Posted By Kevin Eves I work in warehousing and distribution in a chilled environment that is 80% manual handling and 20% MHE. I am not a safety professional more a safety enthusiast I do hold nebosh cert and am a registered flt instructor. I am after opinions on a recent policy that has been adopted; I have my own opinions and want to see if I am way off track or am in line with others. These opinions may be health and safety related or not. If an employee is sick at work or at home through accident or just ill health on return to work he is given a return to work interview. If he has another period of sickness (a period can be a day or multiples of days) he is given a return to work interview and then a verbal warning. With the verbal goes a six month period in which if you go sick again you may receive a written warning or further disciplinary action. There is no communication with your gp, no occupational health or company doctor brought in. On questioning I was told the Company do not care why you were sick you get a warning. Naturally there are a number of employees who are a little disheartened by this approach and after 20 years in warehousing I have never come across this method of sickness control before. Hoping for any opinions for or against a system of this type.

Posted By Jasonjg There are many variations to this type of policy and with other policies, word gets out, people briefly read the theory and then try and duplicate it into their organisations. Some do it well and some do it bad. I am a bit of a rebel at heart and usually detest these kinds of policies. I have however managed to see a similar one put me straight. I have worked in all sorts of roles and decided to try my hand at a call centre for a reputable company who at first glimpse of the contract sounded very similar to yours. Feeling very wary of the company from day one, I gave it a shot. Anyway to cut the long story short, I had an op after already having two days off due to a cold or just a lazy day. On return to work I thought I was in for the Chop but to my surprise, the company dealt with it very well. Sent me to occupational nurse who recommended I stayed of for a further number of days. She wrote report explaining that my problem was in fact very common in that line of work etc and I also got a better seat upon return to work. Very well handled. The point is, that without a reputable Occupational health department to fall back on for assistance, these policies are, in my opinion, very dogmatic to individuals. As everyone well knows, different occupations carry different ailments that can cause time of work. E.g. Manual handling causes the occasional muscular strain despite best training and methods. I could still work in a call centre with a muscular strain but would need a day off in a warehouse. Without good knowledge these things fail in the long run. Please do not say its just common sence folks, because then I would see you have been doing safety for too long and got out of touch with the real world. Sorry to hear you are getting a bad run from it and I hope you manage to make your company see sence.

Posted By Chris Black This seems more an HR and employment law issue than it is health and safety. On the face of it, this is a bad policy especially in respect of workers rights. the company will know that they will elose at a tribunal just about every time they are challenged but probably dont care since they don't expect to be challenged too often. i would guess that your colleagues are on minimum wage, mostly young, many on short term contracts and relatively low skill base, i would also hazard a guess that there are many foreign workers and some students. In otherwords the groups most likely to accept things and move on to the next similar job if things get nasty and the least likely to bring a tribunal case. What do the company get from this? maximum attendance levels, for a period at least, and a transient workforce that changes rapidly. That way they get company pension contributions back when people leave and pay out the minimum in holiday pay. Also, they avoid the responsibility for chronic health issues. I have been in this position in the past in companies who were formerly good employers but who were preparing to run the business down. To be honest the signs are not good and I would be concerned if my employer adopted a similar policy.

Posted By DavidHaddon The formula you refer to may be "the Bradford Factor".

Posted By Lilian McCartney My last employer had a similar policy to prevent/reduce the Monday and Friday sickies. I feel it backfired on them and has only resulted in genuine sick people coming into work. Their policy was similar except that if there was an underlying cause then you were referred to Occ. Health. If there wasn't you were 'on report' and then disciplined. I have asthma and if I catch cold I have to be careful that it doesn't trigger my asthma. My sickness absence was 1 day (when I went out and didn't expect smoke machines and hadn't taken enough inhaler - so was off work next day), weeks later 1.5 days as result of a cold getting into my chest and the third time 1 day weeks later similar (over 5 month period). If I hadn't taken those individual days I'd probably have had an astham attack and been off for several days. I was referred to Occ health and the Dr wasn't amused that someone with a chronic condition would be referred for so little absence (asthma not recognised as part of DDA). Dr duly sent report saying that I managed my asthma extermely well and prevented myself from having attacks, Manager warned me not to be off again. In case you're wondering this wasn't a poor condition employer it was a local authority. I saw people lying on floors with extreme back pain cos they didn't want to get disciplined for being off. As Health and Safety I sent them home. So even if its an HR/personnel 'thing' we, as H&S Advisers, should be making sure they realise the stress that their policy has caused and is still causing to those genuinely sick and think of something else for the skivvers.