Attendance Review 1

[HeilMoya]

Wondering if folk could provide some clarity on this one for a colleague...

In the last 12 months they've had 3 absences.
1st absence was 1 day
2nd absence was classed as long term sick for 31 days
3rd absence was a couple of weeks ago, and was 1 day.

This 3rd absence has suddenly triggered a Review 1 prompt which states:
"4 absences or 14 days in a 12 month period".

Granted they're beyond the 14 day limit, but is long term sick not treated differently? They never triggered a Review 1 upon returning from this long term absence.
Are RM right, 6 months after this long term absence, to issue a Review 1 following a 3rd absence of 1 day?

[fishtank]

but is long term sick not treated differently?

Only in cases covered by the Equality Act,

Are RM right, 6 months after this long term absence, to issue a Review 1

No. It sounds like they've screwed up if it's been 6 months since the RTW for the 31 day absence.
That's far too long a delay and I wouldn't accept it unless they agreed to backdate the review to the date of the RTW...which would take the member straight back off the review stage again.

[FinishOnTime]

Sort of related, but is there a time limit after a return to work that the review should be done? A couple of people in my office are due a review, but for various reasons, usually management cock ups, they haven't been done.

[HeilMoya]

but is long term sick not treated differently?

Only in cases covered by the Equality Act,

Are RM right, 6 months after this long term absence, to issue a Review 1

No. It sounds like they've screwed up if it's been 6 months since the RTW for the 31 day absence.
That's far too long a delay and I wouldn't accept it unless they agreed to backdate the review to the date of the RTW...which would take the member straight back off the review stage again.

The long term absence is definitely covered under this Act so that should see this rebuked.
Great advice, thank you!