Stage 3

[norbet colon]

The new DOM came to see me yesterday to tell me I've to attend yet another Stage 3 interview, this one was triggered by me having to go into hospital for an op, I told them in the last Stage 3 that I would be going back into hospital for tests/op. Working for this firm is like constantly

what a stupid arrogant stupid firm , sounds like senior screws having been checking this thread, want rid of you that's for sure

[darth]

quite worrying makes you wonder what they will be like when they try to amend the attendance procedure(allthough by the sounds of things they allready are.

[madelin4]

What way is the attendance procedure to change???

[Carnoustie]

Isn't it being discussed in one of the Joint Working Groups set up under the recent pay deal ? Something along these lines :

Pilot Attendance Procedure

1. PURPOSE OF PILOT
The purpose of this agreement is to pilot a new approach to the management of absence due to sickness in support of the following agreed objectives:
· making Royal Mail a better place to work for all employees
· producing a better industrial relations environment
· to benefit the customer
· ensuring the continuing and growing success of Royal Mail in the face of increasing competition

2. SCOPE
The agreement applies to all employees including trialists (but excluding casual/seasonal staff who are dealt with by separate managerial guidelines) in the designated areas/locations to comprise 50% of N.E. (Newcastle, Bradford, Darlington and Teesside) and 50 % Midland Division (Birmingham, Wolverhampton and Stoke) who become:
· absent from work due to sickness and are
· not classified as long term sick and in respect of whom medical retirement has not been considered.

3. PILOT ARRANGEMENTS
Detailed arrangements for the pilot are set out in Appendix 1.

1. Minimum National Standards - New Entrants on Trial

With employees new to Royal Mail it is important to establish quickly a clear understanding of the need to maintain appropriate standards of attendance. Attendance may be regarded as warranting formal action if an employee who is on trial has:

Stage 1 : 2 absences or 7 days in a 6 month period
Stage 2 : 1 absence in the next 2 months
Stage 3 : 1 absence in the next 2 months

No triallist should have his/her appointment confirmed whilst under this procedure.

2. Minimum National Attendance Standards - Employees not on Trial
Employees who have successfully completed their trial period are still required to maintain a high standard of attendance. Attendance may be regarded as warranting formal action if an employee who is not on trial has:

Stage 1 : 5 absences or 17 days in 12 months.
Stage 2 : 2 absences or 12 days in any 6 month period during the next 9 months
Stage 3 : 2 absences or 10 days in any 6 month period during the next 9 months

In deciding whether these standards are met for employees whose trial was recently confirmed, attendance during the whole of employment is considered, not just from the date trial is confirmed. An employee whose trial has been confirmed following an improvement to the required triallist standard will be put back to the previous stage of the Attendance Procedure but the criteria appropriate to a non-triallist will then apply.


To me, on the face of it, this seems like a relaxing of how many absences you can 'have' before a Stage 1 is triggered ?
But that must surely mean that they will instruct managers to issue the Stage REGARDLESS of any mitigating factors.
Think about it. They will argue with the CWU something like 'if we're giving people an extra sickie compared to the current procedure, we want to hammer them if they start taking the p***. Although we will still continue to treat all absences as 'genuine', of course'

[madelin4]

Well at least we wud nt have to go a full year watching any sick days we take, 9 months not that bad, will come quicker than 12 months. I take it if you are clear for 9 months you revert back a stage?

[dvbuk55]

I think there has been a grave injustice in sickness absence procedure in recent months. It seems to me that if you have already received a stage warning for a period of absence for an ongoing/persistent problem then you should not be given a further stage until treatment for that condition has been succesfully completed for however long that takes. The problem is obviously documented and should not be used for further stages provided it is proven that the condition persists and that steps are being taken to rectify it.

I don't think the cause of sick absence has been helped by the employment of a third party to adjudicate on whether or not the condition is valid sometimes in the face of medical evidence. The company should be actively engaged in helping the employee not trying to make him/her feel guilty about being sick.

[Carnoustie]

Well at least we wud nt have to go a full year watching any sick days we take, 9 months not that bad, will come quicker than 12 months. I take it if you are clear for 9 months you revert back a stage?

