Stage Warnings (again)

[speedy]

Expert opinion needed please.

I had 4 weeks off in Aug/Sept due to a leg problem which requires surgery and have been on indoor work since my return. Naturally this absence triggered a stage 1.

Didnt have the interview until 2 weeks ago (4 months after my return), but was told should it be awarded it will be back dated. No problem there.

However, I am currently on AL, and only have 1 shift left to do before my surgery( at work monday, day off tuesday, surgery wednesday).

So my query is....

If the stage 1 isnt awarded before I drop off sick again, does that mean the absence for surgery cant trigger a stage 2?

I presume the stage 1 cant be awarded in my absence, and the wording on the RM sick absence procedure sheet says "If AFTER a stage 1 has been awarded you incur a further..... etc etc".

Does that make sense, I hope so. Thanks in advance.

[AndyK]

I had 4 weeks off in Aug/Sept due to a leg problem which requires surgery and have been on indoor work since my return. Naturally this absence triggered a stage 1.

Didnt have the interview until 2 weeks ago (4 months after my return), but was told should it be awarded it will be back dated. No problem there.

However, I am currently on AL, and only have 1 shift left to do before my surgery( at work monday, day off tuesday, surgery wednesday).

So my query is....

If the stage 1 isnt awarded before I drop off sick again, does that mean the absence for surgery cant trigger a stage 2?

I presume the stage 1 cant be awarded in my absence, and the wording on the RM sick absence procedure sheet says "If AFTER a stage 1 has been awarded you incur a further..... etc etc".

Once you have had the interview all absenses up to that day count towards your 1st stage (if issued) any absenses after that date count towards a stage 2 regardless of "if after"

[speedy]

But it hasnt been awarded yet.

And if it isnt awarded on monday, surely it cant be awarded until I return after my surgery.

Therefore only absences AFTER awarding a stage 1 should count towards a stage 2.

Those are their words on the sheets.

[AndyK]

Lets say they give you a stage 1 warning on your return to work the stage 1 would then take effect from the day of interview (or in your case the backdated day) and all absences up to that date would be counted. any after i.e your surgery would count towards stage2.

[speedy]

Thanks AndyK.

i understand what your saying, but i still think there may be a loophole there.

anyone elses opinions or any definate union advisement would be appreciated.

[NumptyBumpty]

Lets say they give you a stage 1 warning on your return to work the stage 1 would then take effect from the day of interview (or in your case the backdated day) and all absences up to that date would be counted. any after i.e your surgery would count towards stage2.

Normally that is the case, but if the warning is backdated the absences between the date of interview and backdated date should NOT count towards the stage 2. All absences upto the date of interview are included towards the stage 1. You can't say to someone, I'm going to backdate this warning, oh by the way that means you've got a stage 2 now.

Yes, there is a loophole. If there is a gap between the date of interview and you being notified of the warning (ie given the letter) then any absence inbetween shouldn't normally be counted towards the next stage as you aren't technically on the warning yet. It is a pretty grey area, so if I were a manager I wouldn't really want to test that one.

Yes a stage 1 can be awarded in your absence but usually if you refuse to attend interviews. The decision should be given face-to-face.

[speedy]

Thanks for that NuBu.

Its pretty much how I was looking at the situation.

Looks like that grey area will be getting brought into play somewhere down the line.

[AndyK]

Normally that is the case, but if the warning is backdated the absences between the date of interview and backdated date should NOT count towards the stage 2. All absences upto the date of interview are included towards the stage 1. You can't say to someone, I'm going to backdate this warning, oh by the way that means you've got a stage 2 now.

Yes, there is a loophole. If there is a gap between the date of interview and you being notified of the warning (ie given the letter) then any absence inbetween shouldn't normally be counted towards the next stage as you aren't technically on the warning yet. It is a pretty grey area, so if I were a manager I wouldn't really want to test that one.

I still can't agree you backdate the stage 1 from date (interview) to date (x). From date (x) any more absences count towards stage 2. If from date (x) you have no more absences for 12 months your off procedure not 12 months from date (interview) which could mean you would have to have gone upto 16 months without an absence to get off stage1. Your are on the warning from the date of interview if issued, it being back dated is good and you wouldn't go on stage 2 unless you are absent again after date (x) and trigger the procedure. so only 8 months to go. Also you could have 1 absence of less than 8 days in that time and still be off the procedure

[NumptyBumpty]

I still can't agree you backdate the stage 1 from date (interview) to date (x). From date (x) any more absences count towards stage 2. If from date (x) you have no more absences for 12 months your off procedure not 12 months from date (interview) which could mean you would have to have gone upto 16 months without an absence to get off stage1. Your are on the warning from the date of interview if issued, it being back dated is good and you wouldn't go on stage 2 unless you are absent again after date (x) and trigger the procedure. so only 8 months to go.

I totally agree that it is good to backdate the warning, but if there have been any absences between the backdated date and date of interview then these can't be included towards the stage 2. This is how it works in practice (or should at least). The problem is that when backdating warnings, it is not always clear that all absences up to the date of interview have been included.

Also you could have 1 absence of less than 8 days in that time and still be off the procedure

Actually, you could have 1 absence of 9 days less (or even 2x9 day absences if more than 6 months apart) and still be off the procedure.

[mal]

Make sure that you let them know that you are due to go in for corrective surgery,then you would have an argument on any future absence for recuperation and it not counting towards a Stage warning.If you are going into hospital for surgery to stop you going sick again,due to your leg problems ,then it should not count.It would look particularly stupid on their part if you have been on a Rehab duty since August and they then issue the warning.

Check the Sawyer report and recommendations to RM on how to deal with hospitalisation.You should also check out your Atos report to see what they say about DDA and whether or not you are covered by it.

[michris]

any link to sawyer report on hospitalisation please mal

[mal]

Check the Sawyer 1 document.Scroll down to Procedures and Agreements ,Paragraph 136 ,bottom of page 55 into 56.That'll give you the info you need .RM and CWU agreed to abide by these recommendations ,although like everything else,this hasn't always happened.The point is that at any stage of the procedure ,anyone who finds themselves on a stage warning due to hospitalisation should use this ,just in case they end up dismissed,as it will be evidence in their favour of RM's ignoring their mitigation and a breach of procedure,at a tribunal.

sawyer2 - 2002.pdf

sawyer1- 2002.pdf

[speedy]

Awesome info Mal, thanks loads.

Ive got my copy saved for future use.

[michris]

thanks mal

makes very interesting reading

[marky]

oh thanks mal you would make a good branch sec.