Forum menu
In this age of caring sharing employers / mental well-being etc etc does this letter seem a bit heavy handed to you?
I've worked for the company for 23 years as a valued member of the technical staff. I get 33days (25+8 long term) holiday so don't need to pull 'sickies'.
My health has been good so is my health record - but a common cold / flu symptoms absolutely wipe me out as can be seen from my records.
I share a small office and a colleague came down with lurgy before Christmas that then brought me down. I don't think it fully cleared and came back after Christmas. I went to my GP and was diagnosed with chest infection / upper respiratory, anti biotics and my first ever fit/sick note. The previous back to work interviews have been with me coughing/snotty - I.E. I have genuinely been unwell.
Am I right to feel aggrieved at the disciplinary wording or is this the world of big corp and I just need to accept it?
[url= https://i.ibb.co/5xCb8CDR/IMG-0455.jp g" target="_blank">https://i.ibb.co/5xCb8CDR/IMG-0455.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
It's procedural standard form letter, populated with your details, if you want personal bespoke letters then overheads need to go up to fit that in but that's just dead cost in a big business.
If your record is like you've said then it'll be an open and closed meeting.
Crikey!
In my more 'caring & sharing' public sector role, if hitting a 'trigger' due to sickness, we could expect a formal process/letter to kick in, but it would be under 'sickness management' or 'absence management', rather than 'disciplinary' ...
On the face of it it does come across a bit heavy.
If you're attendance has been as good as you say then I'd be requesting the return to work forms and documentation for the last 23 years. Attend the meeting and let them talk, see if your initial thoughts/concerns are valid.
Looks to me like they have jumped several steps in the attendance management process - though I haven't seen your organisations one.
I'm an Occ Health Specialist Nurse - your absence history, where I work, would see an initial referral for "frequent intermittent absence" - 3 episodes or 10 days within rolling 12 months. I'd likely advise you've had 3 episodes or self-limiting opportunistic infections, no ongoing concern - no underlying issues of concern.
Have a look at organisation policy and make sure they are following it correctly, for me your record in that letter might lead to having little chat with HR and manager and 6 months monitoring of attendance, nothing major - not a panel/ hearing like they say. Also calling it a disciplinary review is OTT - what are they 'disciplining' for?
Definitely seems heavy handed - to channel @TJagain - are you in a union?
It's a formality. Don't fret.
Sure I'll be getting one when share my 6 week fit note for knee surgery..
Another public sector goon here - "x" days or "y" incidents in a year will trigger a conversation, but it's not disciplinary.
Its carelessly worded when the message it should be conveying is 'we want to check that you are ok'
My gf used to do a lot of campaigning work of social and poverty issues. Something she had to do once was to take a 'standard letter' that 'the computer just does' back to a benefits agency with the clients blood all over it. It was interesting to hear them find so many ways to say 'its nothing to worry about' when the worry was smeared all over the document.
It’s a bog standard big corp’ letter.
3 absences in a 12 month period have triggered it.
Don’t worry about it. Probably just a chat with your manager.
The way the letter is worded would seriously piss me off, but I think, as mentioned above, it's just a shitty template created with no thought as part of a process created with no thought. Mrs Pondo had something similar - hadn't been there long after a career break forced by anxiety that her new employer was well aware of, you just want to ask "how does this process help ME?!?"
I understand the procedure thats triggered and issued the letter, my problem is the overly abrasive wording and lack of compassion from a company that on the other hand talks big on mindfulness and wellbeing. It's the thing that I'm going to push back on tomorrow
I get that some people will take the piss with sickies but that can be dealt with in the 3strikes meeting.
Imagine being seriously ill with some of the shit that life can throw at you over a year, recovering then getting that letter.
Just remember, 'they' don't give a shiny shit and this is just some drone overhead going through the motions to justify their tired existence... It would be fun to take your 23 year record in and the policies on wellbeing, staff care etc just to wind them up...
Imagine being seriously ill with some of the shit that life can throw at you over a year, recovering then getting that letter.
A tale from civil service goon land of HR shit. A colleague was attacked and injured, to the extent of needing relatively major surgery, while at work and as a direct result of exercising his duties (going through a door first on a job), he's been told by our HR that once he's over six months off he'll be put on half pay. No support just f.u!
Take the fella that gave you the cold before christmas with you.
my problem is the overly abrasive wording and lack of compassion from a company that on the other hand talks big on mindfulness and wellbeing. It’s the thing that I’m going to push back on tomorrow
I'd suggest picking it up with your head of wellbeing (or equivalent) as well as whoever happens to be at the meeting.
Where I am this would be within the managers discretion and personally if this was someone on my team I wouldn't be worried. If I thought the absences were atypical or might be linked to work stress or being used as a smoke screen for poor mental health or another undisclosed issue then I wouldn't be moving to a disciplinary at this point but I would have a conversation to see if there was an underlying problem that I could help with.
