Employment law

[Unnamed poster 7]

Post Deleted

[Polly13]

A rostered day off is not an absence so the staff member was absent so no cert under your policy/contract. If you insist on cert and call a rostered day off sick leave you owe the person a day's leave. You need to cop on.

[wuzziwig]

The language you use is very telling. I'm sure the employee didn't choose to be sick at your busiest time of the year. You being pissed off at them for being sick is extremely petty. I'm glad my employers are more understanding than you appear to be.

[Rainbow :-)]

If the 3rd day is their day off it doesn't matter if they're sick or not, it's their day off. I don't see why you should be annoyed with them 'taking time off ' at a busy time in work. If they're sick they're sick. We have no control over when we get sick. I do think you are being unreasonable.

[Sally]

As others have said, you are being very unreasonable.
If an employee working regular M-F week was off sick on thurs and Friday and then back into work on Monday , we wouldn’t tell them that they were off for 4 days.
They would have had a sick leave of two days, not four.

Your contract states sick cert is required on third consecutive day of absence, so you are incorrect to say that you can unilaterally change the terms of their contract and ask for it in the first day of absence.


On the broader question of sick cert, whether the employer pays sick leave or not, it is perfectly reasonable to have a policy on how sick leave is managed.
Requiring a sick cert on day 3 is normal and appropriate, and if there were no such policy in place it becomes very hard to manage absentee levels in the business, leading to frustrated and disengaged staff as well as being potentially very costly for the business (actual cost as well as productivity cost) .
It would be a foolish employer who does not require sick cert on day 3, and who doesn’t have some form of return to work policies.

Payment of sick benefit is separate question.

[Iamsoneedy]

Payment to an employee when they’re sick is not a ‘benefit’. It’s standard practice and has been for years among decent employers. It’s only in recent years I’ve been amused to note that it’s touted as a benefit in some job descriptions. Talk about clutching at straws.

If an organisation doesn’t pay people when they’re sick why should an employee be out of pocket to the tune of €60 to prove that they’re sick? Nonsense. They can’t have it every which way.

[LucyS]

In the Public Sector and many organisations, sick leave that spans a weekend will include the weekend. For example, an absence on a Friday followed by an absence on the Monday will be counted as four days as it includes Saturday and Sunday. This absence will require a medical certificate.

However, the Public Sector pays sick leave up to 3 months on full pay. The OP pays none whatsoever.

[Sally]

In the Public Sector and many organisations, sick leave that spans a weekend will include the weekend. For example, an absence on a Friday followed by an absence on the Monday will be counted as four days as it includes Saturday and Sunday. This absence will require a medical certificate.

However, the Public Sector pays sick leave up to 3 months on full pay. The OP pays none whatsoever.

But that’s not what has happened in this case.
My understanding is the person was back on their next rostered day I.e. they had two days off, then a rostered off day, and then back to work.

Payment to an employee when they’re sick is not a ‘benefit’. It’s standard practice and has been for years among decent employers. It’s only in recent years I’ve been amused to note that it’s touted as a benefit in some job descriptions. Talk about clutching at straws.

If an organisation doesn’t pay people when they’re sick why should an employee be out of pocket to the tune of €60 to prove that they’re sick? Nonsense. They can’t have it every which way.

Sick pay is a benefit.
It is not my term, it’s the term used in the industry ( aka illness benefit)
It is not a statutory entitlement, so if an organization pays it, they do so as a benefit ie above and beyond what is required of them statutorily.

It is very common in multinationals and various good employers.
But there are many employers up and down the country where it is not paid, so it’s not as common as you portray. The local shop, garage, hairdressers, accountants office , small factory etc..... while these kinds of organizations form a vast chunk of the employment market in Ireland, huge numbers of them do not pay salary top up for sick leave.

And, although you think it is nonsense to require employees to provide a sick cert, it can still be included in handbooks and contracts, if an employer wishes to do so, a candidate can then decide to join the organization or not. If they think this is a draconian approach, then they can decline to join.
So, contrary to what you think, an employer can actually “have it both ways” as you put it.

Of course, as the market gets tighter and tighter those organizations might find it harder to attract good candidates, but the law does not prohibit a policy around managing absence that includes requirement for sick certs while simultaneously not having a sick pay benefit scheme.

[purple star]

the way you said you were annoyed they took time off in a busy period really annoyed me. Now maybe this is a wind up and I hope it is, but one time I took a day off for a migraine where I was vomiting and in bed all day with blinds closed and my boss the next daw said to me but sure you wouldn't have a day sick for just a migraine. I replied that she clearly never had a migraine before. But it annoyed me.As a result of that attitude people do get reluctant to phone in sick and are coming to work with temperatures and really sick just spreading it around to everyone else.
You are being unreasonable for sure.