Tag: Statutory Sick Pay

Categories
Anna Denton-Jones Duty of Care Employment Law Employment Rights Act 1996 HR Mental Health Pay Sick Pay Stress

Are you entitled to withhold SSP?

View of the City of London at sunset

You’ve probably noticed wording in your sickness policy that makes it clear if employees don’t comply with your procedure, they risk the payment of Statutory Sick Pay (SSP).

It is not open to an employer to withhold SSP where the employee provides medical evidence from their GP late. For example, you may require the certificate to be given to you on day 8 of absence, and the employee might not get around to giving you a certificate until day 10.

An employer is allowed to not pay SSP if the employee has failed to notify them of the absence, and there is no good reason to cause the delay in notification. For example, the employee is supposed to notify you of their absence on the first day of incapacity – if they didn’t notify you and essentially were absent without leave for the first few days and told you on day 8, then potentially Section 156(2)(a) Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 applies. So, for example, if the employee had gone AWOL effectively for the first week and then telephoned in, the employer is entitled to withhold for the duration of the delay.

Employers may introduce something more onerous as a matter of contract. For example, that the employee has to report in sick by a particular time on the first day of their absence and thereafter at regular intervals. That cannot override the statutory scheme when it comes to SSP but if more generous contractual sick pay is available, such as payment for the waiting days when SSP doesn’t apply or payment of full pay or something more than SSP, then the employer will be able to follow what they have said in their contract and withhold the extra payment if the employee has not complied with the rules.

Under SSP rules, HMRC in its www.gov.uk page ‘Statutory Sick Pay: employee fitness to work’, states that “if an employer decides to stop payment of SSP, they should explain their decision to the employee”. The employee will be entitled to a written statement from the employer and can seek a formal decision on their entitlement from HMRC Statutory Disputes Payment team. You might like to refer to the ‘Stop Payment of SSP Section’ of that Guidance. There is an example letter to notify the employee that you will not be paying them.

There will be occasions where the employer has real reasons to believe that the person may not have been unfit for work. For example, they may have requested annual leave and that request has been rejected, so the individual then phones in sick. Clearly the employer would have to do as much investigation as they possibly could around the circumstances. For example, if the individual provides a doctors fit note, HMRC advises that that should be accepted as conclusive proof of incapacity for SSP purposes, even if there is very strong evidence to the contrary. The employer might need to get their own medical advice or to ask HMRC to arrange for the employee to be examined by the medical services team. Clearly that only works in the case of a health condition that is likely to be ongoing.

It might be possible to ask, for example, a GP who has provided a backdated sick note when their consultation with the individual was and providing evidence timing that the employee has been covering up them being perfectly well on the days in question. Evidence as to their activity from social media may also be relevant, eg. photographs of the employee swanning around Spain when the employee told the employer they were in bed and that they were so unwell that they couldn’t get up.

Anna Denton-Jones
Refreshing Law

 

Categories
Anna Denton-Jones Disability Employment Law Employment Rights Act 1996 Equality Act 2010 Health Conditions Mental Health Return to Work Sick Pay

Revised — Fit notes

View of the City of London at sunset

You may be aware that the categories of people who are able to sign a Fit Note for the purposes of Statutory Sick Pay and other Social Security claims has been broadened with effect from 1 July 2022, so that pharmacists, physiotherapists, registered nurses and occupational therapists are now all able to sign Statements of Fitness for Work.

The old rules that such paperwork needed to be ‘wet’ signed by the GP have also been removed so it is now possible for the electronic generation of this paperwork in order to improve the way in which medical professionals are able to issue such documents. The Fit Note is still required to be signed and include the name of the healthcare professional who authorised it to be legally valid so a version that is blank isn’t genuine.

The Department for Work and Pensions has issued guidance for healthcare professionals which is called “Getting the most out of your Fit Note”.

It is interesting reading, in particular the instructions to medics to focus on fitness for work in general rather than fitness to attend a particular occupation, which suggests that it ought to be harder for somebody to achieve a state where they are unable to work at all, compared to being unable to perform aspects of their job.

