I suspect employee abused sick leave.

Mrs OBumble

Uncle Ben wrote: »

Thats some shower you're working for. Expecting people to show up on crutches following an accident.

It's actually a very foolish policy: if someone has a doctor's certificate, they are simply not supposed to be on the premises - even just coming in to be sent home could well delay their recovery, and having a policy that requires it leaves the company wide open to being sued for damages if someone's recovery is delayed.

I got a viral infection (mild for the flu, but still way worse than a col) after three days leave, a couple of months back. There as literally no way I could have crawled in to the office just to show them that I was sick - and luckily my current employers are willing to accept a doctor's certificate rather than trying to second guess things themselves.

HiGlo

Tobyglen wrote: »

Agreed, if she has been a model employee for 6 years then I think she deserves a bit more respect. Better management would have seen her needs and got her the extra days off, now they have a disgruntled employee and the relationship is ruined. 6 years of service deserves that. What's so important in retail that she couldn't have got 2/3 extra days off?

I kind of agree with this.
Fair enough she asked for holidays at a dodgy time. Is it written into contracts that holidays are not allowed in this period? (I work in a company where for 5 months of the year holidays are not permitted and no one would dare ask). I understand you managed to secure 2 weeks for her, but what difference would a few more days have made?? Like, 14 days v 17??

I can see how after being a good reliable employee for 6 years that she felt a bit slighted by not being allowed the 2/3 days extra holidays for a (most likely) one off big trip to Australia. I get that that doesn't mean she can just unofficially take them and I think she was prob a little cheeky to do that, but I completely understand why.

You say that for you the trust is gone with her and you'll keep closer eye on her, but I think that works both ways. I would imagine as a long term reliable employee she feels unappreciated and disrespected. That's how I would feel anyway....

I think there are lessons to be learned on both sides here and I think it would be unfair if she was punished for it.

irish_goat

If an employer went on your Facebook page and saw you had checked in/taken photos at certain places when you were "sick" could they do anything?

Kristopherus

irish_goat wrote: »

If an employer went on your Facebook page and saw you had checked in/taken photos at certain places when you were "sick" could they do anything?

Yes, you could end up sacked. What do you expect - a handshake to welcome you back?:D

irish_goat

Kristopherus wrote: »

Yes, you could end up sacked. What do you expect - a handshake to welcome you back?:D

Ah I didn't do anything myself but just curious if it's a done thing these days.

Nody

HiGlo wrote: »

Is it written into contracts that holidays are not allowed in this period?

Actually it's written black and white in the law that the company has the right to decide when an employee takes their holidays...

I also don't find anything odd with two weeks only as everyone keeps harping on about "it's only another three days"; most companies have a very clear policy on holidays exceeding a certain amount of days (usually two weeks) which require more senior manager sign off (for example in my current company it goes from direct line manager to HR manager & department manager at at certain number of days in a row). Assuming this is the case there's a very real possibility that there was no way in hell she'd get those three more days and a chance the senior manager would simply refuse the holiday outright!

Only one final point to add and that is the employee's career is most likely over at this company now because she could not follow the rules. No; I don't mean she'll be fired but between the lost trust (i.e. more reviews of work done) and future prospects (i.e. unlikely she'll be trusted with more responsibility/more important tasks etc.) I don't see her staying out the year but that's my personal guess only.

daheff

I think this situation was badly handled by both parties.

Yes the employee was wrong to not provide a sick cert in accordance with the company policy.

However if the employee is sick, then they are sick. End of.

From the retailers perspective to not give the employee the 2 and a bit weeks holidays is extremely bad form on the retailers behalf. This will be known to all the staff now that even people with long service aren't respected enough to be allowed a holiday of a lifetime. I guarantee you that staff morale is damaged by this.

As another poster said, its retail...its not brain surgery. I doubt this staff member (or any other) is that important that they couldn't take time off. I understand that certain times of the year are busy seasons and limits to the number of people who can go on holidays need to be in place, but blanket bans of large parts of the year means you force everybody to take it at times that mightn't suit them. Companies have to remember that if they treat their staff like partners (rather than required costs) that they get more from the staff & over all the company benefits more.

I'd think that this staff member is now looking for a new job after this.

davo10

daheff wrote: »

However if the employee is sick, then they are sick. End of.
.

I can only assume this statement was made with your tongue firmly in your cheek. Just in case it wasn't, it's daft. All employees must be treated fairly and equally so if policy is not to require sick cert then the employer cannot demand it from another when they are off sick, you referenced brain surgery, you don't have to be a brain surgeon to realise that this policy is open to abuse.

