Can I get sacked for absences?

Eugene Norman

davo10 wrote: »

Probation periods are used by employers to assess what benefits a new employee will bring to a company, to assess reliability, punctuality, attitude, aptitude and attendance. A new employee may be an excellent worker but repeated absences cause disruption. Forget the "certification", this has no baring in this discussion, it's the number of times that the op has been absent which is the issue. If the op had been absent for one week continuous then there would not be an issue but three seperate times causes alarm bells to ring.

Yes. I know the "legal" implications. What I am questioning is whether companies not run by people who frequent this particular forum would do in actual real life to a good worker with certified illness. Let's assume he is good.

My advice from my experience is nothing. The advice from the experience of Thatherites is "look for a job". The reality might be somewhere in between.

Now if such laws exist on chronic certified illnesses then they are clearly discriminatory on people with chronic illnesses. Sure you can't discriminate at interview stage, just fire them on probation. I'm questioning how often this actually happens outside of the right wing wonderland of this forum.

Of course we all might be in different industries.

However what I do know is that Amazon is fighting fires based on a recent report in the NYT where the paper listed how chronic cancer patients (and other invalids) found that on recovery they got bad performance reviews, or were demoted -- amongst other claims . You guys would argue that it's legal and would encourage firing the cancer patients if on probation. It might work for the company but not for the brand.

It is legal to do what Amazin did but were it common the NYT wouldn't have singled out Amazon. I'm not questioning the legality of what the the employers in here say, but just how common it is.

QuinDixie

Absent___ wrote: »

Hi all,

I work in a company where the policy is if you have three absences in six months it results in a formal meeting which can lead to cessation of your contract.

Once I was out due to an injury for a couple of days (certified) - once I was out due to a stomach bug (came into work and left work early - not certified) - then last week I had a throat infection, came in and again, had to leave early. (this was also certified)

So, I'm expecting a formal meeting as the absences have been spaced over four months. All in all, it was three full days and two half days that I missed, but was only non-certified for one half day. Can they let me go?

In any normal company you would be fine, most only need certs after 3 days out sick.
Some companies unfortunately are not so nice and are looking for any reason to extend probation periods. This sounds like such a company because I doubt they pay for your sick days and you have sick certs.
Unfortunately this is the Ireland we have, its an employers market and they are making up for the 2000's.

3DataModem

Weathercheck wrote: »

Are you guys taking the mick? The OP had certified leave for geniune illness and a half day sick.

If you arent a joker, you'll be 100% fine, unless your management are complete assholes.

Ignore these trolls and try not to worry, you can't help being sick

Do try every effort in the future to make it in despite illness though as it may affect your future progression.

Legally you can be dismissed for excessive absence, even if that is explained by sick certs.

Most companies don't do this (especially large companies) but they most certainly can.

davo10

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Yes. I know the "legal" implications. What I am questioning is whether companies not run by people who frequent this particular forum would do in actual real life to a good worker with certified illness. Let's assume he is good.

My advice from my experience is nothing. The advice from the experience of Thatherites is "look for a job". The reality might be somewhere in between.

Now if such laws exist on chronic certified illnesses then they are clearly discriminatory on people with chronic illnesses. Sure you can't discriminate at interview stage, just fire them on probation. I'm questioning how often this actually happens outside of the right wing wonderland of this forum.

Of course we all might be in different industries.

However what I do know is that Amazon is fighting fires based on a recent report in the NYT where the paper listed how chronic cancer patients (and other invalids) found that on recovery they got bad performance reviews, or were demoted -- amongst other claims . You guys would argue that it's legal and would encourage firing the cancer patients if on probation. It might work for the company but not for the brand.

It is legal to do what Amazin did but were it common the NYT wouldn't have singled out Amazon. I'm not questioning the legality of what the the employers in here say, but just how common it is.

I know I'm going to regret this but here't goes.

Ireland and the U.S. have very different employment laws, employees have far less rights in the U.S. where there is no "right to work" and employees can be easily dismissed. Only the unions and breach of contract laws protect an employee from dismissal.

Discrimination due to disability is wrong legally and morally, particularly in the case of cancer which touches us all in one way or another but even chronic illness/long term absence due to cancer can meet th burden necessary to dismiss an employee who is unable to return to work. You can argue the merits of that position but the law provides for dismissal in specific cases.

No one is "arguing" for dismissal, the op asked could he she be sacked for repeated absences, the answer is "yes", that is not to say he/she will be nor should be, just that op can be.

micosoft

davo10 wrote: »

Wrong on every count. Certification is a form of validation required by most employers but it absolutely does not provide 100% immunity from dismissal particularly during probationary period when op can be dismissed without the employer having to give a reason. The advice given by other posters is realistic and correct, if an employee is repeatedly absent, even with certification, during probation, many if not most employers will at least extend the pp to see if a pattern is emerging (eg missing Friday's or Mondays or days when workload is to be heavier) and a significant proportion of employers would cut their losses.