The case studies are interesting as well. Particularly the fifth one called “relationship issues at work”. It gives the example of a patient complaining that she doesn’t get on with her manager, is feeling very stressed and wants to be signed off work. The medic determines in the consultation that although the situation is upsetting for the individual, they do not have a mental health condition and that they are fit for work. The medic then explains to the individual that they can see that she is being affected by work but is not in a situation where she should be issued with a Fit Note. The patient reacts badly and tells the medic that their manager has been really horrible to her and that she is finding it difficult to cope. The medic is directed to say that they appreciate that that may well be the case but to explain that the situation is not making the patient ill. If they were ill then they would be issued with a Fit Note and the medic would be acting with their health interests in mind. Instead, the medic is encouraged to explain that this is not a medical problem but a management issue and that going off on the sick will not resolve the problem or help her to find another job if that is what she decides to do. If that conversation happened, I think all employers would be relieved.

The medic is then encouraged to discuss with the individual whether they can talk to somebody at work to help resolve their problems such as speaking to HR, a Trade Union representative or speaking to ACAS. In the case study, the patient decides to approach another colleague for advice, to check the internet and to look at ACAS materials on managing conflicts at work.

Using that example, the situations we come across in HR where this is some kind of conflict or dispute in work, should not by this analysis result in somebody being signed off from work. It will be really interesting to see to what extent the medics toughen up their approach, as we all know that the stereotype is that Drs will provide a Fit Note “on demand”.

In the question and answer section of the document, it’s interesting to see that there is a question relating to “what if my patient fears job loss, stigma or discrimination if I reveal a health condition (or its effect on their work functioning) on their Fit Note?”. The answer is as follows: “if you feel that revealing a particular diagnosis or a limitation would harm your patient’s wellbeing, compromise their position with their employer, you can enter a less precise diagnosis on the Fit Note”. We have all come across examples where a Fit Note has said something like “unwell” or “stress” rather than an actual medical condition – this is why it is always worth referring somebody to occupational health to get the full picture. It reminds us that this scenario may be behind what a medic has written and that all may not be what it seems from the face of the paperwork: further exploration is necessary.

It is interesting to note that medics are encouraged to only issue bereavement related Fit Notes if somebody is genuinely so distressed by what happened to them that they are unfit for work – where they are not actually medically unwell then they should be having compassionate leave with their employer not time off sick. Again it will be interesting to see how many medics follow this guidance.

There is also further guidance for employers and line managers: Fit note: guidance for employers and line managers. Amongst other things, this repeats the position that has been the case for some while now but which I find employers are often confused by, in relation to return to work before the end of a Fit Note. The employee can come back to work at any time, even if this is before their Fit Note expires and they do not need to go back to their healthcare professional first. If somebody is coming back and you believe it is too soon or harmful in some way, then you would need to refer to occupational health for an assessment and further guidance. Where a healthcare professional assesses somebody is fit for work, they will not be issued with a Fit Note (there are some very narrow occupations where certification has to be given).

Something else that strike me about this new guidance is the emphasis that people do not need to be 100% fit to return to work because they may well be returning to work with adjustments and need to do alternative duties. That would probably surprise employees.

Anna Denton-Jones
Refreshing Law

Categories
Anna Denton-Jones Disability Employment Law Employment Rights Act 1996 Equality Act 2010 Menopause Mental Health Protected Characteristics

Guest Blog | The Menopause — Why should organisations bother?

View of the City of London at sunset

Katie Day is a Director at RDP International Ltd

Policies and guidelines around mental health are in place.

Established and clear policies have been in existence for pregnant women and parental leave for many years.

Ways of recording reasons for absence and supporting staff (via Employee Assistance Programmes for example) are well used.

The menopause.

Ah.

Not so good there then!

I find this puzzling. Not every woman will experience pregnancy, yet every woman, if she lives long enough, will experience the menopause. As we make up around 52% of the population, and around 57% of that number are of key menopausal age (between 40 and 65). That’s a lot of women who will go through this life transition!

It is estimated that absence due to menopause (where woman are not supported at work) represents a cost to the UK economy of around £7.3 million per year1.  According to the Government Report on Menopause, women at menopausal life phase are the fastest growing workforce demographic, and according to the Faculty of Occupational Medicine nearly 8 out of 10 peri- and post-menopausal women are in work.

Women are lying. Around 75% of women say they do not feel confident to cite the menopause as the reason for their absence at work, so are reporting ‘other reasons’ for their absence. They feel really bad about doing this, which further exacerbates their feelings of vulnerability. Ensuring there is a supportive workplace culture is the responsibility of the organisation, not the responsibility of the women who work there.

One in four women consider leaving their job during this life phase.

