Help needed on attendance procedure

[dan80]

I am a new sub rep and will be sitting in with someone on a formal review Monday morning. He was given letter on Saturday inviting him to the meeting on Monday. So the minimum of 3 working days notice was not giving. Also I have concerns around the absences that have triggered the review. He was off for 21 days in January, which triggered a review at that time. This review 1 was not given by the DOM at the time. He has just returned from a 4day absence and has now been called back in for a formal 1st review meeting,
Reading over the attendance agreement, I am confused as to how he has triggered a formal meeting after the 2nd absence of 4days? Both where single absences, I would appricate any helping this. He was also never giving a welcome back meeting after the absence I. January and was only given his welcome back meeting after 4 days of being back in work on his 2nd absence. Surely the DOMs have failed the procedure by not given him the welcome back meetings?

[IcanthelpthewayIam]

Just because the dom decided not to issue a stage warning for the 21 day absence doesn't mean that those days of absence are now discounted, hence why they are now being considered again after his more recent absence and a review triggered.

As for the lack of return to work meetings and short notice of the stage 1. Personally I prefer to keep my powder dry over these things, as there is no appeal for stage 1s it gives perfect grounds if things get as far as stage 3 that the correct procedures have not been followed on multiple occasions and get everything bounced out

[whisperstar24]

1st issue - you have not stated when in Jan this person was off and when he returned to work .This is the key- If he returned to work before the 20th Jan , management will not be able to use this absence for the meeting on the 20th April. They will be out of time as you have 3 months tops in order to hold an interview.They might deny this but HR hold guidance on what is acceptable time periods with regard to holding these attendance revews
2nd issue- all RTW interviews should be completed within 3 hours of a return from absence. Let alone 4 days.

As It stands management will say that he has had 2 absences totalling 25 days. The standard will be triggered if he reaches the 14 days and /or 4 periods.

I suggest that you approach management and state that the 1st absence if out of time for consideration and suggest he consult hr for guidance over it.
If the manager refuses and insists on going ahead with the interview. State that procedures have not been followed correctly with the timings and with the rtw.
If the stage 1 is issued , raise a grievance on behalf of the member sighting that the procedure was not followed correctly in two ways and that you would like the stage 1 review revoked as part of he outcome.

[POSTMAN]

As for the lack of return to work meetings and short notice of the stage 1. Personally I prefer to keep my powder dry over these things, as there is no appeal for stage 1s it gives perfect grounds if things get as far as stage 3 that the correct procedures have not been followed on multiple occasions and get everything bounced out

Kudos!

[fishtank]

As for the lack of return to work meetings and short notice of the stage 1. Personally I prefer to keep my powder dry over these things, as there is no appeal for stage 1s

If there are any obvious procedural irregularities in the application of the attendance agreement these must be brought up at each stage of the process by the rep, In most cases a stage will not be issued if it's outside what's considered a reasonable time frame by HR (3 months) and managers are now instructed to consult HR for guidance in all decisions affecting attendance. Even if the stage is still issued it is important that the irregularity is challenged by the rep and that challenge is documented at each stage.

"Keeping your powder dry" might make you feel good but what we try to do is keep members away from stage 3 and consideration of dismissal because a) It's a dangerous place to be even with dry powder and b) the added stress of being on the procedure is likely to be counter-productive to the member's health.

It isn't a game of who can piss the highest.

[dan80]

The 1st absence ended on the 16th of January. So as you say is outside of the 3 months. Thanks for your help a few things to discuss in the morning.

[IcanthelpthewayIam]

The 1st absence ended on the 16th of January. So as you say is outside of the 3 months. Thanks for your help a few things to discuss in the morning.

If 16 Jan was end then the new four day absence must be within the 3 months as it's 19th today less at least 4 days for recent takes you back under the 3 month mark (just and that's assuming today was last day of absence)

[whisperstar24]

The 1st absence ended on the 16th of January. So as you say is outside of the 3 months. Thanks for your help a few things to discuss in the morning.

If 16 Jan was end then the new four day absence must be within the 3 months as it's 19th today less at least 4 days for recent takes you back under the 3 month mark (just and that's assuming today was last day of absence)

The second absence has just only happened but as the first absence cannot be considered by the manager it now remains one period of 4 days and this has not triggered a stage 1.
The first absence is now irrelevant as the manager got the process wrong by not doing it in time.

[IcanthelpthewayIam]

The 1st absence ended on the 16th of January. So as you say is outside of the 3 months. Thanks for your help a few things to discuss in the morning.

If 16 Jan was end then the new four day absence must be within the 3 months as it's 19th today less at least 4 days for recent takes you back under the 3 month mark (just and that's assuming today was last day of absence)

The second absence has just only happened but as the first absence cannot be considered by the manager it now remains one period of 4 days and this has not triggered a stage 1.
The first absence is now irrelevant as the manager got the process wrong by not doing it in time.

The first absence can be considered

[whisperstar24]

if the first absence had been discussed in a formal interview and within the 3 month period then it would have been either issued or not.
If the first absence was not issued a stage warning , then it could have been considered again as the second absence had re triggered the stage 1 . However the procedure was not followed correctly so therefore I do not believe that this first absence can now be considered at all as it was out of time.

[IcanthelpthewayIam]

if the first absence had been discussed in a formal interview and within the 3 month period then it would have been either issued or not.
If the first absence was not issued a stage warning , then it could have been considered again as the second absence had re triggered the stage 1 . However the procedure was not followed correctly so therefore I do not believe that this first absence can now be considered at all as it was out of time.

Its not out of time the end of the first abscence and the start of the second fall within 3 months and therefore does trigger the review,

[fishtank]

It's not the two absences that must be within 3 months, It's the issuing of the stage review that should be done within 3 months of it being triggered.

Clearly that is unlikely to happen in this case but even if it does the 3 month timescale is not written in stone, It's just a guidance figure based on the likelyhood of an Employmen Tribunal overturning a dismissal on the grounds that the delay was "unreasonable", Any manager issuing a stage after roughly three months of delay is likely to be told by HR to forget it even if it's two months and three weeks, not exactly three months to the day.

[whisperstar24]

As fishtank states its not set in stone but it would be unreasonable to bring in the first absence and not following procedures.if the manager still insists on it then you have the grievance procedures