Two weeks is a long break and typical of the longer durations which tend to be approved, anything beyond that is a bonus not a right. All companies restrict holidays during busy periods and periods when they are short handed, not to do so would show a lack of business acumen.

AndyBoBandy

Have a look through her social media, i.e. Facebook status/pictures posted during the 'sick' leave,

people love to tell the world about how awesome their lives are..

gandalf

daheff wrote: »

I think this situation was badly handled by both parties.

Yes the employee was wrong to not provide a sick cert in accordance with the company policy.

However if the employee is sick, then they are sick. End of.

No it is their responsibility to provide proof that they were indeed sick. They didn't do that. I have worked in companies where that would have been seen as a disciplinary situation.

From the retailers perspective to not give the employee the 2 and a bit weeks holidays is extremely bad form on the retailers behalf. This will be known to all the staff now that even people with long service aren't respected enough to be allowed a holiday of a lifetime. I guarantee you that staff morale is damaged by this.

Again it is not the norm to grant more than 2 weeks holidays in a row in an awful lot of employers unless there is a compelling reason. You normally have to have a very good reason and it has to fit around the companies actual needs. In this case the OP went to bat for the employee but was told it was their busiest time and that the employee could have two weeks. That employee then put in what looks like a spurious sickie to cover the days they wanted off in addition for their holidays.

The reason you apply for holiday leave is so your employer can assess if they have adequate cover available and if they determine they do they will green light the leave. It sounds to me that this employee booked the holidays first and then applied for leave.

As another poster said, its retail...its not brain surgery. I doubt this staff member (or any other) is that important that they couldn't take time off. I understand that certain times of the year are busy seasons and limits to the number of people who can go on holidays need to be in place, but blanket bans of large parts of the year means you force everybody to take it at times that mightn't suit them. Companies have to remember that if they treat their staff like partners (rather than required costs) that they get more from the staff & over all the company benefits more.

I'd think that this staff member is now looking for a new job after this.

It doesn't matter what the role is. Do we know the size of the company, do we know how many employees there are available to pick up the slack? Being an experienced member of staff is a two way street. This employee is there six years, they should have realised that getting leave of that length was going to be difficult at this time of the year.

TBH if I was there manager I would be delighted if they were looking for employment elsewhere because as far as I would be concerned they would have abused my trust and I certainly would not be relying on them in future.

Mrs OBumble

gandalf wrote: »

Again it is not the norm to grant more than 2 weeks holidays in a row in an awful lot of employers

Personally I've never seen a rule like that.

In fact, I've only ever seen the opposite: in many cases, an employee is required to be on leave for two continuous weeks (or more) at least once per calendar year.

gandalf

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Personally I've never seen a rule like that.

In fact, I've only ever seen the opposite: in many cases, an employee is required to be on leave for two continuous weeks (or more) at least once per calendar year.

Well most of the companies I have worked for would be in the SME field. I have actually never worked for a company that has required me to take two weeks together.

MarkAnthony

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Personally I've never seen a rule like that.

In fact, I've only ever seen the opposite: in many cases, an employee is required to be on leave for two continuous weeks (or more) at least once per calendar year.

Pretty standard in retail, usually because a site has a limited number of people and cover can only be got for so long. Anywhere I managed needed an area manager to approve anything more than two weeks - it had to be managed on an area level for cover.

Usually there would be a requirement/request for employees to take two weeks over the summer as it's usually the quietest time.

daUbiq

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Personally I've never seen a rule like that.

In fact, I've only ever seen the opposite: in many cases, an employee is required to be on leave for two continuous weeks (or more) at least once per calendar year.

I've never seen the two continuous weeks rule anywhere...

It sounds to me like she knew exactly what she was doing...

ted1

Hollister11 wrote: »

Don't mean to hijack the thread just a quick question. Why are you always asked for a sick very if your sick. That's going to cost you €55, instead of your emoter saying grand see you in a few days

Prevents employees taking the piss. Especially if they are getting paid during their absence

IRE60

Few points. I ran a business where there was a period where no annual leave could be taken - by anyone. Made crystal to anyone joining. Company entitled to do that - it was a window of about 3 to 4 weeks. I'm sure the same would apply in retail.

My wife has to take two weeks back to back each year - under corporate governance policy.

