Reverting back from stage 2 to stage 1

[postie59]

Can anyone advise please. In february 2010 i was issued with a stage two after being off with an injury. Havent been absent from work since but have had to go off last week with another illness. Should i have been given written confirmation that i reverted back to stage one as i was not off for over a year??? Last week i had to go off with a leg ailment and wondered if my LM can automatically issue me with a stage three since no confirmation was received that i was no longer on a stage two.

[fishtank]

Can anyone advise please. In february 2010 i was issued with a stage two after being off with an injury. Havent been absent from work since but have had to go off last week with another illness. Should i have been given written confirmation that i reverted back to stage one as i was not off for over a year??? Last week i had to go off with a leg ailment and wondered if my LM can automatically issue me with a stage three since no confirmation was received that i was no longer on a stage two.

You should have been informed but it it won't matter if you haven't been off for 12 months between the date of issue of the stage 2 and your most recent illness.
If you have not been off at all in that time your rep should make sure you are taken off the procedure completely and not reverted to stage 1.
Even with your latest absence you should not have triggered a stage 1 never mind a 3.
Your LM can't issue anything until it's been triggered by the system and the system should show you as clear.
Find all of your paperwork showing the dates in case you have to fight it.

[postie59]

thank you for your advice. can i get this clear tho. i was on a stage two in february 2010 and havent been off until this occasion a week ago so does that not mean i revert back to stage one?

[fishtank]

thank you for your advice. can i get this clear tho. i was on a stage two in february 2010 and havent been off until this occasion a week ago so does that not mean i revert back to stage one?

It means that your rep should be arguing that you have shown sufficient improvement in attendance to warrant removal from the procedure completely.
The attendance procedure should not be applied mechanistically and i think zero days off in the 12 month period should be recognised don't you?

[Judgee]

Zero days off in over a year should wipe you off the warning system completely, even from stage 2. They never in my experience let you know when you drop down the warning list, only inform you when they issue a warning. You should be able to phone up the wages department I think and get confirmation of your current warning status, or just ask your DOM

[NumptyBumpty]

You'll be clear altogether. The system will handle that not your manager, you'll be starting from scratch sometime in February this year, so you'll need 14 days or 4 absences in the next year to trigger a stage 1.

[teesdale]

Revert back to zero from stage two as in way forward agreement 2000 - no more than four days off sick in 12 months since issue of stage 2 sends you back to zero, not back to stage 1. Start all over again from latest illness - 4 absences (3 in the clear) or 14 days (13 in the clear). They wont inform you though ever. If youve got a union rep could get a confirmation from them.

[grumbler]

Hello to all, first off, I'm not a RM employee and just joined forum and so this is first post.. so go easy on me ;O)

A close relative of mine has been with RM (sorting) for donkeys years (not sure how many but certainly 20+) and has always been a stickler for good timekeeping and attendance..

Last year he had an accident (not work-related) which included broken bones and he had approx 6 weeks off sick. Lots of support inc 'get well soon' cards and choccies from work (at that time).

That episode is 100% cleared up but now he needs a small op with approx 1-2 weeks recover time predicted by hospital. Today he mentioned "stage 1" and "stage 2" processes to me (I wasn't familiar with them) but I was mortified to find out that he'd been given a "stage 1 warning" as a result of last years accident.

I've just read through a 10 page document called "Attendance Agreement, National Agreement Between Royal Mail and the CWU" and I'm gobsmacked that anyone with an ounce of common-sense could "agree" to such a one-sided arrangement! I appreciate unions aren't, shall we say, quite what they used to be but hey.. what happened to common-sense?

My relative is such a goody two-shoes I think he'd consider sorting mail from his hospital bed rather than risk a "stage 2" warning (I'm serious). I still find this hard to believe. Is it seriously the case that no matter how genuine the sickness is they're fully entitled to issue a disciplinary warning?

Has the world gone mad?

[clashcityrocker]

Yes the world has gone mad.

The attendance procedure is not (or shouldn't be) a disciplinary measure.
His manager did not have to issue a stage warning for the absence. He could have used his discretion and taken into account the previous good attendance.
Similarly another absence shouldn't necessarily lead to a stage 2 warning, especially as the two absences are linked.

Unfortunately some managers do like to use the attendance procedure as some sort of disciplinary tool.

It would also depend on when he had the time off last year and how long he has off this time.

[fishtank]

Welcome grumbler.
The attendance procedure was never meant to be applied in such a mechanistic and draconian way.
Individual circumstances should always be taken into account,unfortunately managers have been allowed to abuse the procedure for a long time and i'm sorry to say that CWU reps at every level have to shoulder at least some of the responsibility for this.
In the case of your relative both absences are obviously linked,and the second absence has been incurred in an attempt to regain full fitness so...if i was his rep i would be advising him not to accept any attempt by management to progress him along the attendance procedure.
He should contact in the first instance his local rep but should really seek guidance from his area rep.

[grumbler]

Cheers for the responses, appreciated.

CCR - just to clarify, the 2 absenses, from any medical perspective, most certainly aren't linked.

FT - as above (so not sure why you've suggested they're "obviously linked").

However you've both confirmed my suspicions re line managers abusing this pi$$ poor agreement and from the bits and pieces I've read so far it would seem CWU may not have the required backbone to counter such abuse.

I'll advise him contact the area rep but I fear his subservient streak will take precedence and so the system will wear him out in the end

[fishtank]

Sorry grumbler i assumed the small op was connected to the accident...it's not unusual with broken bones to require further surgery.....just a misunderstanding.

[NumptyBumpty]

To be fair to the CWU and RM all large companies would be expected to have a well documented attendance procedure and RM's attendance procedure is a fairly standard example which is being used by many companies. In some individual cases it may be harsh but there is only one reason that RM has these standards and that is to protect itself against unfair dismissal cases. If it can show that it has a standardised process across the business and that it follows this process at every stage then it is very unlikely that it will lose an unfair dismissal case (barring DDA, etc).

Grumbler - Has your relative made an insurance claim for the accident? If he claims for loss of earnings and repays RM for the advance of wages, then that absence shouldn't be included towards the procedure.

[Jenno11]

Hello I was just wondering if I could get some help on my current stage warning situation! I signed a stage 2 warning in May last year and have gone 7 months without another absence! Does this mean I will now be reverted back to a stage one or will I now be clear from the procedure??

[General Mannerheim]

You should be clear.