Counting absence after it had already been dealt with?

[wingmanchillian]

Just after a little advice if poss. I've tried searching this forum but had no luck finding what i am after.

Any ways, there are 2 people at my DO that have just been called in and issued a stage 1 warning for attendance. Trouble is they are re-counting old sick absences that have already been dealt with and found not worthy enough to warrant issuing a stage 1.

An example would be one of the people had 75 days of due to a work related injury. That triggered a stage 1 but it was not issued as our DOM at the time had a bit of sense about him. The new DOM however is counting this again. If he hadn't the person would only have had 2 days off in 12 months. The other case is similar.

Now my understanding was they could not re-count something that had already been dealt with. Our attendance procedure states each absence should be looked at on its own merits and any absence that has been dealt with can not count towards another stage.

Also the data protection act states once the personal information has been used it should not be kept on record. Does anybody know if this would be applicable in this situation? My understanding of it is that because the first stage 1 interview was held and deemed not worthy of issuing it should not stay on the record. I could understand if the absence hadn't triggered the 1st stage interview but it did.

Also in both stage meetings he told them he was looking at the whole sick record to find a pattern. Not just those trigger point ones.

Any thoughts, opinions or directions to legislation/agreements would be appreciated.

[POSTMAN]

An example would be one of the people had 75 days of due to a work related injury. That triggered a stage 1 but it was not issued as our DOM at the time had a bit of sense about him. The new DOM however is counting this again. If he hadn't the person would only have had 2 days off in 12 months. The other case is similar.

That does not trigger a stage warning so how comes this is going on?

Now my understanding was they could not re-count something that had already been dealt with. Our attendance procedure states each absence should be looked at on its own merits and any absence that has been dealt with can not count towards another stage.

And the c*** can't count the old one ffs that is now spent.

[POSTMAN]

My understanding of it is that because the first stage 1 interview was held and deemed not worthy of issuing it should not stay on the record.

Everything is on your record regardless of whether it's issued or not,it's your 'sick record'.

[wingmanchillian]

I see your point about the sick record PM but as for the re-counting could you be a bit more specific?
I know they cant re-count them, you know they cant and my branch knows they cant, but they did. Im going in there tomorrow with one of them to have this out but i cant find anywhere where it specifically states that they cant.

[buzzard]

i was always led to believe if an absence was discounted at an interview, but then the individual went off sick again within 12 month period then it could be looked at again. the majority of managers would and should use common sense and go through the process that triggers the interview but if the good reasons are put forward that were originally discussed and discounted they would be discounted again.

[fishtank]

I could see them using the 75 day absence as 1 occasion towards your 4 in 12 months but that wouldn't trigger with only two other days.
He certainly can't use it as a single absence of more than 14 days as this has already been addressed.
He can't issue a stage without it first being triggered so something isn't right.
Are you sure there wasn't an absence before the 75 days but inside the 12 months?

[wingmanchillian]

I could see them using the 75 day absence as 1 occasion towards your 4 in 12 months but that wouldn't trigger with only two other days.
He certainly can't use it as a single absence of more than 14 days as this has already been addressed.
He can't issue a stage without it first being triggered so something isn't right.
Are you sure there wasn't an absence before the 75 days but inside the 12 months?

I believe that is what he is doing, counting the 75 days as one absence and the 2 days as another. there is an 11 month gap between the 75 days and the 2 days. This is just what i have been told by the person involved. will be looking over the dates etc.. tomorrow


Cheers for the replies, its appreciated

[wingmanchillian]

I could see them using the 75 day absence as 1 occasion towards your 4 in 12 months but that wouldn't trigger with only two other days.
He certainly can't use it as a single absence of more than 14 days as this has already been addressed.
He can't issue a stage without it first being triggered so something isn't right.
Are you sure there wasn't an absence before the 75 days but inside the 12 months?

I believe that is what he is doing, re-counting the 75 days as one absence and the 2 days as another. there is an 11 month gap between the 75 days and the 2 days. This is just what i have been told by the person involved. will be looking over the dates etc.. tomorrow


Cheers for the replies, its appreciated

[banddy]

My understanding of it is that because the first stage 1 interview was held and deemed not worthy of issuing it should not stay on the record.

Everything is on your record regardless of whether it's issued or not,it's your 'sick record'.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

it is a rolling 12 month period...not a "year" [as in a 12 month tax year from april to april].

so people need to be very careful.

[graffi]

If the 75 days and the 2 days are within 12 months then yes they have triggered stage 1 but surely you would argue same reason as before (I'm guessing work related injury) for 75 days and then 11 months to the next absence of 2 days .... (4 absences or 14days in a 12 month period) (absences related to accidents at work are normally discounted... if dom doesn't you want to know why in writing )

[POSTMAN]

But,the 75 days would of triggered the stage 1 and that was not given,and as fish says the 2 days would not trigger anything.
I'm guessing the dom has the hump with the 2 days and has himself sorted out another stage 1.
It would be impossible for the computer to throw it up automatically.

[POSTMAN]

i was always led to believe if an absence was discounted at an interview, but then the individual went off sick again within 12 month period then it could be looked at again.

Not straight away if you have not hit the criteria for the computer to flag up another stage warning.

Stage 1: 4 absences or 14 days in a 12 month period
Stage 2: 2 absences or 10 days in any 6 month period during the next 12 months
Stage 3: 2 absences or 10 days in any 6 month period during the next 12 months