Specifically:
a) this is being dealt with very retrospectively and is not helping the situation or indeed might not help general moral if its pursued so late after the event.
b) I'd like to think that the cert issue is specifically dealt with contract/terms.
c) even contracts you scrape off the 'net have a policy of 3 days out = cert.
d) no cert = written warning i'd suggest.

It's really fcuked up at this point: the delay, the lack of enforcement of policy necessitating a cert - the disregard to that policy (again I assume one exists).

I think that the only way to redress this is as follows.
a) always look for a cert on immediate return in future!
b) meet with the holiday maker, specify that this was overlooked at the time, but it would not be in future. Only that the time elapsed it would have been a written warning - but not this time.

No more said - both move away bruised and a little more knowledgeable

IRE60

daUbiq wrote: »

I've never seen the two continuous weeks rule anywhere...

Parts of the Banks and financial institutions you'll find that commonplace.

Mrs OBumble

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Pretty standard in retail, usually because a site has a limited number of people and cover can only be got for so long. Anywhere I managed needed an area manager to approve anything more than two weeks - it had to be managed on an area level for cover.

Usually there would be a requirement/request for employees to take two weeks over the summer as it's usually the quietest time.

I'm really surprised to hear it's not enforced in retail - businesses with lots of cash and stock floating around are prime candidates for people working out personal-and-dishonest "systems" that only get discovered when the compulsory leave period rolls around and someone else does the job for a complete cycle.

MarkAnthony

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

I'm really surprised to hear it's not enforced in retail - businesses with lots of cash and stock floating around are prime candidates for people working out personal-and-dishonest "systems" that only get discovered when the compulsory leave period rolls around and someone else does the job for a complete cycle.

That would be stocktake day, and no one gets that off!

ted1

daUbiq wrote: »

I've never seen the two continuous weeks rule anywhere...

It sounds to me like she knew exactly what she was doing...

Banks do it. It helps them to identify irregularities

Uncle Ben

daUbiq wrote: »

I've never seen the two continuous weeks rule anywhere...

It sounds to me like she knew exactly what she was doing...

The govt legislated for it. The organisation of working time act I believe covers the above.
There really is a need for both employees and employers to get their own act together and see what is legislated for first and at least work off that.

iPhone.

lazeedaisy wrote: »

The procedure was written for cases like this. If you were in hospital, that was the only way you got paid. People showed up on crutches from various accidents, but it did away with people abusing the system.

Sick pay costs businesses a horrendous amount, and you need to be ahead of people, have the right prcesses in place, because the law protects them when you don't.

So your Company would require an Employee with an infectious disease for example to show up and risk infecting other employees?

mahamageehad

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Personally I've never seen a rule like that.

In fact, I've only ever seen the opposite: in many cases, an employee is required to be on leave for two continuous weeks (or more) at least once per calendar year.

I work in IT and no leave above 2 weeks in a row is granted without higher approval. Employees are allowed to have up to 2 weeks off (pending approval from their manager) but anything more than that would only be approved in a special situation and it would have to go to HR and divisional approval. Potentially the OP put themselves out on a limb to get the max time they could for the employee without risking pushing it too far and getting it denied altogether.

On a side note 5 days is really quite a long time to be off without a sick cert, I feel guilty if I miss one day!

tinkerbell

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

It's actually a very foolish policy: if someone has a doctor's certificate, they are simply not supposed to be on the premises - even just coming in to be sent home could well delay their recovery, and having a policy that requires it leaves the company wide open to being sued for damages if someone's recovery is delayed.

I got a viral infection (mild for the flu, but still way worse than a col) after three days leave, a couple of months back. There as literally no way I could have crawled in to the office just to show them that I was sick - and luckily my current employers are willing to accept a doctor's certificate rather than trying to second guess things themselves.

That and even if you did show up, you'd have been spreading your germs around the whole office!

What a stupid policy to demand people show up.

tinkerbell

ted1 wrote: »

Banks do it. It helps them to identify irregularities

It happens in stock trading also - to identify irregularities.

kippy

A mandatory leave period of 2 consecutive weeks in a calendar is mandatory in a lot of organisations at the moment and has been for some time. I've had this in my last four employments going back almost a decade. Discussed here: http://www.askaboutmoney.com/threads/forced-2-week-period-of-annual-leave.153839/
Indeed, there are some very legitimate reasons for trying to enforce this.

In the case of the OP, you'd really want some strong employment policies that the staff member has signed up for to cover your ass in a situation such as this.