was borderline bullying?

As for employees having a life, I'm well aware of that. I have one of my own. I try to make sure that people get their holidays approved, personal leave approved, etc. I've facilitated a couple of people to work abroad so that they can get medical treatment. I don't expect them to be fit and healthy 100% of the time, but I do expect them not to take the piss. Unfortunately some do and please don't insult me by claiming that they don't.

Anyways, that's my 2c on this thread. I hope my view was useful to someone.

Qualitymark

In my experience, most people are honest about not taking sick days unless they're actually sick. They don't want to load work on their co-workers.
The only time I've ever seen people taking sick days without justification was a) in the civil service in a section where there was an attitude of personal entitlement, and b) in a place where the management were so horrible, and people felt so cheated, that people wanted to get their own back.

Stheno

Deleted User wrote: »

This says so much about 2012.

To be fair, I've seen this happen back in the nineties, working in a place with a staff of hundreds and an average age of 23, attitude was exactly the same.

gozunda

Procrastastudy wrote: »

Two things are being fundamentally misunderstood in this thread - one has already been mentioned.

a) Genuine sickness might be explained by a sick note but that does not mean it is excused by one. If someone is constantly off sick, for genuine reasons, it's still grounds for termination of their contract and rightly so. It's not the role of private business to provide a quasi-welfare state.

Ok but this thread and the OPs dilemma related to a short period of certified sickness. We are not talking about about employees being constantly off sick.
Neither was there requirement for employers being a 'quasi- welfare' state
Fcs most employers are too percuniary even to pay sick pay to their full time employees.

b) Back to work interviews are there for everyone's benefit. Any company not performing them probably doesn't give a toss about health and safety and isn't checking to see why that member of staff was out sick. It could be any number of reasons including an internal problem such as them being bullied by someone in the work place.

The medical certificate as required by employers will clearly show why an employee has been out for more than a couple of days. As said employers are not medical experts so they cannot judge a persons condition by interviewing them.
If there are concerns of bullying then the company can ensure there should be proper means of reporting such behaviour and not by putting a person in what is effectively an interrogation situation.

If an employer wants to manage someone out there are much more efficient ways than back to work interviews. The attitude to 'sick-days' by many is what's staggering in my opinion.

Ok if there is a problem with 'sick days' - why is that? I would recommend that a company to a root to branch investigations of how things in the company are running and look at positive ways of reducing such incidences. As I said I can see where such interviews may be useful in long term situations but to use them on a regular basis is counter productive to a good working environment where you will have employees 'afraid to ring in sick' even when they are genuinely ill.

ulyssescohen

It would be helpful if the OP came back and provided an update. I'm sure that there are many people in the same boat - and it would be helpful to have some sort of resolution. If not the thread should be closed.

Procrastastudy

gozunda wrote: »

Ok but this thread and the OPs dilemma related to a short period of certified sickness. We are not talking about about employees being constantly off sick.
Neither was there requirement for employers being a 'quasi- welfare' state
Fcs most employers are too percuniary even to pay sick pay to their full time employees.

Employment laws in this country are well balanced and it takes alot to get someone out once they are in. Probation periods address this and employers are wise to err on the side of caution. Having people out at short notice has a number of detrimental effects to a business and other employees notwithstanding the person out being paid or not. If people want to turn up when they want without question they should be prepared to work on a casual basis. A contract works both ways.

gozunda wrote: »

The medical certificate as required by employers will clearly show why an employee has been out for more than a couple of days. As said employers are not medical experts so they cannot judge a persons condition by interviewing them.

A medical cert will normally have very little information on it. The BTWI allows the employer to ask the employee what they need and should include a risk assessment. If the medical cert says back injury the employee's input should be sought as to various things including there opinion on any temporary redeployment that is necessary. For every negative aspect to a BTWI there are three positive ones. Nothing is perfect.

gozunda wrote: »

If there are concerns of bullying then the company can ensure there should be proper means of reporting such behaviour and not by putting a person in what is effectively an interrogation situation.

One example of a possible bazillion. Proper means of reporting can include a BTWI as a belt an braces to a very serious issue.

gozunda wrote: »

Ok if there is a problem with 'sick days' - why is that? I would recommend that a company to a root to branch investigations of how things in the company are running and look at positive ways of reducing such incidences. As I said I can see where such interviews may be useful in long term situations but to use them on a regular basis is counter productive to a good working environment where you will have employees 'afraid to ring in sick' even when they are genuinely ill.

Not if they are conducted properly - and I'm sorry that includes catching out lazy people taking the mick.

