Change to employment contract by supplementary policy

[ViperDave]

Hi all as the title says really but a little more info.

Employee has an employment contract that states sick leave is paid 100% salary for 6 months before moving onto 2/3 pay long term and then insurance. However it also says Sick leave is subject to the corporate sick leave policy.

Now at the time of signing the contract the corporate sick leave policy was entirely a procedural document dealing with such things as phoning in, sick notes, return to work interviews etc.

Subsequent to the passage of years and takeovers the corporate sick policy has morphed into something that includes a term that short term sick pay is limited to 20 days in any rolling 12 months, 100% pay for those 20 days but then nothing, unless after 4 weeks continuous sick it goes to long term sick and back to 100% for three months before dropping to 2/3 then the insurance policy.

Now quite apart from the pros and cons of such a policy and how one may get caught up in it with a long term illness, the real question is that it appears to be a significant change to the compensation package of the employee that has been effected by means of changing/adding to a supplemental policy document rather than a change to the contract terms and conditions with employees agreement.

So what are the thoughts, can they do that?

[parabolica]

T&Cs state what someone is entitled to, policies state how specific rules are applied. It would be the same thing for other T&Cs like car allowance, bonus payments, pension etc.

The policy will be geared towards the more common occurrence of people taking a spate of sick days off rather than one long continuous absence which, whilst it does happen, is relatively rare compared to the number of people taking multiple short-term absences. The policy therefore has to accommodate both of these demographics whilst also protecting the Company against things like unacceptable levels of sickness absence without justification (which is where the whole 20 days in a 12 month period comes from).

[ViperDave]

The actual contract wording is as follows, (sorry my mistake on the 6 months 100%, its three)

contract said:

With effect from transfer you will be entitled to the company sick pay scheme, subject to the terms of the xxxx sick leave policy.

Under the xxxx scheme, the first three months of absence are paid at 100% of basic pay, then 2/3rds pay for a further 9 months, after which time you will be eligible for income protection/permanent health insurance provided by yyyy at a rate 2/3rds pay................a bit more stuff about PHI....

I'd have thought they could introduce into the company sick leave policy requirements after 20 days of short term absence for investigation or even disciplinary action, but not deduction from pay as that would go against the three months 100% pay in the contract. (its also worth noting the company has lots of different contracts depending on how or when someone joined)

A bit more background is the employee in question has been suffering a deteriorating illness for 18+ months, 12 of which were under the care of various consultants, It had manifested itself as flareups resulting in short term sick up until an emergency hospital admission, surgery and 8 week recovery, so not swinging the lead by any means, but the build up period exceeded the 20days.

[Jasandjules]

So you consider that there is a PCP in place which is discriminatory?

[ViperDave]

Jasandjules said:

So you consider that there is a PCP in place which is discriminatory?

If I'm understanding PCP correctly not so much at the moment (but maybe )although the company has acknowledged there are issues surrounding genuine short term absence as a result of long term illness, but at the moment the main concern is the validity of the change to compensation package that has been implemented by additional wording to the policy such that they can stop pay.

There may be other methods of redress if the policy clause is valid with the contract, but would rather not accept the policy clause than have to get an exception granted.