When I have had to take things to HR due to Rules I make sure I discuss it with the person BEFORE they get the letter and explain why they are getting it so it doesn't cause undue stress worry.
It’ll be a short meeting. Wear a mask and take no chances of infecting them.
or them re infecting you
Get your union rep to go with you to the meeting. They may well have seen similar before and will let you know what is likely to be asked etc.
Also there will be a policy document that should be available to you describing the process you are now in. Read it and understand where they may be reasonable accomodation or some such.
If the document is not readily available then they may not be able to do much.
Yes it's rubbish.
10.5 days in 1 year would be enough I would think.
If the reasonable people take 10.5 days, then the unreasonable ones take 21. from 220 days thats an average 7.5% lost time, which means you need a 7.5% bigger workforce... so yeah they probably need to keep on top of people hitting the threshold.
As others are saying, it is a procedural thing which they 'have' to stick to.
Mrs_oab is currently in process of retiring due to ill health, after 4 months off following huge changes in health since September. We have bi-weekly letters or emails like that, as well as regular phone calls and meetings.
So far the meetings have been line manager and head of department, HR, Occupational Health, Union Rep and mrs_oab. The next meeting adds in senior manager, legal representation on both sides, improving attendance officer and all the previous. All will arrive, someone will be running late, spend 5- 10 mins chatting, there will be 5 mins of procedure and introductions, then 2 minute of the HR person stating that mrs_oab is retiring on ill health grounds and a protected characteristic, and therefore this meeting is pointless. So then everyone tries to be nice and supportive of her for another 5 minutes, and they all leave. So the near half hour meeting costs the council 4.5-5 hours of 'work hours' and on-costs in reality - but the process must be adhered to....
Bet this is because the company uses Bradford Scores.
You get points for each absence and they get multiplied by the frequency of absence.
You’ll have passed an arbitrary threshold set by the company for the scores.
A stupid system which doesn’t allow for discretion.
Bit short notice but I'd emailing them a quick note, copy of the sick note, and saying "happy to meet any time you want but does the attached doc answer your questions...?"
Wording is a bit soulsucking.
As they have clearly stated in writing that this is a 'disciplinary hearing/review meeting' I strongly advise you to take someone you can trust with you to be your witness. Take minutes/notes, write it all down.
HR are scum. They work for the company and have no interest in anything other than that.
I have previous bitter experience of this and have zero trust or respect for them. The first time it happened I didn't have a clue what was going on as I was way to naïve and trusting.
The second time it happened I knew exactly what was happening - the company was trying to cut costs due to tough financial times (circa 2009), primarily caused by piss poor management, and they were looking at any way to get rid of people with minimal costs to them.
I dealt with them accordingly and walked away with a very healthy leaving package.
That's my advice, and if it turns out to be trivial then at least you were prepared. Better to have and not need rather than need and not have...
I worked for bike company well known on here first letter P last X. I keeled over whilst building a bike (which was my job), luckily there was an ambulance training centre next door. I was quickly assessed by one of the trainees as having had a suspected stroke. They carted me off to hospital for tests and I had a few days bed rest. I checked my payslip at the end of the month, they had stopped paying my my hourly rate before I'd reached the hospital.
Yeah that's either a stupid standard process (ours would be under Absence Management not Disciplinary) if they were authorised absences (you called in sick to your line manager and had a sick not for over 5 days etc.) or it's something more nefarious - I assume the former though
Just calculate how many days you have worked there in the last 23 years, then calculate the % of sick days you have had in that time and ask them to confirm, in writing, that this represents a disciplinary matter. I doubt that (back of a fag packet) 0.16% sickness rate in that time could possibly be so.
"Discipinary" is an odd choice of words.
I'd argue that they have decided you're guilty before the meeting, which should absolutely not be the case.
It's good to see expected presenteeism is alive and kicking after a certain pandemic has wreaked havok for the last ~5 years. Was the infectious colleague kept away from others while attending with an unknown respiratory infection, which could have been covid? Were they expected to wear a mask?
It's good to see employers have taken onboard that we were all more likely to be hit harder from any non-covid respiratory bugs we caught, following the social distancing rules during the worst of covid.
Attendance reviews are usually an absoliute waste of everyone's time, because until consideration for dismissal (stage 3 in royal mail, not sure if that's UK standard), very few reasons or appeals are result in the review case being dismissed.
My only exception was a few years ago, when managers tried to give me a stage 1 that was only triggered because they included my once only part day absence, which royal mail managers review notes clearly stated should be ignored and unless they are frequent and the employee has been given a letter stating any future part day absences would be included. I quoted the review notes line word for word to the manager doing the review and case was dismissed.
Just calculate how many days you have worked there in the last 23 years, then calculate the % of sick days you have had in that time and ask them to confirm, in writing, that this represents a disciplinary matter.
