corrective/remedial surgery and the attendance procedure

[whisperstar24]

hi,
looking for any div reps on here to tap their knowledge on the new attendance procedure.
Have scanned through the entire document and there is no reference to remedial surgery being discounted from the attendance procedure now.
It makes references to disability being discounted and accidents at work.
Do i assume now that corrective surgery is counted ,or is locked away somewhere in a hidden draw in HR services, which our managers wont let us see to use in mitigation?

anybody know

[rehabron]

Lets me try to explain this in the following example. Say for instance you were off sick with a condition that is not discounted in the absence procedure and you on this absence had exceed the RM attendance standards and a formal stage warning had been issued however it is known that this medical condition which triggered the formal stage warning would sometime in the future require corrective surgery as part of on going treatment to this condition and the interviewing officer was made aware of this and knows to expect you to be absent after your surgery date. At this interview for the second absence and with proper representation it would be highly irregular for a further stage warning to be issued and would be discounted. I am assuming that in between the formal stage warning and the absence from the date of surgery that you have returned to work on limited duties.

[gluteus maximus]

Are we not forgetting that some corrective surgery will be exempt from any attendance procedure if it has a cause from a protected characteristic. Cancer for example

[whisperstar24]

thanks for your replies but there are more questions than answers here?
if corrective surgery is not recognised in the agreement and as you know there are many types of surgery that people have that are not directly connected to disability.
Some people will not always go off sick from work with their conditions but will put up with them before having to take time off finally for surgery , so the trackable evidence is not there.
If however the surgery is recognised as being to improve their long term capabilities at work, therefore they surely should have the surgery discounted in any stage warning?
What I do know is that the current new attendance procedure is not fit for purpose because managers do not listen to mitigation.
Therefore the only answer is to go for an appeal at each stage now as ROMEC have done.

[rehabron]

Some people will not always go off sick from work with their conditions but will put up with them before having to take time off finally for surgery , so the trackable evidence is not there.
If however the surgery is recognised as being to improve their long term capabilities at work, therefore they surely should have the surgery discounted in any stage warning?

You have just answered your own question in your posting and this is the argument that you put forward if it comes to a stage warning being issued. There are informal and formal meetings within the new absence procedure and the informal meetings are basically a discussion that your absence is giving cause for concern before it is taken to the formal review stage. It still applies that the merits and circumstances of your absence be taken into consideration as it is not mandatory that a first stage warning be issued and is at the discretion of the interviewer.
There is no appeal system at each stage of the procedure. You can appeal the decision at the 3rd stage where dismissal is being considered.

[whisperstar24]

in our office the managers hardly ever do informal reviews but I understand the point you are making.
Yes I am aware of no appeal before the stage 3 but this is why there should be a review of the new attendance procedure because managers are not using their discretion.
There should be an appeal at each stage I believe now

[clashcityrocker]

The only thing you can do is make the case for a stage not being issued as the surgery will ultimately benefit RM as a fitter employee will return the operation.
I had an arthroscopy and no stage was issued exactly for those reasons. (The DOM was facing a similar operation a couple of weeks later)

It is very important to have a rep/witness present when the case is made and to ensure it is duly noted.
This will give the rep in attendance at any stage 3 something to work with.

[rehabron]

There is a better opportunity under the new procedure to wipe the slate clean within 6 months while before it could take you 12 months.
If you unfortunately had to be involved in a 3rd stage formal review in connection with further absences and the decision was your dismissal. At the appeal stage you would introduce the stage warning if given for the corrective surgery as mitigating circumstances for unfair treatment for this being issued.
A good appeals manger working independently from the dismissal manger would consider on past experiences if you have a reasonable chance of you winning your case at an ET for unfair dismissal and what the cost of winning would be to the business.
As of the 6th April 2014 ACAS steps in before the ET in an attempt to mediate the case and the clock stops while this is in progress so that your 3 months for completing an ET1 form is not affected.

[whisperstar24]

again valid points but by the employee being put on a stage 1 they are now at a disadvantage in terms of the procedure and allowance for further time off.
2 periods or 10 days in the next 6 months puts you on a stage 2 and once more onto a stage 3 in another 6 months.
Far quicker than the old procedure and much sooner out the door.
The new procedure has his merits in terms of only 6 months as a punishment but it also works the other way.
This is why I believe an appeal at the first stage seems fairer rather to have to wait for a 50/50 decision that you might win when you are close to being dismissed

[rehabron]

If you have 1 absence of 4 days or less within the following 6 month period from the stage 1 being issued you are removed from the absence procedure. I would have thought that this is reasonably achievable. The business would not co-operate in a system that allows appeals at every stage of the absence procedure. Time consuming for management and union for time off to cover appeals and more expensive to the business.

[whisperstar24]

look at the next union conference and you will find it in a motion, appeal at each stage of the attendance procedure

[rehabron]

just gone through 80 pages approx. 171 motions for the 2014 Conference and can't find it. Can u give me some pointers or the motion nr please

[rehabron]

Significant underlying health issues such
as recent return from long term absence,
recent or imminent hospitalisation, or
problems at or outside work

The above is taken from the guidelines in the new attendance procedure in which the employee can request an informal review discussion to take place before it moves to the formal review stage and the above category is sufficient to prompt an informal discussion interview and ensure that the employees request is recorded and if ignored may prove to e useful at a later date.

[whisperstar24]

Motion 11
To instruct the Postal Exectutive to seek an amendment to the attendance procedure to allow appeals at all stages

[whisperstar24]

Significant underlying health issues such
as recent return from long term absence,
recent or imminent hospitalisation, or
problems at or outside work

The above is taken from the guidelines in the new attendance procedure in which the employee can request an informal review discussion to take place before it moves to the formal review stage and the above category is sufficient to prompt an informal discussion interview and ensure that the employees request is recorded and if ignored may prove to e useful at a later date.

Thanks for that
Once more it is guidance for management to take a note of a condition . It is down to the manager to do this with his/her own good will or for the employee to bring it up voluntarily. It is not an instruction for the manager to use this as mitigation to discount absence from the procedure. As stated before , unfortunately and unlike disability, it is not clear.