Im not going to be in today, sorry. Cant even go into it

[samuel5]

I’ve just received this text message from an employee.

Can anyone advise me if I am allowed to request a proper reason or do I just put it down as a sick day without asking?

Thanks

Sam

 

[NicoJ]

Personally I would treat it as a sick day and discuss with the employee on their return.

You will no doubt have the right to enforce your terms of employment as to how the employee notifies you but I think trying to enforce this now would be counterintuitive in my view.

 

[Bob Morgan]

"Have recorded 1 Day Annual Leave - Let's discuss it tomorrow" No mention was made of Sickness in the message!

 

[fisicx]

Agree with @Bob Morgan. It’s annual leave not sickness.

And is a text an acceptable form of communication? A phone call is often the preferred method.

 

[Employment Law Clinic]

It’s not sick leave (no mention of being sick), but it’s not annual leave either (they haven’t followed procedures – normally requests should be made at least two days in advance), so put it down as an unauthorised absence, and don't pay them for the day.


When they next attend, speak to them informally (unless you already have disciplinary procedures ongoing with them), remind them that they are required to attend work every day, and if they cannot due to sickness, the procedure to notify you of this (which should always be a phone call), and the procedure for requesting annual leave; unless they offer a very good reason for their absence & the reason they could not call to explain this, the discussion will be nothing more than a slap on the wrist, a reminder of the rules, but you should keep a record for your purposes.


Next time they decide to adopt their own policies on attendance/absences, give them a first warning, and progress these from there – they will invariably do this again.



Karl Limpert

 

[simon field]

Never mind all that, it grinds my gears when people don’t use an
apostrophe in ‘Im’

I’d start a disciplinary for that alone!

Oh and tell them to stop acting like a teenager with the text messages.

 

[Deleted member 335660]

I’ve just received this text message from an employee.

Can anyone advise me if I am allowed to request a proper reason or do I just put it down as a sick day without asking?

Thanks

Sam

Hi Sam,

They are either very clever or stressed. It may be that something serious has happened that’s complicated or emotional and they find difficult to discuss.

If they are a good employee, just show some compassion and say keep me informed. You can sort sickens/leave later.

 

[Newchodge]

Don't assume anything Their partner/child may just have been diagnosed with a terminal illness, their budgie may have fallen off it's perch, they may not have the money to put fuel in their vehicle.

I would text back to acknowledge their text and ask if they can indicate when they are likely to be back.

When they return you need to meet with them on the first day back and establish what the issue actually is, and deal with it appropriately from there. If they couldn't find their truthbrush it is a day unpaid. if it is something dreadful it is special paid leave or annual leave.

 

[The Byre]

Never mind all that, it grinds my gears when people don’t use an
apostrophe in ‘Im’
I’d start a disciplinary for that alone!
Oh and tell them to stop acting like a teenager with the text messages.

1. Stop accepting texts.
2. Get them a copy of this book - that's what I did recently for someone who sent a message that was missing an apostrophe - https://www.amazon.co.uk/****ing-Apostrophes-Simon-Griffin/dp/1785781413

 

[MBE2017]

Normally I would want a telephone call, but the OP posted this at 6.02 am, not sure on his starting time so maybe the employee felt it inappropriate to call so early?

I would follow Newchodge’s advice above, find out the cause first.

Don’t forget, the BBC were warning of deaths due to the hot weather over the next couple of days, they could be in fear of their life.

 

[simon field]

Horsepoo!

Let’s be honest here it’s a classic hangover.

 

[Employment Law Clinic]

With several posts discussing annual leave, it begs the question why an employee would even bother with the formalities of Regulation 15, Working Time Regulations 1998 (giving notice of intention to take leave), if an employee can just send a text, announce they won’t be in.


Special leave is not too common with small employers, and if it is available, it’s entirely discretionary, granted following an application, not an announcement that the employee is not going to be in work.



It’s perfectly feasible that the employee has a hangover. It’s equally perfectly feasible that the employee has a good reason to have required the day off without notice. In the case of the latter though, it was the employee who elected not to provide a reason, and said they were not able to discuss the absence – if disciplinary procedures do now follow (as I recommend they should), the employee has brought on any complications with disciplinary action for being AWOL due to the nature of how they reported the absence & the lack of information therein.