Combine the above statistics with the legal requirements of employers to support and protect staff, this is a topic that cannot be ignored within the business community.

When asked, women in the UK report the following menopausal experiences as just some that have a negative impact for them at work, there are others2:

  • Irritability: 56%
  • Poor concentration: 51%
  • Tiredness: 51%
  • Poor memory: 50%

Women want to talk with other women going through this life phase, to have more information. They want management awareness of the topic, combined with information and advice from their employer. They want access to support via training sessions and networks.

Not all the responsibility lies with the employer of course. It is shared with the woman herself. We can all take ownership of our health and find out how we can best support ourselves, navigate this transition with the maximum ease and minimum stress and emerge stronger and even more resilient.

First and foremost we need to ‘normalise’ the conversation. What do I mean by this? Well, we all need to feel comfortable talking about ‘the M word’. If, as women, we are uncomfortable verbalising our experience(s), then it is pretty much guaranteed that people around us will also feel uncomfortable. The menopause is a natural part of life, and once we accept and embrace this life transition and see it for what it is – a temporary rite of passage, we are able to recognise that we can, to some degree, sail through rather than stumble through.

Honest and open conversations are the key. We all need to acknowledge the important and valuable contribution women of menopausal age make to the business world. By ‘all’ I mean women themselves and their employers. To lose all that experience and expertise is simply bad business and poor workplace practice.

With two employee tribunals (2012 and 2018),3 both of which went in favour of the claimant (menopausal woman), organisations ignore this issue at their peril. It is increasingly crucial that employers ensure they become, and remain, employers of choice – for everyone. ‘Everyone’ must not exclude women of menopausal age.

We work with some truly wonderful organisations who have the courage to tackle this issue head on, brave enough to make the changes necessary and savvy enough to ensure they retain some of their best talent. Do you work for, or run, one of these organisations? Or is there room for improvement?

Many of our clients are considering making our Supporting people during the menopause session mandatory for every manager they employ.

More and more men within our client organisations are putting themselves forward to be a champion and a ‘point of contact’ for women. They encourage other men to learn, change and support. They are the benchmarks all people need to follow.

Let us all embrace the strength and value of this time in a woman’s life, promote the wisdom, experience and expertise of women and collaborate to create an even more resilient and successful workplace.

Katie Day

Director

RDP International Ltd

katie@rdp-int.com

RDP International works with organisations on: leadership / communication / all matters ‘midlife’

www.rdp-int.com

Join the conversation:

LinkedIn:        Midlife Matters Group

Twitter:           @Midlife_Matters

Facebook:        Midlife Matters

  1. Kleinman NL, et al. (2013)

Direct and indirect costs of women diagnosed with menopause symptoms

Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 2013 Apr;55(4): 465-70

  1. Griffiths A, et al. (2013)

Menopause and work: An electronic survey of employees’ attitudes in the UK

Maturitas 76 (2013): 155– 159

  1. Merchant v BT plc (ET/1401305/11, 27 February 2012)

Reported in below:

Okill A (2017)

Time to tackle the myths and taboos of the menopause in the workplace

HR News (October 2017): http://hrnews.co.uk/time-tackle-myths-taboos-menopause-workplace/ 

Katie Day highlights the need for workplace support for menopausal women, emphasising the importance of normalising discussions and providing resources.

Categories
Anna Denton-Jones Articles Disability Discrimination Law Employment Law Employment Rights Act 1996 Health and Safety Health Conditions Pay Return to Work Sick Pay

Can you withhold sick pay for staff with sporting injuries?

View of the City of London at sunset

You may have come across clauses in a sickness policy or in contracts of employment where the employer reserves the right to review the payment of contractual sick pay (and not pay) if the employee had been injured participating in a sport or leisure activity.

The London Marathon this week got me thinking about this.

I’ve previously always used the example (when explaining the clause to clients) of a keen rugby player. If they get injured on a fairly regular basis why should the employer keep coughing up when this is hardly accidental and is going to keep costing them? There are even City firms who won’t allow you to (for example) play rugby because they don’t want you coming into work on a Monday morning covered in bruises and looking like you’ve been fighting because it creates the wrong impression, but that’s another matter…

None of us go out aiming to get injured, but to what extent can an employer withhold sick pay from someone who (say) breaks a leg running in a marathon, riding a horse or riding a bike?