Wanderer2010

monkeypants wrote: »

Where's the hostility coming from? In fact, I'm pro-union. I think they're very useful. They just don't happen to have one where I work. As for firing people, they went through a verbal warning, a written warning and a final warning before the dismissal stage was reached. This typically takes months. They employees in question were allowed representation. Some avail themselves of it, some don't. The guy with the solicitor didn't have much use for him because it was all documented beforehand.

Can you please explain how my comment about the solicitor was borderline bullying?

As for employees having a life, I'm well aware of that. I have one of my own. I try to make sure that people get their holidays approved, personal leave approved, etc. I've facilitated a couple of people to work abroad so that they can get medical treatment. I don't expect them to be fit and healthy 100% of the time, but I do expect them not to take the piss. Unfortunately some do and please don't insult me by claiming that they don't.

Anyways, that's my 2c on this thread. I hope my view was useful to someone.

They dont have a union where you work? Then you know its easier for employers to bully/discipline employees over issues like sick leave etc when they dont have anyone to back them up and you certainly sound like a person who follows every little letter of company procedures and the reason I said your comment on the solicitor is bullying is because it was snide and from your part, you said all the documentation was already done so firing couldnt be prevented, thats just a nasty comment. Its very unfortunate that anyone working under you doesnt have the option of a union rep because its often the difference between fair and unfair procedures.

Yes, people often do take the mickey with the sick days I dont deny that, but what Im saying is that being quizzed the moment you return from CERTIFIED sick leave (the clue is in the word certified) about how many days you were off and the reason, its a subtle form of bullying as you are explaining, almost justifying, taking time off for genuine sickness. Employees are far too quiet on issues like this, its a shame employers with no unions are so despicable when treating the genuine cases.

Procrastastudy

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

They dont have a union where you work? Then you know its easier for employers to bully/discipline employees over issues like sick leave etc when they dont have anyone to back them up and you certainly sound like a person who follows every little letter of company procedures and the reason I said your comment on the solicitor is bullying is because it was snide and from your part, you said all the documentation was already done so firing couldnt be prevented, thats just a nasty comment. Its very unfortunate that anyone working under you doesnt have the option of a union rep because its often the difference between fair and unfair procedures.

Yes, people often do take the mickey with the sick days I dont deny that, but what Im saying is that being quizzed the moment you return from CERTIFIED sick leave (the clue is in the word certified) about how many days you were off and the reason, its a subtle form of bullying as you are explaining, almost justifying, taking time off for genuine sickness. Employees are far too quiet on issues like this, its a shame employers with no unions are so despicable when treating the genuine cases.

Unions should be in every work-place, government funded and joined by all. However, and I come from a family heavily involved in the UK printing unions, the best unions work with management to ensure procedure are in-place that best solve problems not taking an adverserial approach. A good union would insist on a properly conducted BTWI.

monkeypants

Qualitymark wrote: »

In my experience, most people are honest about not taking sick days unless they're actually sick. They don't want to load work on their co-workers.

Totally agree.

monkeypants

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

you certainly sound like a person who follows every little letter of company procedures and the reason I said your comment on the solicitor is bullying is because it was snide and from your part, you said all the documentation was already done so firing couldnt be prevented, thats just a nasty comment. Its very unfortunate that anyone working under you doesnt have the option of a union rep because its often the difference between fair and unfair procedures.

When it comes to disciplinary matters, I have to follow the company procedure to ensure that every single employee is treated identically. This isn't just by me, by other managers too. Otherwise things can become unfair for individual employees. As fair as I know, everyone in my workplace, including me, can join a union. There's nothing stopping them to my knowledge. As far as I know, some of my direct reports already are, it just hasn't come up yet. Regarding the solicitor piece, when I say paperwork, I mean all of the previous paperwork as to the steps already taken; verbal, written and final warnings over the previous four months. If the employee or solicitor could have given an explanation as to what was causing the absence, then the outcome of that meeting would have been completely different.

The Op needs to come back and give an update. This thread is derailing.

Wicklowandy

BrianJD wrote: »

Well this freezer is about 2metres by 2 metres and the door would have been open as she tidied it and packed it so I'd say -10 at worst as the fan was turned off as she worked it. She is of course looking to claim off us as the only gloves provided were standard deli latex gloves.

You sound like a great employer. Has it never occurred to you (HACCP) that the space you described is legally described as a confined space and -10 is some seriously adverse conditions to be working in for as much as 30 minutes. Frostbite can occur at lower temperatures than that and in shorter lengths of time. (ask your doctor) and the use of latex gloves can exasperate that.

What worries me more is you describe multiple outlets. Have you ever conducted risk assessments?

