Holiday vs. Sick Leave

[a_chap]

I'm after some advice.

In November I booked 2 weeks holiday leave as I was due to have an planned surgical operation and 2 weeks should have been enough for me to recuperate and return to work.

However, there were complications during surgery and I've been off work since then.

The organisation I work for (or my line management - I cannot determine which) has decided that my 2 weeks holiday has to be taken as sick leave. But I do not want that, I want to use two weeks of my holiday entitlement.

My question is: can my employer force me to take those two weeks off as sick leave?

Thanks

 

[Elpenor]

Think this comes down to employer policy. My place allows annual leave to be used during sickness, people do this to extend their full pay.

There is a counter argument you can make that you’re using annual leave proportionately so you don’t return to work with a large balance still to use with only a small amount of the leave year left

 

[A380]

Ask your Union?

 

[moochedit]

Isn't counting it as sick better than losing holiday? Or am i missing something?

 

[redsquirrel]

That is weird.
I've had employers pushing staff to use annual leave as effective sick leave but never the other way around.

First thing would be to check your employer's leave policies - but I'd not be surprised if this is not covered.

Second thing, email HT/line manager asking for reason why they have done this. I would have thought it was probably disadvantageous to them (as you'll now be entitled to all your annual leave). Would there be any H&S reason for it? They want to make it clear that you cannot work, not that you are just taking leave?

ETA: Is there a particular reason why you want this to go down as annual leave rather than sick leave? Have you talked to them at all? It could be someone in HR just thinking that this is the most appropriate leave category under the circumstances and doing you a 'favour'.

 

[Elpenor]

In my experience people want to do this when they’re in half pay / SSP only. I think for long term sickness using annual leave for part of the absence is valid, otherwise there’s potentially a huge amount of annual leave to be taken before a leave year ends and that causes issues about carrying over leave (which there’s often a policy about) and also means that the return to work after end of sickness isn’t disrupted by having to use up a large balance of leave

 

[hash tag]

Dear a_chap if you do not wish to use your annual leave, I would be happy to use it for you.

 

[Thora]

Isn't counting it as sick better than losing holiday? Or am i missing something?

Holiday is paid though.

 

[equationgirl]

There is a regulation somewhere about refunds of holiday if you end up being off sick during the time you've booked off, so they might be trying to do you a favour a_chap but not explaining it very well.

 

[tommers]

Yeah. You were sick, so it's sick leave. Why don't you want to use sick leave?

If you explain it to them then they'll probably agree to use annual, they probably just want to do the right thing

 

[Sue]

Holiday is paid though.

Sick leave often is too (depending on your company and how much you've already had).

 

[tommers]

Holiday is paid though.

Ah. Right long term sick is often half pay or something.

 

[Thora]

I don't think I've ever had a job with paid sick leave.

 

[Thora]

Ah. Right long term sick is often half pay or something.

Statutory sick pay is about £100 a week after the first three days (which are £0).

 

[equationgirl]

Ah. Right long term sick is often half pay or something.

Depends on years of service and how much of an arse the company is, in my experience.

20 years service usually equates to six months or more of fully paid leave on many cases.

 

[Orang Utan]

Holiday is paid though.

So is sickness though
Eta: just read the rest. I have lived a privileged life clearly. The only time I’ve had a job that doesn’t pay sick leave is when working temp jobs for a recruitment company

 

[moochedit]

Holiday is paid though.

Fair enough. Makes sense if you don't get paid for sick. Never been off long term sick myself. Only had the odd days off for flu etc. So always been paid as normal.

 

[moochedit]

So is sickness though
Eta: just read the rest. I have lived a privileged life clearly. The only time I’ve had a job that doesn’t pay sick leave is when working temp jobs for a recruitment company

Yeah same.

 

[Pickman's model]

I'm after some advice.

In November I booked 2 weeks holiday leave as I was due to have an planned surgical operation and 2 weeks should have been enough for me to recuperate and return to work.

However, there were complications during surgery and I've been off work since then.

The organisation I work for (or my line management - I cannot determine which) has decided that my 2 weeks holiday has to be taken as sick leave. But I do not want that, I want to use two weeks of my holiday entitlement.

My question is: can my employer force me to take those two weeks off as sick leave?