There is no obligation to pay sick pay over and above SSP in general. If employers choose to pay contractual sick pay they can choose how long they want to pay it for, how it is to be calculated, and any conditions attached to payment. Thus it is permitted for an employer to reserve the right not to make payment in certain circumstances as in the case of the clause we are discussing or when they say nothing will be paid until the employee has passed their probationary period.

As with so many things in employment law, firstly care has to be taken to ensure that any provision by the employer is clear so that entitlement at any given time can be calculated.

Secondly, where the matter is reserved for ‘management discretion’ care needs to be taken to treat similar cases in a similar way to prevent unfairness. When does a ‘leisure activity’ (riding a bike with a friend round the park to go for a coffee) become a sport? Maybe it’s when the activity becomes competitive? Or is it more about the level of risk involved, so high risk pursuits like skiing, white water rafting and taking your horse cross country (which are more likely to result in injury) could result in sick pay being withdrawn but not general sports?

The third consideration the employer will need to make is what signal withdrawal of sick pay will give staff. Will the invoking of the clause to withhold pay come across as harsh? Will it put people off wanting to work in the organisation because it comes across as too uncaring? Most employers are quite sensible about this for this very reason and only use it in the tiny percentage of cases where a staff member is regularly injured – like the semi-professional rugby player.

Anna Denton-Jones
Refreshing Law

Categories
Anna Denton-Jones Employment Law Employment Rights Act 1996 Health Conditions HR Return to Work Sick Pay Stress

An employee won’t attend Occupational Health

View of the City of London at sunset

Often employees will refuse to attend Occupational Health or to provide consent for the employer to write to their GP.  Sometimes they believe that this is a delaying tactic, sometimes they probably know that they won’t like the outcome or the information that will be provided, but where does this leave the employer?

If you’re writing to a GP or consultant who is responsible for the care of their patient, in the absence of the employee’s consent in relation to the Access To Medical Reports Act 1988, then the employer is stuck and unable to obtain information from that physician.  Sometimes employees don’t realise that in the absence of their co-operation, you will still be entitled to make decisions, for example about whether or not they are capable of performing the duties you engaged them to do.  In such a scenario sometimes by explaining to an employee that you will have to make decisions about them in a vacuum, given that they won’t consent, they change their mind and agree to your request.  An alternative for the employer in this scenario is to actually require the employee to attend an Occupational Health physician as, strictly speaking, the Access To Medical Reports Act won’t apply where the employer is asking for a one-off report because that medic will not have been (or be) responsible for the individual’s clinical care.  If the employee attends an appointment with such a doctor then they will have implicitly consented to disclosure to the employer of any report resulting from that examination.  (Kapadia -v- London Borough of Lambeth [2000])

In order to protect themselves, employers will often include a clause in their contract of employment that requires an employee to co-operate and attend a medic where the employer wishes for a report to be written.  Technically, an employee’s failure to comply with a reasonable instruction in this regard would be a disciplinary matter.  Unfortunately for the employer, failing to follow this reasonable instruction is unlikely to form grounds for dismissal as opposed to other disciplinary action such as a warning.  Even if there had been prior warnings in this regard, an employer is going to have to show that dismissal for failure to co-operate is within the band of reasonable responses as well as following a fair procedure in respect of the disciplinary in order to avoid any unfair dismissal claims.  Thus it would become central to such a case to know why the individual was refusing to co-operate and whether or not that was reasonable.

It is probably going to be safer for an employer, instead of going down the disciplinary route, to consider dismissal for incapacity.  If the employer has done all it reasonably can to obtain medical evidence and the individual continues to withhold consent, a decision to dismiss may well be within the range of reasonable responses (Elmbridge Housing Trust -v- O’Donoghue [2004])

When it comes to looking at fairness in such cases, the fact that the employer had an express contractual term will be useful.  It will also have been useful to have warned the employee what the consequences of failing to co-operate may be.

In obtaining an employee’s co-operation it may also be useful to explain to them that, if they are concerned about the contents of a report, they can provide limited consent.  For example, an employee might be worried about revealing information about past illnesses that are not relevant to their current condition.  The employer might, in these sorts of cases, agree to limit information to a certain time period or to confine reporting to the extent to which the employee is able to do their job.

Whilst it might be frustrating to have employees who won’t co-operate, being patient, making a number of attempts to obtain information and persuade the employee before making decisions in the absence of medical advice, and generally acting in a reasonable manner, is likely to put you in a favourable light.

Anna Denton-Jones
Refreshing Law