As the phrase goes - Sick Cert's explain your absence, they don't excuse it. Employers are part of the social welfare system. Three absences within 5 months starting is a lot and most employers would think that this will only get worse if you became permanent. You also have to consider that a significant part of the burden falls on your colleagues who have to make up for your absence.

I think your probation will be extended, mainly because of the last incident. You were in the last month of your probation and, already being at work, you went home because of a sore throat. That flashes warning lights.

Mrs OBumble

davo10 wrote: »

Ireland and the U.S. have very different employment laws, employees have far less rights in the U.S. where there is no "right to work" and employees can be easily dismissed. Only the unions and breach of contract laws protect an employee from dismissal.

Discrimination due to disability is wrong legally and morally, particularly in the case of cancer

And I even find that Irish employment laws are pretty hard-assed (some call it Thatcherite), compared to what I've experienced overseas.

AFAIK, there is no requirement here for an employer to give you sick leave (ie permission to not be at work when you are sick). Virtually all employers do, though many add rules about having to produce a doctors certificate after X days. Similarly most employers will let you be out long-term on unpaid sick leave if you get a particularly nasty illness like cancer. (Though some will likely change their minds when they wrap their heads around the fact they a person out on unpaid leave is now incurring paid annual leave during that time.)

Alongside that, there are no laws about how much intermittent sick leave an employee has to tolerate from an employee. The only law is that they cannot discriminate on the basis of disability. But they can discriminate on the basis of sickness which doesn't meet the definition of disability. (What exactly this definition includes, I'm not sure.0

Even government workers (who have some of the most protected employment conditions in the country) face sanctions if they take too much sick leave - this is certainly considered when assessing someone for promotion.

The problem isn't the employers, it's the laws which govern them.

Stealthfins

If you're not happy in that kind of working environment where money talks and good people are made walk,change your outlook.

I was caught up in the private cooperative bullsht year's ago,working in a job which was boring, uncreative, and lacking adventure and sunlight.

So I slung my hook and decided to pack in that mundane lifestyle.
Went back to college and did what I really want to do.

Got a job where I'm working outdoors with plants and animals,suits me down to the ground.

It's the kind of job my friends in the cooperative industry and multinationals wish they had.

I wish the op luck,but don't sell yourself short......

In my line of work if you're having an off day,you can sharpen tools,work in heated glasshouses or save seeds in the shed....

Getting well paid for it...

I love my job ðŸ˜

davo10

Stealthfins wrote: »

If you're not happy in that kind of working environment where money talks and good people are made walk,change your outlook.

I was caught up in the private cooperative bullsht year's ago,working in a job which was boring, uncreative, and lacking adventure and sunlight.

So I slung my hook and decided to pack in that mundane lifestyle.
Went back to college and did what I really want to do.

Got a job where I'm working outdoors with plants and animals,suits me down to the ground.

It's the kind of job my friends in the cooperative industry and multinationals wish they had.

I wish the op luck,but don't sell yourself short......

In my line of work if you're having an off day,you can sharpen tools,work in heated glasshouses or save seeds in the shed....

Getting well paid for it...

I love my job ðŸ˜

I’d like to build the world a home
And furnish it with love
Grow apple trees and honey bees
And snow white turtle doves
I’d like to teach the world to sing
In perfect harmony
I’d like to hold it in my arms
And keep it company

Lux23

I would avoid if necessary taking sick leave during probation, I'm on probation for a full 12 months and I reckon I would have to be seriously ill before I would miss a day.

Having said that the OP went into work and then left so to me that shows they were really sick and not just taking days off for a hangover or what have you? That's just my interpretation, someone in HR would most likely see a pattern emerging there.

Stealthfins

Thanks Dave10
That's a lovely poem,and you brought a smile to my face.

Such a nice guy ðŸ˜

Berserker

Peregrinus wrote: »

and you can let a probationer go on account of frequent or prolonged sick-leave, even if certified. Of course you won't necessarily let a worker go in those circumstances - there are other factors to be considered.

Had an experience with this myself and whilst I have no problem with a company taking action against an employee who is repeatedly sick without certification; three strikes etc; I think that it is wrong to do so when the leave is certified. You are missing work on the advice of a medical professional. It is not a personal choice.

An issue came to light during a company sponsored medical and I had to take sick leave, certified of course. It was the first and only time, fingers crossed, that I have taken sick leave. On my return, I got the three strikes talk from a member of HR. It was standard practise in their opinion. I took offence to it and I told them exactly that. My complaint was escalated to the director of HR and I ended up resigning over it in the end, such was the lack of satisfaction that I got from dealing with HR. Needless to say they were ever so apologetic when it came to that point, offering me an increase in salary etc if I stayed but I certainly didn't want to work for a company that treated it's employees like that.

Berserker

Berserker wrote: »

It was the first and only time, fingers crossed, that I have taken sick leave. On my return, I got the three strikes talk from a member of HR.

Bit heavy that, I would have thought they whould have waited until the third time for that.

cml387

Deleted User wrote: »

Bit heavy that, I would have thought they whould have waited until the third time for that.

I think what maybe happened The Beserker was that he had the industry- standard return-to-work-after-sickness-interview.