Thanks

is your objection on the grounds that this might bump you into the more punitive sections of their sickness absence policy? it's my understanding that if you book leave and are ill during that leave you can claim the holiday back. but i thought that it was up to the individual to claim if they wanted to, not that it was a mandatory thing. i don't see that they can force you to take what you'd booked for recuperation as sick leave, but you'd really need to contact an employment lawyer or citizens' advice to get an opinion supported by law and regulations. i think that your union rep would likely advise you to talk to the recommended union lawyers, who for unison anyway are thompson's in london. i think your work would be within their rights to suggest you take it as sick leave, in your own interests so you had the two weeks to do something nice in. but i think they exceed their authority to force it on you.

 

[Orang Utan]

Oh, if you get asked to sign anything on your return to work, saying you agree not to take a certain amount of time off sick in future, do not sign it. You don’t have to. It’s an unreasonable thing to ask you.

 

[andysays]

Even if you are entitled to sick pay at full rate, the amount generally depends on your length of service.

Typically, you don't get any until you've been there two years, and then it goes up maybe a month each year you're there.

And even then, there's usually a maximum of six months at full pay, after which you go to half pay for another six and nothing at all after 12 months.

 

[redsquirrel]

Oh, if you get asked to sign anything on your return to work, saying you agree not to take a certain amount of time off sick in future, do not sign it. You don’t have to. It’s an unreasonable thing to ask you.

I agree nobody should not sign such a document. But even if you (one) did then I don't believe it would be enforceable as I think it would be unlawful.

 

[Orang Utan]

I agree nobody should not sign such a document. But even if you (one) did then I don't believe it would be enforceable as I think it would be unlawful.

My employer asks anyone who gets to Stage 1 Attendance Management (more than 5 days in a year, which is ridiculously low) to sign such a document. Most do, even though it would be dishonest to sign such a thing. We don’t have crystal balls so cannot foresee our illnesses and accidents

 

[redsquirrel]

My employer asks anyone who gets to Stage 1 Attendance Management (more than 5 days in a year, which is ridiculously low) to sign such a document. Most do, even though it would be dishonest to sign such a thing. We don’t crystal balls so cannot foresee our illnesses and accidents

That is outrageous and intimidatory, but I don't believe it would actually be enforceable.

Employers can dismiss people on the grounds of ill health but it needs to be done in a reasonable manner. It is normal for employer to put in place attendance targets but a blanket 'you cannot be ill again' is something else.
I can't imagine an ET looking very favourably on the argument 'we OU agreed not to take any more sick leave and now he has cancer so we're firing him'.

 

[emanymton]

That is outrageous and intimidatory, but I don't believe it would actually be enforceable.

Employers can dismiss people on the grounds of ill health but it needs to be done in a reasonable manner. It is normal for employer to put in place attendance targets but a blanket 'you cannot be ill again' is something else.
I can't imagine an ET looking very favourably on the argument 'we OU agreed not to take any more sick leave and now he has cancer so we're firing him'.

I would expect anything covered by a sick not would be excluded and it would only be self certified sick days coverd?

Still shit as who gets a sick note for a few days off with flu. And 2 bouts in a year and you are over 5 days.

 

[Orang Utan]

I would expect anything covered by a sick not would be excluded and it would only be self certified sick days coverd?

Still shit as who gets a sick note for a few days off with flu. And 2 bouts in a year and you are over 5 days.

Nope! Still counts towards your ‘allowance’ of sick days

 

[Orang Utan]

And customer facing staff don’t get higher allowances that would trigger an attendance management meeting, despite being much more likely to contract transmissable illnesses than those working from home

 

[emanymton]

Nope! Still counts towards your ‘allowance’ of sick days

Then as redsquirrel says no way that is enforceable. Amazed that is allowed for insurance purposes, if someone is signed of sick and they pressure them in anyway, if something happens they are a bit fucked.

 

[Orang Utan]

I think it’s because they lump people who are genuinely sick with people they suspect of pulling too many sickies, thus having the intimidatory effect of making people with chronic illnesses or conditions feel like they’re under suspicion.

 

[emanymton]

I think it’s because they lump people who are genuinely sick with people they suspect of pulling too many sickies, thus having the intimidatory effect of making people with chronic illnesses or conditions feel like they’re under suspicion.

I know why, doesn't make it less disgraceful.