That was my understanding from reading through it.
Can't help being suspicious of this proposed procedure.
A couple of years back, they were so keen to get absenteeism figures down that they tried bribing us with the 'Be In To Win' scheme for having a good attendance record. Now they come up with a procedure that seems to be more lenient ? Doesn't stack up
Like I said, I reckon it means they'll insist on this procedure having no discretionary element, where managers can choose to not issue the stage. On the grounds that you must have had at least 7 absences (and possibly 9) in less than two-and-a-half years, anyone triggers 3 stages, they're out.

[madelin4]

"QUOTE"I don't think the cause of sick absence has been helped by the employment of a third party to adjudicate on whether or not the condition is valid sometimes in the face of medical evidence. The company should be actively engaged in helping the employee not trying to make him/her feel guilty about being sick.



Agree with you 100%

[madelin4]

I would say mayby it hits the new entrants harder mayb. Sure they are wanting us oldies out sure!!!

[Carnoustie]

I think there has been a grave injustice in sickness absence procedure in recent months. It seems to me that if you have already received a stage warning for a period of absence for an ongoing/persistent problem then you should not be given a further stage until treatment for that condition has been succesfully completed for however long that takes. The problem is obviously documented and should not be used for further stages provided it is proven that the condition persists and that steps are being taken to rectify it.

I agree wholeheartedly.

It seems that even if you do everything they ask, i.e. provide medical records, attend ATOS appointments, get treatment etc, they still try to sack you.

[lanesra123]

All stage 3's in our branch are delt with by area reps, 1's & 2's by unit's.
we had a good record, and up untill recently i would say that we never lost a S3 the first go around. (we even got one guy of his second S3)

The last couple we've had though have gone down...

[madelin4]

It might help if off long term sick to keep plenty of documentation in relation to your absence. A paper trail or whatever you may call it. If someone is really unlucky and has a bad run of health is it fair they lose there livelyhood??? Its a no win.

[Carnoustie]

I would say mayby it hits the new entrants harder mayb. Sure they are wanting us oldies out sure!!!

I'll probably get flack for this, but here goes....

I can actually see RM's point with the triggers for new entrants. If they take on an 18-year-old, and he/she has clocked up three absences (or more) in their first 10 months of employment, it doesn't inspire confidence, does it ? They may have just had a very unlucky run of bad luck, they may not. Their record might improve, but as an employer, are you going to give them the benefit of the doubt ?

If they stay until they retire at 65, at the rate of three absences every 10 months, in 47 years employment, they would notch up over 170 absences !! Hand on heart, if I was running my own business, I don't think I would gamble on someone who's been off three times in their trial period.

[norbet colon]

I would say mayby it hits the new entrants harder mayb. Sure they are wanting us oldies out sure!!!

I'll probably get flack for this, but here goes....

I can actually see RM's point with the triggers for new entrants. If they take on an 18-year-old, and he/she has clocked up three absences (or more) in their first 10 months of employment, it doesn't inspire confidence, does it ? They may have just had a very unlucky run of bad luck, they may not. Their record might improve, but as an employer, are you going to give them the benefit of the doubt ?

If they stay until they retire at 65, at the rate of three absences every 10 months, in 47 years employment, they would notch up over 170 absences !! Hand on heart, if I was running my own business, I don't think I would gamble on someone who's been off three times in their trial period.

that's hard but fair , however yourself as this hypothetical employer would handle matters better than RM's "management team " , not necessarily botch things all the way through and not act in such a underhand manner . As a trialist you daren't take any time off unlesss dying anywhere .

The line that RM managers use is if you get a Stage 2 you deserve it , plenty of leniency with hangovers , too hot days etc until you get a No 1 . Everyone knows the professional scivvers , the old soldiers etc but some people can be just plain unlucky .

RM's original AP plan was to fast track everybody through the stages so it'd be easy to get rid of someone by the year end . DDA protection was to be removed . The Spivs & Brylcreemed gangsters in charge wanted it "trialed " -and we all know what that means !

[Thorby Bislam]

Another major injustice, they count sundays in when adding up your days off sick.
Despite sunday not ever being a working day. It is really unfair and most people have no idea it is done.
I only found out the hard way.