I'd reckon them foreigners(paraphrasing you) will have a good claim from you. And you deserve it. And id be surprised if it'll be the first or last time.

And with an employee with a history of accidents, surely whatever tasks they are set should be well assessed? Youre leaving yourself open to claims by blaming an employee for something you had a duty to prevent.

BrianJD

Wicklowandy wrote: »

You sound like a great employer. Has it never occurred to you (HACCP) that the space you described is legally described as a confined space and -10 is some seriously adverse conditions to be working in for as much as 30 minutes.

What worries me more is you describe multiple outlets. Have you ever conducted risk assessments?

I'd reckon them foreigners(paraphrasing you) will have a good claim from you. And you deserve it. And id be surprised if it'll be the first or last time.

Pathetic sarcasm

First of all I believe we are a great company to work for. Having been announced as one of the Best Managed Companies by the Deloitte Best Managed Companies Programme for the last 2 years will attest to that and winning many awards in our field.

Secondly what has HACCP got to do with this incident or work safety.

Thirdly. We have a frozen delivery that needs to be packed into the freezer by somebody taking from an ambient area and packing into the freezer. This would take 30 minutes with the staff member in an out and not really able to get more than a metre into the Freezer. The door is also opened at all times and the fan is off.

Would you really consider this an enclosed space?

How would you do this differently bearing in mind the employee is bringing a box and leaving on a shelf and is in and out regulary

If the employee has a case, it will be for none of the issues you mention rather than a lack of separate gloves for freezer work.

Otherwise, thanks for your opinion and your witty reply.

Wanderer2010

monkeypants wrote: »

When it comes to disciplinary matters, I have to follow the company procedure to ensure that every single employee is treated identically. This isn't just by me, by other managers too. Otherwise things can become unfair for individual employees. As fair as I know, everyone in my workplace, including me, can join a union. There's nothing stopping them to my knowledge. As far as I know, some of my direct reports already are, it just hasn't come up yet. Regarding the solicitor piece, when I say paperwork, I mean all of the previous paperwork as to the steps already taken; verbal, written and final warnings over the previous four months. If the employee or solicitor could have given an explanation as to what was causing the absence, then the outcome of that meeting would have been completely different.

The Op needs to come back and give an update. This thread is derailing.

You didnt mention anything about a progressive procedure in your previous posts on firing a worker for absenteeism, which is a bit harsh in my opinion, you should exhaust every single avenue before firing someone, especially in this climate. You also never mentioned anything about people being in unions or the option of joining until I mentioned in first, your posts just come across as very anti-union and that the company way is the only way.

I do agree that the OP needs to update people though..

Wanderer2010

BrianJD wrote: »

Pathetic sarcasm

First of all I believe we are a great company to work for. Having been announced as one of the Best Managed Companies by the Deloitte Best Managed Companies Programme for the last 2 years will attest to that and winning many awards in our field.

Secondly what has HACCP got to do with this incident or work safety.

Thirdly. We have a frozen delivery that needs to be packed into the freezer by somebody taking from an ambient area and packing into the freezer. This would take 30 minutes with the staff member in an out and not really able to get more than a metre into the Freezer. The door is also opened at all times and the fan is off.

Would you really consider this an enclosed space?

How would you do this differently bearing in mind the employee is bringing a box and leaving on a shelf and is in and out regulary

If the employee has a case, it will be for none of the issues you mention rather than a lack of separate gloves for freezer work.

Otherwise, thanks for your opinion and your witty reply.

Eh? From the first quote, you only hire "foreigners"?? What is that about?

BrianJD

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

Eh? From the first quote, you only hire "foreigners"?? What is that about?

Where exactly did I mention we only hire foreigners?

Wanderer2010

BrianJD wrote: »

Where exactly did I mention we only hire foreigners?

Sorry mate I might have got the wrong end there, I was just going by the previous post.

monkeypants

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

You didnt mention anything about a progressive procedure in your previous posts on firing a worker for absenteeism

Apologies, I thought that was a legal requirement and therefore a given. I'm not an ogre.

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

You also never mentioned anything about people being in unions or the option of joining until I mentioned in first, your posts just come across as very anti-union

Not anti-union at all, just have never looked into joining one. Not for any ideological reason either, laziness would be the honest reason. My current teams have very little absence, one team of eight hasn't had a day off sick in two years. I haven't had to have a formal back to work interview with anyone in 2012. Always have an informal chat in passing, "How you getting on?" that kind of thing. The union question hasn't come up and I don't think it would change my way of working.