Not how it works.
Not how it works.
Well I know that, but it just points out how bloody silly they are being.
It’s a bit strong to say disciplinary but I suspect it’s because someone weaselled out of being formally dismissed for absence as it hadn’t been made clear.
It is exactly that reason in the council mrs_oab is employed by.
Well I know that, but it just points out how bloody silly they are being.
No, as during the meeting you have a chance to mention you’ve previously had a good record. Being an arse about it won’t help
It is exactly that reason in the council mrs_oab is employed by.
Yup, seen it happen as some mangers weren’t clear during the interview.
It’s a shit letter for a standard process.
Personally I’d play them at their own game and bring that supportive colleague to the meeting. That suddenly makes it a bit harder for your boss to just say “sorry about the tone - they are just goons” which is both good and bad! Write stupid letters, get stupid responses.
id also reply saying as you believe the infection was workplace acquired you would be greatful if that could be added to the agenda so you can discuss if the absence policy encourages attendance whilst infectious and consequent risks to others.
but I’m a **** and would not be upset to leave a company who sends those letters in those circumstances.
a friend got a similar letter after a few weeks off for a workplace accident that nearly lost his thumb. He took the local health and safety manager as his “support” even though they weren’t particularly close.
Id be super p**sed off.....
Id either tell them to shove their job where the sun doesnt shine, or tell them that letter has caused severe stress and take 6 months off...
Remember they dont care about you, and will drop you like a hot potato if needs be, your just a cog in the machine.
It will be worded like that because officially it forms that start of a disciplinary process if [employee] is found to have been behaving inappropriately or fraudulently. As such there are a series of blunt statements of fact and positions that can be defended should they be accused of acting unreasonably or not in accordance with procedures.
If you've genuinely been ill then you'll have a quick chat and get on with your day.
I’m just really thankful that I’ve never been in this situation regarding absences from work. At my last job, when I lost Jo, my boss told me to go home and stay home until I felt up to returning to work. After a week, I just couldn’t stand being on my own so went back to work, and my boss, on seeing me coming into reception said, “what the hell are you doing here already, go home!” I said “no, I can’t bear being alone, I need to be occupied and being here is best.” He kept insisting, and I kept saying “no, this is where I need to be, I need to be occupied, to keep my mind on other things.” He heaved a big sigh, said “well, if you’re absolutely certain, then ok, but if you feel the need, then just go home and come back when you feel better.” HR were completely on board with this as well. I couldn’t have been working with better people.
As others have said, being 'the manager' you have a different view.
Informal chat that turns out to be pisstaking can't get acted upon because barrack room lawyer type then complains that procedure wasn't clear / wasn't fully followed, etc.
As a result everyone, including those where an informal chat would have done, now gets the full procedure applied whether needed or not.
Majority of people are dissatisfied by outcome because some people can't follow rule 1.
I'm guessing the trigger will be based on some version of Bradford Factor Score.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradford_Factor
The factor weights number of separate sickness periods higher than number of days. It's pretty controversial and not popular with unions. Where to draw the line which tips into a review process is something that should be in terms of employment.
Ideally after any sickness there should be a return to work discussion with line manager about the absence, to see if there any underlying sick related (eg chronic conditions) or non-sickness issues (eg workplace bullying) contributing to absence - and importantly if anything can be done to help the employee
The letter does seem heavy handed.
It is perfectly standard procedure for any three periods of absence in a rolling 12-month period to trigger a review. This is as much arse-covering as anything, if you were off with work-related stress and they didn't address it, they're in the shit. The return to work interview should be little more than "are you OK?" - "yes" - "right then, crack on." Box ticked.
Somewhat perversely, it means you're better off taking four months off sick than one day in January, one in March and one in September. I fell foul of this, I had a stinking cold so took the day off, felt better midweek so came back into work, then relapsed and had the end of the week off. That's two periods of absence, one more day either 12 months before or 12 months after triggers a review. I'd have been better off staying at home for the whole week.
Dressing it up as a disciplinary however is bullshit of the highest order unless they were looking for an excuse to get rid of you anyway. I would be seriously vexed if I received that letter and I would be expressing my displeasure robustly in the interview.
Also, what they said. ^
Those are rookie numbers, if you worked where I do your colleagues would be encouraging you to be off more often as you'll be making them look bad!
I honestly wouldn't fret too much. My employer used to issue letters of a similar kind but after the union kept nagging them it's now been changed to Attendance support meetings.
HR really are ****s aren't they? Guy in my team will be going for a liver transplant when a donor "becomes available".
HR: "he can self cert for 5 days but after that he'll need a fit note"
Me "He's having A LIVER TRANSPLANT. He'll be in an induced coma for up to three days and he'll be fit for **** all for three months minimum. Can't we just do the fit note when he's out of immediate recuperation/IC?"
HR: "No".
****s.