I fear we forget who the subordinate in the relationship is. The employee took it upon themselves to announce they were not going to be at work – not a request, not a discussion, not even an explanation or the courtesy of a phone call, just the monologue of a text. As they have not called in sick, have not got annual leave booked, they’re currently AWOL, and should face informal disciplinary action for the same (which may identify a very good reason for not being able to call; not being able to explain the absence; not being able to request approval – this is what disciplinary procedures do: they identify issues that may or may not influence whether a sanction is imposed).



@samuel5 is perfectly within their rights to insist that in future (as is assumed or more in most employment contracts) notice of all absences must be preceded by a proper reason, and in most cases, a request for leave, not an announcement that the employee simply is not going to be in. And in this instance, to take disciplinary procedure.



Karl Limpert

 

[MBE2017]

I think a lot comes down to the employer employee relationship. If the employee has been good up to now, been there a decent time, I would be inclined to find out the reason on return and then decide how to proceed.

That’s just myself, each to their own way, but good employees are hard to find, and in special circumstances an employer might wish to cut a bit of slack. I found it works wonders regarding loyalty etc, but everyone is different.

 

[Employment Law Clinic]

and then decide how to proceed.

You don’t think that staff going AWOL should prompt formal action? Why bother having rules or policies at all, if the staff can just ignore them? Might as well just let the staff just chose their own days & hours, as they fancy.

(And it’s not the fault of the employer that they don’t already know any reasons for the absence – this too was a deliberate obstruction by the employee!)

Don’t forget, you can’t cherry-pick how or who to apply disciplinary policies – these should be applied equally to all staff, you can’t treat people differently due to a good/bad relationship, length of service, etc. Fairness to all is a necessary criteria in workplace policies, so if no formal action is taken in this instance, it’s potentially a free-for-all for all employees to take leave as & when they fancy it.

If they’ve been there for a decent time, have been good up to now, and this is just a blip, the whole thing will be forgotten about in a few days. However, if it’s not a blip, done properly there’ll be the foundation laid for further action in the future; and importantly, all staff will still be treated equally.

cut a bit of slack.

Apart from gently reminding employees that they really need to phone, and have a good reason for not being in work, so don’t just assume they can take days off again, how much more slack would you offer them? Perhaps you recommend paying them for bunking off?


Karl Limpert

 

[estwig]

Whilst I'm sure you're absolutely right Karl................

This reminds me of why, I've never had a job!

 

[samuel5]

Some really good advice, thanks all!

I spoke to him and turns out his mum is very sick, not sure why he did not just say that but anyway!

 

[IanSuth]

Reminds me, I once had an applicant not arrive for an interview, after a few days of not being able to contact him and calling him everything under the sun we had a call - from his hospital bed.

He had woken on the day of the interview in bad pain and being sick but decided he should attend. He pulled over beside the road dripping sweat and had to call an ambulance, he then passed out.

He was ringing us having just returned to reality following having his burst appendix removed

I promised myself not to assume again (i have failed several times however)

 

[MBE2017]

You don’t think that staff going AWOL should prompt formal action?


Karl Limpert

I would normally follow your advice, but having had a good employee in the past do something similar, then finding out later they had lost an unborn child, I try to find out the circumstances before coming down too hard.

Maybe I am just getting soft in my old age, everyone reacts differently to personal challenges.

 

[Employment Law Clinic]

I promised myself not to assume again (i have failed several times however)

You cite an example of someone who gave a full explanation at the first opportunity.


Why or how is that relevant or comparable to someone who pronounced their absence (by the monologue means of a text, not even a phone call), and stated they can’t say why? Your example had a good excuse, and importantly, provided that excuse at what was the first opportunity – not when he decided he wanted to offer a fuller explanation.

There was nothing to assume from the post above: the employee had announced their position in full, as far as they cared to explain at that time – which simply should not be tolerated, it ignores the status of the parties, the employer & the employee, the senior & the subordinate respectfully.

A simple disciplinary process would have a record of a gentle reminder on the file of proper procedures, a document that could be lost in history in no time if this is a good employee. But unless they’re formally told anything, they can just keep getting away with it.


Karl Limpert

 

[Employment Law Clinic]

I try to find out the circumstances before coming down too hard.

What bit of talking to an employee, asking formally why they weren't in contact, is coming down hard at all?

