Using holidays for sick leave

riddles

If an employee informs an organisation they are unable to attend work as they are ill. when they return to work after say 4 days and request the absence days be recorded as annual leave reducing their annual leave quota. Is this legally permitted?

Mrs OBumble

riddles wrote: »

If an employee informs an organisation they are unable to attend work as they are ill. when they return to work after say 4 days and request the absence days be recorded as annual leave reducing their annual leave quota. Is this legally permitted?

It's legally permitted if the employee asks for is: the company cannot force you to use annual leave for this, but may allow you to.

Be aware that some companies don't allow you to do this: they say that annual leave is for rest and recreation, and that you cannot do this while sick. (Ignoring the stress which being unpaid may cause you .)

seamus

It's still a grey area even if the employee agrees to it.

It's legal mainly because the employee is not going to make a complaint about something they asked for. But in the strictest sense the employer should not put down sick leave as annual leave, even if the employee has asked them to do so. That puts them technically in breach of working time regulations.

davo10

seamus wrote: »

It's still a grey area even if the employee agrees to it.

It's legal mainly because the employee is not going to make a complaint about something they asked for. But in the strictest sense the employer should not put down sick leave as annual leave, even if the employee has asked them to do so. That puts them technically in breach of working time regulations.

Not only that, it set a precedent for other employees who are denied leave at requested times to take sick leave and then retrospectively claim it as annual leave. Annual leave is granted at times agreed by the employer, the employee cannot take it unilaterally and then inform the employer afterward. No employer would accept the situation as described.

_Brian

I don't allow this rubbish, if an employee is sick, they are sick and it needs to be taken as sick leave.

4 days would require a medical cert, if the employee has no cert after 4 days then there is a problem and granting annual leave isn't the solution.

Managers bending the rules like this are weakening their position, then when a proper disciplinary issue comes up they will be expected to bend the rules again.

TheDoc

_Brian wrote: »

I don't allow this rubbish, if an employee is sick, they are sick and it needs to be taken as sick leave.

4 days would require a medical cert, if the employee has no cert after 4 days then there is a problem and granting annual leave isn't the solution.

Managers bending the rules like this are weakening their position, then when a proper disciplinary issue comes up they will be expected to bend the rules again.

It can be a desired outcome as in some companies, sectors or organisations, "sick days" are still treated as a black mark against people going for promotions.

In the old structure for An Post for example, the first checks for applicants applying for promotions was 1) Years of service 2) Sick days taken.

There is still a mentality in many sectors that taking a sick day is a bad reflection on oneself. Even see it in my company, people coming in with clear illness or pain to then having to be sent home.

Mrs OBumble

_Brian wrote: »

I don't allow this rubbish, if an employee is sick, they are sick and it needs to be taken as sick leave.

4 days would require a medical cert, if the employee has no cert after 4 days then there is a problem and granting annual leave isn't the solution.

Managers bending the rules like this are weakening their position, then when a proper disciplinary issue comes up they will be expected to bend the rules again.

After 4 days, of course they need a medical certificate to explain the unexpected absence.

But since sick leave is generally unpaid, allowing them to use annual leave is simply maximizing their time in the workplace and mitigating the effect of loss of income.

An employer may not do it for a dodgy employee - but for a good one, it's a no-brainer.

_Brian

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

After 4 days, of course they need a medical certificate to explain the unexpected absence.

But since sick leave is generally unpaid, allowing them to use annual leave is simply maximizing their time in the workplace and mitigating the effect of loss of income.

An employer may not do it for a dodgy employee - but for a good one, it's a no-brainer.

I see where your coming from but the problem is people talk and then your caught when a poor performing employee asks for the same deal.
Then they are banging on about discrimination in the way they are being treated and there is a risk of a formal complaint being made over the disparity in treatment.

If a formal complaint is made then senior managers may find it hard to side with you for allowing an employee swap sick leave for annual leave, possibly 4 days uncertified leave too.

I've no problem bending things for good employees, but never when it's something that could blow up on me and cause more trouble than it's worth.


,

Irish_Elect_Eng

_Brian wrote: »

I see where your coming from but the problem is people talk and then your caught when a poor performing employee asks for the same deal.

Then they are banging on about discrimination in the way they are being treated and there is a risk of a formal complaint being made over the disparity in treatment.

If a formal complaint is made then senior managers may find it hard to side with you for allowing an employee swap sick leave for annual leave, possibly 4 days uncertified leave too.

I've no problem bending things for good employees, but never when it's something that could blow up on me and cause more trouble than it's worth.


,

If a manager is actively managing performance this is not a problem. In almoat all of our policies managerial discretion & flexibility is linked to performance. In other words if you are not performing then all policies are applied to teh letter of the law, if you are performing or exceeding goals then the manager is permitted wide discretion. So policies are applied fairly across both types of employees, for example, under-performing employees cannot use flex-time, , compressed working weeks, remote working or sabbaticals. Employees over performing are given a huge amount of flexibility because the business is getting more than it is paying for. That is fair treatment, but not equal treatment which can often be confused.

But in the case of Sick leave it is not really an issue unless someone has a chronic attendance problem, unrelated to a reoccurring health issue. We pay our permanent employees for sick days, so there is no impact to them on having the day recorded as a sick day. We review the sick days to ensure that we do not have issues with workplace EHS, stress, etc, for particular employees, teams or areas.

_Brian

Irish_Elect_Eng wrote: »

If a manager is actively managing performance this is not a problem. In almoat all of our policies managerial discretion & flexibility is linked to performance. In other words if you are not performing then all policies are applied to teh letter of the law, if you are performing or exceeding goals then the manager is permitted wide discretion. So policies are applied fairly across both types of employees, for example, under-performing employees cannot use flex-time, , compressed working weeks, remote working or sabbaticals. Employees over performing are given a huge amount of flexibility because the business is getting more than it is paying for. That is fair treatment, but not equal treatment which can often be confused.

But in the case of Sick leave it is not really an issue unless someone has a chronic attendance problem, unrelated to a reoccurring health issue. We pay our permanent employees for sick days, so there is no impact to them on having the day recorded as a sick day. We review the sick days to ensure that we do not have issues with workplace EHS, stress, etc, for particular employees, teams or areas.

I appreciate your point.
Depending on the environment and the likelihood of less deserialise employees finding out I think it could open up a can of worms.

Irish_Elect_Eng

Agreed, it depends on the company.