New Attendance Guidelines Clarification?

[dave_bosoxfan]

Hi just wanted a quick answer if anybody knows. I have checked through the guidelines but can't see the answer.

If someone is on a stage 1 warning then I understand that the guidelines they have to adhere to, to come off the stage 1 has changed to a fixed 6 month period. 2 absences or 10 days trigger a stage 2 review. Better than this and you come off the procedure.

My question (getting to it) is if when you finish the 6 month period (without triggering a stage 2) and you come off the formal procedure do you automatically go back to the rolling 12 month period? You could in theory have 1 absence of 7 days in this period and still come off the formal review.

If for example you had 1 absence of 7 days during the fixed 6 month review and then reverted to a rolling 12 months this absence along with the absences that caused the initial warning mean you could just go straight back on a fixed 6 month review!

Is this right or am I reading something wrong?

[brazil1212]

Review 1 and 2 are now 6 months And after some one is issued with review 1 they can still have 1 absent of 9 days in those six months and not trigger review 2 but after 6months when review has cleared those 9 days remain for 12 month from when they were taken hope that answers you question

[dave_bosoxfan]

I understand that the 9 days (in your example) remain for 12 months.

As it is a rolling 12 months any sickness from the 6 months prior to the fixed 6 month period still count towards your 12 month total.

So if you had 1 absence of 5 days during the first six months (of the rolling 12 months) then had the 9 days in the fixed 6 months this means when you come off the stage 1 (by adhering to the guidelines set out) you will just prompt another fixed 6 months and be back where you started because you have had 14 days in a rolling 12 month period.

Just wanted clarification that this is correct. Seems pointless to set guidelines to clear a stage 1 if you are still able to break the guidelines that initially issue the stage 1 prompt in huge first place!

[brazil1212]

Not sure about that from what I have been told by reps is that they should not include an absence that has triggered a review because that has already been included in a review 1 so they should not be counting it for another review 1 even if it happens in 7 months

[rehabron]

If you are on a formal review stage 1 and in the next rolling 6 month period you better the standard that RM requires and have 1 absence of not more than 4 days then you will automatically be removed from the procedure.

[dave_bosoxfan]

Not sure about that from what I have been told by reps is that they should not include an absence that has triggered a review because that has already been included in a review 1 so they should not be counting it for another review 1 even if it happens in 7 months

If this was the case then getting put on a stage 1 essentially wipes the slate clean. Meaning the rolling 12 month period goes from the day after the absence that triggered the warning in the first place. I can't believe this is the case but will try and get some contact details for my union rep and ask them. Don't have an office rep anymore.

If you are on a formal review stage 1 and in the next rolling 6 month period you better the standard that RM requires and have 1 absence of not more than 4 days then you will automatically be removed from the procedure.

Thanks for this but this only applies to a review stage 2 not stage 1. You only need to adhere to the review 1 guidelines to be removed from the review procedure. It's what happens after you are removed that I am asking about.

[whisperstar24]

if you are on a stage 1 warning and you keep to just one period of 9 days or less in the next 6 months then you come off the procedure.
At the end of the penalty served, you will go back to the rolling 12 months for consideration.
However all of the absences that lead to your stage 1 being triggered and issued means that these absences will NOT count or be considered for the next stage 1.
Only the absences after the stage 1 was issued

[goddard7]

if you are on a stage 1 warning and you keep to just one period of 9 days or less in the next 6 months then you come off the procedure.
At the end of the penalty served, you will go back to the rolling 12 months for consideration.
However all of the absences that lead to your stage 1 being triggered and issued means that these absences will NOT count or be considered for the next stage 1.
Only the absences after the stage 1 was issued

Can you let me know where this is stated in the new attendance procedure as i cannot find it,thanks.

[dave_bosoxfan]

Hence the reason for my initial post. This is not written anywhere. Nobody seems to know so seems to be a grey area.
If you are in this situation then I would check with your union rep if you have one.

I was kind of hoping I would get an answer from a Union rep by posting in this section of the forum.

[goddard7]

Hence the reason for my initial post. This is not written anywhere. Nobody seems to know so seems to be a grey area.
If you are in this situation then I would check with your union rep if you have one.

I was kind of hoping I would get an answer from a Union rep by posting in this section of the forum.

Fishtank or Dingo,can you provide us with clarity around this,Dave is right,confusion all over!

[whisperstar24]

it will be in guidance rather than in the main section of the new attendance procedure.
These are additional documents provided to both the cwu and royal mail

[goddard7]

it will be in guidance rather than in the main section of the new attendance procedure.
These are additional documents provided to both the cwu and royal mail

Can anyone provide a link to these documents please?

[rehabron]

The new attendance procedure incorporates part of the original procedure then has been adjusted to monitor sick absences every rolling 6 months period after allowing 2 absences or 14 days within the first 12 months.
The 6 month period was introduced giving employees maintaining a standard above the RM guidelines the opportunity to clear their absenteeism record more quickly than having to wait 12 months in the previous attendance procedure.
The attendance procedure commences with 2 absences or 14 days in a 12 month period and if exceed a review prompt 1 would be considered and further absences beyond this would be monitored in 6 month periods.
If you were fortunate enough not to exceed the attendance guidelines in the first 12 months of an absences being recorded then you would be returned to the 12 month period again but if you managed this in 6 months from the first absence being recorded you would have to see the next 6 months absence free.
This is my interpretation of the standards guidelines because I can't see RM allowing you continual 12 months periods when others are subjected to 6 months monitoring after breaking the initial standard guidelines of 2 absences or 14 days.
As this agreement was signed of by Ray Ellis at CWU HQ he is probably the best one qualified to give an answer to your question.

[goddard7]

if you are on a stage 1 warning and you keep to just one period of 9 days or less in the next 6 months then you come off the procedure.
At the end of the penalty served, you will go back to the rolling 12 months for consideration.
However all of the absences that lead to your stage 1 being triggered and issued means that these absences will NOT count or be considered for the next stage 1.
Only the absences after the stage 1 was issued

Well done Whisperstar24,i have just had a swift response off Ray Ellis which confirms exactly what you have stated.

[dave_bosoxfan]

Thank you everybody for the replies and the clarification. As it happens it doesn't matter now as I walked out and quit this morning, lol.
I have worked for a few companies in my time and never have I been treated so poorly or with such a lack of respect. How all you continue to do it is beyond me. Good luck to you all.