cod'ead wrote:If this is correct: "Her boss (local authority) rang her today to tell her that he is giving her a formal warning for her sick record"
Then what he did is beyond "silly", whether he was "following orders" or not is completely immaterial. The bloke's an imbecile
OK, I get what you're saying.
So you're saying he should refuse to do the warning, then possibly end up with a warning (or worse) himself?
That said, for both parties, there will be a right to appeal, which is all well and good, if not a pain in the arsse to go through.
What none of us know, is the boss's attitude to it all. Did he ring and say "look, I'm sorry, but I HAVE to give you a warning as it's policy, but you can appeal, I'll back you up, you should be ok and I believe the policy is rubbish" or did he say "you're off sick, I'm warning you, tough titty"
There's a world of difference between those two attitudes - the former is not that of an imbecile, but the latter certainly would be.
"I've not come 'alfway round t'world fot watch us lose. And I've come halfway round t'world, an' av watched um lose"
Joined: Jan 02 2003 Posts: 43413 Location: rlfans flying wing man
Just looked up my companys for an example
Quote: There are 3 clear stages to the trigger system: • Every occurrence of absence will trigger a Return to Work Interview • Where an individual has 3 occurrences of absence in a rolling 12-month period, this will trigger a meeting where a File Note will be issued • Where there are 4 plus occurrences of sickness absence in a rolling 12-month period, disciplinary action may follow, if it is established that there is no underlying health issue
Long-term absence will continue to be managed sympathetically, in a considered way, but is clearly defined in the new Policy as absence of four weeks or longer, which again, will ensure that there is consistency of approach going forward.
The RRTWI is fairly common these days and a good way to cover both parties in a semi-informal way, a good chance to discuss any problmes, but is not disciplinary.
The File Note is similar, but more formal, but still not disciplinary.
Trigger point 3 is and thats for 4 absences, but thats only if theres no great reason. If there is good reason then its referred to our Occ Health advisors etc
Joined: Mar 08 2002 Posts: 26578 Location: On the set of NEDS...
ROBINSON wrote:OK, I get what you're saying.
So you're saying he should refuse to do the warning, then possibly end up with a warning (or worse) himself?
That said, for both parties, there will be a right to appeal, which is all well and good, if not a pain in the arsse to go through.
What none of us know, is the boss's attitude to it all. Did he ring and say "look, I'm sorry, but I HAVE to give you a warning as it's policy, but you can appeal, I'll back you up, you should be ok and I believe the policy is rubbish" or did he say "you're off sick, I'm warning you, tough titty"
There's a world of difference between those two attitudes - the former is not that of an imbecile, but the latter certainly would be.
Any of that SHOULD be done when someone returns to work or be dealt with by HR, the manager here has over stepped his authority.
Joined: Nov 29 2008 Posts: 1318 Location: Kirkstall, Leeds
rover49 wrote:Anyone help on this.
My wife had an accident at work and ended up with a fracture and a pot on, she has been on sick with it for 4 weeks and does not get the pot off for another 4 weeks. Her boss (local authority) rang her today to tell her that he is giving her a formal warning for her sick record (last sick was 3 years ago), which has really upset her.
Can they do this, especially as she did it working for them.
Her work mates had told her to claim, but she refused saying it was an accident and no-one was to blame. Loyalty eh!!
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 135 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