Having said that, our business is in direct competition with India and Eastern Europe as it's all English speaking. Our cost position is precarious and we could easily all lose our jobs and no one wants that.

Wicklowandy

http://www.hsa.ie/eng/Topics/Confined_Spaces/#cs

You employ people in multiple outlets and seem to have a very poor knowledge of h and s. By asking for that definition, you confirmed to me that risk assessments are not conducted properly by you.

You have shirked YOUR responsibility, and now try to blame someone for taking advantage of you.

Any employment solicitor is going to construct a claim based on:

Lack of ppe
Lack of training
Undefined work practices

I think any award given by a representative body lacks credence. And any employer that has faced previous claims, but has not identified how they found themselves in that position, is far from a best employer to work for.

Wicklowandy

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

Eh? From the first quote, you only hire "foreigners"?? What is that about?

Thinly veiled racist comment Regarding doctors and workers 'from a certain place.' by braind3

ulyssescohen

I've said it before - and I'll say it again - this thread has gone way off topic.

Shinaynay

I started a thread with the same title a few months ago.

Your employee will have bo respect for u if you go in dying. Have some self respect & look after yourself.

If they let you go as a result they are not worth working for.

Wanderer2010

Wicklowandy wrote: »

I'd reckon them foreigners(paraphrasing you) will have a good claim from you. And you deserve it. And id be surprised if it'll be the first or last time.

Excuse me but the above quote was from YOU and not me :rolleyes:

Wicklowandy

BrianJD wrote: »

I currently have a staff member out for 4 weeks due to Frostbite having been in a freezer for 30 mins one day and 15 mins another day. She got her cert from a Dr from her own country but based in Ireland.

I sent her to our company Dr who had never seen frostbite formed in this country in 30 years and she felt that while there was inflammation, it was not frostbite. Apparently there had been a big increase in Doctors from this particular country giving long certs.

In another of our outlets we have a staff member also from this country certed out for 6 weeks over Xmas with a bad back.

I can't see how a doctor can cert somebody out for 6 weeks and not request a weekly visit.

This was the post and poster i referenced

gozunda

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

..,,

Yes, people often do take the mickey with the sick days I dont deny that, but what Im saying is that being quizzed the moment you return from CERTIFIED sick leave (the clue is in the word certified) about how many days you were off and the reason, its a subtle form of bullying as you are explaining, almost justifying, taking time off for genuine sickness. Employees are far too quiet on issues like this, its a shame employers with no unions are so despicable when treating the genuine cases.

^^^^This


Employers need to be aware that BTWI may be seen as a form of bullying. They should not be necessary where there are good working relationships between employees and management and for certified low rated absences. I am surprised how this management technique has spread in recent years with little or no corresponding improvements in employees conditions of employment. This is I believe a cause of some concern.

BrianJD

Wicklowandy wrote: »

Thinly veiled racist comment Regarding doctors and workers 'from a certain place.' by braind3

Are you for real? How can mentioning that somebody from another country was involved be classed as racism.

This is the exact reason I normally don't get involved in these discussions On Boards because people like you who know absolutely nothing about you make ridiculous statements like this.

You were the one that first mentioned "them foreigners" Why do you keep mentioning them, do you not like them? I don't know why you wouldn't cause I generally love working with all of my colleagues irrespective of their nationality

I'm not conversing with you on this matter again as I prefer to communicate to somebody with a bit of cop on.

Wicklowandy

You said that doctors and employees from a certain country present questionable certs.

Thats thinly veiled racism, and from anyone else i would find it offensive to be accused of racism.

Good luck with your impending claim;)

Wanderer2010

Wicklowandy wrote: »

You said that doctors and employees from a certain country present questionable certs.

Thats thinly veiled racism, and from anyone else i would find it offensive to be accused of racism.

Good luck with your impending claim;)

Hey, you accused ME of racism and you didnt even know what you were talking about, get a bit of sense whoever you are..:rolleyes:

As for the post about Back To Work Interviews, I maintain its just another subtle way to bully the employee and send a strong message, albeit hidden, that you should never go out sick as you have the hassle of, in many companies, filling out the BTWI form, explaining the reason for your absence and going to the company doctor who only wants to hear that you are 100% fit and able for full duties. Its a disgraceful way to treat someone, you can be damn sure that if a pregnant woman was treated like that on her return from maternity leave there would be uproar and new discrimination laws would be enforced but employees are easy prey when they take sick leave, I dont blame people for taking sick leave from stress when they are treated like this on return to work...employers want it all- employees to be there 24/7 and never take a sick day but they dont provide any support when people inevitably do get sick and need leave...:rolleyes: