Acceptable redundancy criterion - time off sick

[Max Turbo]

Hello all,

Like many companies, the one I work for is shedding staff. Approximately 60% in fact, in a SME of circa 100 staff.

Today, we were told that there are going to be 4 criteria for deciding who is going and who is staying. These are performance, skill, attendance (sick time) and how long youve been there.

I can understand 3 of them no problem, but is it even legal to take into account sick time?

Any thoughts and legal info much appreciated

Max

[tubbystu]

Isn't redundancy supposed to be about the position and ability and not the person ? I know in reality it is different but the company is treading on thin ice advertising the criteria surely ? Unfair dismissal claims etc ?

[2 sMoKiN bArReLs]

Being transparent about the criteria is important to avoid tribunals.

Not sure whether time of sick could be construed as discrimination, depends on the circumstances I guess. (odd sickies rather than a debilitating disease).

[Wyvern971]

I have been told attendance could be timekeeping too (was an employee rep during consultation period).

Rgds,
Office_monkey (on brother's PC)

[Jasandjules]

If anyone has had time off as a result of a disability then the company will have to exclude that from consideration, or be in a Tribunal rather fast. And lose.

Apart from that no, I believe that time off due to sickness which is not disability related is an acceptable criterion to apply in these situations, and a company advertising the four reasons they will use for scoring is being open, and that is likely to be the result of a lawyer's advice to avoid any Tribunal claims.

[gopher]

tubbystu said:

Isn't redundancy supposed to be about the position and ability and not the person ? I know in reality it is different but the company is treading on thin ice advertising the criteria surely ? Unfair dismissal claims etc ?

I'm sure - or certainly used to be. It's the position that is redundant it has nothing to do with the person currently assigned to that job. If a number of people are deemed suitable for a remaining position then it can be okay for those people to be interviewed for the remaining position and the most suitable candidate retained, as long as the selection criteria does not break any existing discriminatory laws (thinking disability here with Re OP's question).

[mondeoman]

1 job, two applicants, all else being equal, would you really employ the one who takes every other Monday off as a sickie?

Disability doesn't figure in attendance, if you're ill a lot you're not the right person for the job, and being ill doesn't make you disabled.

[Jasandjules]

mondeoman said:

Disability doesn't figure in attendance, if you're ill a lot you're not the right person for the job, and being ill doesn't make you disabled.

I think you''ll find that depends on the condition. Think of someone with cancer, now deemed a disability on disagnosis under the DDA. And they will need time off for treatment.

I do hope you're either not an employer or that you have good insurance.;)

[mondeoman]

Jasandjules said:

mondeoman said:

Disability doesn't figure in attendance, if you're ill a lot you're not the right person for the job, and being ill doesn't make you disabled.

I think you''ll find that depends on the condition. Think of someone with cancer, now deemed a disability on disagnosis under the DDA. And they will need time off for treatment.

I do hope you're either not an employer or that you have good insurance.;)

I was going to put in a caveat about some illnesses counting, but in general my comments still stand

And yes, I am an employer

[Max Turbo]

mondeoman said:

1 job, two applicants, all else being equal, would you really employ the one who takes every other Monday off as a sickie?

Disability doesn't figure in attendance, if you're ill a lot you're not the right person for the job, and being ill doesn't make you disabled.

I quite agree. I know in reality that, as an employer, you would choose the person who spends less time off sick, but reality and employment law do not always follow the same path.

For clarification, this isn't pertinent to me specifically. I have taken maybe 4 days off sick in the past 14 months of being there, below average for my department.

Was just interested in seeing if this was within the confines of employment law

[eccles]

I was made redundant a few years ago after being off for nearly 6 months with tennis elbow.
I think with hindsight I could have fought, and won against the decision, but I was so miffed at the time I just wanted out of there (after 16 years!).
During previous rounds of redundancies, attendance, including sick record was used as a criteria.

[Muncher]

Yes it can be a criteria, my employer as a global law firm is including it as one of the criteria, as is another firm I know.

[ewenm]

If you're off sick a lot and the company copes without you around and without replacing you, isn't that the definition of redundancy? - your job is not required. Of course, if they had to employ someone else to cover your work (rather than just spreading the work round the rest of the team) then your job isn't redundant.

[pugwash4x4]

why shouldn't it be a criteria of redundancy?

honestly i really don't understand why this could even be considered unfair. please explain!

[Saag Aloo]

What about major depression?

[Big Al.]

eccles said:

I was made redundant a few years ago after being off for nearly 6 months with tennis elbow.
I think with hindsight I could have fought, and won against the decision, but I was so miffed at the time I just wanted out of there (after 16 years!).
During previous rounds of redundancies, attendance, including sick record was used as a criteria.

It certainly came in the equation when I was first made redundant back in the late 80's after an 18 years continuous employment. IIRC during those 18 years I had two days sick! However 1 month before a large planned redundancy took place. I had taken one month off convalescence after a heart attack. That month was taken into account as part of the redundancy selection criteria.

Not sure these days.

[gopher]

pugwash4x4 said:

why shouldn't it be a criteria of redundancy?

honestly i really don't understand why this could even be considered unfair. please explain!

The job is redundant not the person.

If the job is not redundant then neither is the person.

There are legitimate ways of getting shot of an employee that is sick too much but redundancy is not one of them because redundancy is about the position not the person.

[siscar]

As others have said attendance is a perfectly valid way of doing it, so long as it is not related to disability.

[BMWBen]

mondeoman said:

Jasandjules said:

mondeoman said:

Disability doesn't figure in attendance, if you're ill a lot you're not the right person for the job, and being ill doesn't make you disabled.

I think you''ll find that depends on the condition. Think of someone with cancer, now deemed a disability on disagnosis under the DDA. And they will need time off for treatment.

I do hope you're either not an employer or that you have good insurance.;)

I was going to put in a caveat about some illnesses counting, but in general my comments still stand

And yes, I am an employer

Hmmm. You know that "disability" isn't just about wheelchair basketball right?

[pikeyboy]

I used to work at rolls royce aerospace, they use a matrix to asses each person taking in to account past perfromance over the last two years, length of service and attaendance ie time off sick (although one day or one consecutive month equals one instance) all the scores are totted up reviewed by two seperate managers and HR before you get the sorry we've got to let you go meeting.