Hi all....I will try and keep this brief.
Further to the introduction of fit notes, my employer has decided that should a staff member work reduced hours under the fit note scheme, they will only be paid for the hours worked. They will not be paid sick pay for the hours they do not work.
An employee was told she could work 25 hours per week (usual contract 39 hours per week) on her fit note for a 10 week period. She came in, met with her manager and agreed a temporary reduction in hours and was told she would only be paid for the 25 hours p/w during this period. Her holiday entitlement was amended too. She was sent a letter confirming all of this.
After 1 week, she produced another fit note saying that she was not fit to work at all. The management at my orgnaisation have decided that the letter sent to her confirming her temporary hours is a contract change letter (although she didn't sign it and all other contract change letters are signed by employees).
The letter its self does contradict it's self because it says it's a change to her T&C's but it also says that her part-time hours are only temporary and will revert to full-time on the expiry of her current Statement of Fitness to Work which was for a 10 week period.
When the second fit note came into effect, does this mean the T&C's revert back to full time or does the temporary hours of work still remain her contracted hours until the end of the 10 week period?
The reason I ask, is because the management have said that they will only pay her 21 hours of sick pay per week until the end of the 10 week period and then she will go back onto full time sick pay - does this make sense?
We offer 6 months full pay for sickness. Eventually the staff are going to cotton-on that they are better off financially to stay off work for 6 months than even try and come back on a part time basis because they will only get paid for the hours they work or sick pay for the new hours if they can not cope.
I personally don't agree with this, but the management have made this decision regardless of my view.
Do you think this is acceptable? Does this put us in a difficult position under the DDA?
Thanks in advance
There should be no DDA isue if she is not disabled
Eventually staff will realise that the last thing they should get is a fit not with reduced hours
In relation to this particular employee, it only makes sense as a tough stance to save face.It would not survive a good grievance or an unlawful deduction from wages claim.
Thanks for coming back to me. The OH doctor says she is covered under the DDA.
thanks again - most appreciated.
© 2010 Reed Business Information Ltd.