I'm not talking about lots of letters, lots of people meeting, not even companions; just a formal word (something documented by the employer - the employee barely needs to understand what's happened) until you have a good reason (such as a miscarriage), and the employee is reminded what to do in many instances, and in some, simply comforted.


Karl Limpert

 

[MBE2017]

Each to their own Karl.

I can assure you I have no problem talking to anyone about anything, I just prefer to get the lay of the land and then decide if I feel anything formal needs to be done.

You can lose plenty of good employees accidentally by such actions, having listened to how many feel under appreciated and treated like two year olds at school, rather than grown ups. I prefer to keep good staff rather than be constantly churning over people, costing a fortune in training and recruitment, often to find the new people have problems in their lives as well.

I was once asked at an interview for a managers job what would I do if I got a phone call informing myself one of my young daughters had been seriously hurt and was being rushed to hospital. I replied I would tell the deputy manager to take over, and ring my boss on the way to the hospital.

They laughed and replied, ring us for permission to go you mean? I answered No, on the way, and if they were going to be the kind of company to insist on not trusting my judgement in putting my family first, they had the wrong guy in the interview, cause there was no way I would not go, permission or not.

 

[DontAsk]

I would normally follow your advice, but having had a good employee in the past do something similar, then finding out later they had lost an unborn child, I try to find out the circumstances before coming down too hard.

Going through the (formal) procedure, even if you do it initially in an informal manner is how you determine the circumstances.

 

[Employment Law Clinic]

Going through the (formal) procedure, even if you do it initially in an informal manner is how you determine the circumstances.

This ^^^ all the way!

I get the idea that someone has a miscarriage (or a burst appendix) and they practically can’t get in touch.

What I don’t get is why a parent being very unwell is a reason to assume one can take the day off, yet not even have to bother explaining their absence at the time – they can get in touch, but don’t explain the reasons.

(I hope Kayden doesn't read this thread - he would be horrified, as he had to go to school every day recently, despite me being in intensive care.)

What harm (or “going in hard”) is there in telling an employee that in future they have to call, and they have to provide a good reason for random no-notice absences? (There may be times that it’s documented the employer took no action at all, such as when someone burst their appendix, or lost their unborn, but that record will then at least be there to demonstrate fairness when you take firmer/harder action against a different employee, who didn’t have a good excuse for their absence.)


You’re simply talking to an employee, getting a full understanding of what was behind their absence, and exercising discretion at that time as to whether you say anything about more meaningful communications in future (perhaps a mother being unwell is not a good reason not to report their absence clearly at the start of the day, while a miscarriage would be); in all instances, you keep a management record of the conversation, but you can still be a very gentle, considerate, employer – nothing I have suggested above could reasonably be described as “going in hard”, it’s just ticking the boxes/completing the formalities that many have wished they had a record of after the event, but not "going in hard" (or keeping a record at all) means that sometimes things don't look fair.


Karl Limpert

 

[Employment Law Clinic]

You can lose plenty of good employees accidentally by such actions, having listened to how many feel under appreciated and treated like two year olds at school, rather than grown ups. I prefer to keep good staff rather than be constantly churning over people, costing a fortune in training and recruitment, often to find the new people have problems in their lives as well.

How can you lose so many employees for keeping a record of a chat? How do they even know about it? Are they all making a subject access request, discovering that you kept a note that said “I spoke to Ms X after she didn’t turn up for work, and given she was in a car accident, no further action was taken."


You don't have to speak down to them, speak to them like two year olds - you're just seeking explanations, and if necessary, reminding them of the correct procedures, and sometimes, who is the boss!


Formal action is not necessarily sanctioning someone, not necessarily issuing a formal warning or other sanction. But as a minimum, if you don’t keep records of the cases where no further action is taken, on those occasions you do take action, you have nothing comparable as a record. You won’t lose employees from that lack of records, but you will lose employment tribunals!


Karl Limpert

 

[Employment Law Clinic]

Let me give an explanation as to why I believe it’s always important to “go in heavy”, “formal”, “keep a record” or whatever else you want to describe as keeping a record of every chat, even the ones that lead to nothing.

@simon field called the position out at https://www.ukbusinessforums.co.uk/...rry-cant-even-go-into-it.418935/#post-3150239 – the guy had a hangover, had too much to drink in the warm weather, was feeling worse for wear.

@MBE2017 called the position out at https://www.ukbusinessforums.co.uk/...rry-cant-even-go-into-it.418935/#post-3150335 – something much more serious had happened (in this thread, the employee’s mother being very unwell; in MBE’s scenario, a miscarriage – which is even more reasonable an excuse to be absent than the excuse in this case).

To quote MBE further, they made a very fair point at https://www.ukbusinessforums.co.uk/...rry-cant-even-go-into-it.418935/#post-3150341

I was once asked at an interview for a managers job what would I do if I got a phone call informing myself one of my young daughters had been seriously hurt and was being rushed to hospital. I replied I would tell the deputy manager to take over, and ring my boss on the way to the hospital.

They laughed and replied, ring us for permission to go you mean? I answered No, on the way, and if they were going to be the kind of company to insist on not trusting my judgement in putting my family first, they had the wrong guy in the interview, cause there was no way I would not go, permission or not.

MBE’s view is entirely reasonable, entirely proper, and if the employer expects someone to pause, seek permission before doing anything, most of us would say they’re not being reasonable.



Now here’s the rub: that pesky word “reasonable” creeps into everything in employment law (actually most laws), and it’s subjective.

It’s also the basis of judgments of many laws – “was it, or was it not, reasonable?”– a judgement left typically to judges, at least in civil cases, such as employment matters.

So let’s take some examples from this thread, but fiddle with a few details, just for this scenario:


@simon field was on the money, this employee was simply hungover, couldn’t face trying to talk on the phone, let alone work.

Whatever history (or perhaps none) this employee had, they were taking the p!ss today, so they got sacked.

They don’t think that was fair, and they use their entirely free roll of the dice of taking their chances at an employment tribunal.

At that employment tribunal, the case will be determined typically by a single employment judge.

The employment judge won’t usurp the position of the employer, but trying to understand the employer, they will then reach a conclusion: were the actions of the employer (in this example, of the hungover employee, being sacked) within the range of reasonable responses.

This test is the key one, and it’s typically weighed up by two main factors: the legal one: what the typical employer may do; and the subjective one: what are the standards/ranges of this employer (if these are higher (or perhaps lower) than the norm, if they are still reasonable, they will be the range on which the employment judge will reach their conclusion.

(If the employee was a civil servant, some would say the threshold for dismissal would be much higher than for a small employer; nothing wrong with the small employer’s policies, just the lenience that is often afforded in the civil service.)

( “may” is subjective too. These are the standards that employment law is tested against – all subjective criteria, facts that will typically be decided by one single judge, and very rarely something that can be interfered with – appeals don’t typically address the facts concluded by the employment judge, only how they apply the facts that single judge concluded to the laws.)

Returning to this scenario of hungover employee, the chap who was sacked…

They simply sent a text to say they wouldn’t be in today, couldn’t go into it. Their unfair dismissal case is based on the fact that other people have done similar in the past, and they heard nothing happened to them; just not fair that they’ve been sacked when they heard others that took time off with no notice didn’t have any issues …

Remember, the criteria the judge is applying is “was this within the range of reasonable responses” (it’s perhaps harsh to dismiss, but could arguably meet that criteria), and “was this within the range of reasonable responses”, when considering the wider policies & attitudes of this employer.

If the dismissed employee can cite the example of the colleague who was in a car accident on the way to work, managed to take the whole day off without explanation at the time (the dismissed employee doesn’t know the reasons for the absence); the colleague who was off for two weeks without anyone knowing what they were off for (but no leave booked on the shared calendar, and apparently they were seen out & about, so weren’t sick – unknown to dismissed employee they had miscarried); yet this employee was sacked, it seems the range of reasonable responses is being stretched in the case of dismissed employee – others can do it, so why can’t they?


Of course, the manager will get to the witness stand, explain why there was a difference of treatment in the case of the employee who was in a car crash; and the employee who had a miscarriage; why their unannounced absences from work were not challenged, but dismissed-employee was.


… and the employer will be invited to confirm that the other two employees took time off work with little or no notice, and they weren’t sacked, yet more harsh treatment was applied to this dismissed employee


… and then the employer will be invited to point to the records within the bundle that document when they decided not to proceed with formal action in the other cases, given the reasons why…


… and there will be nothing in the bundle, not even redacted, as no-one thought to take a formal record, they didn't want to "go in heavy" by keeping a record.



Any good employer will have some formal (heavy) records, of all employees (even a post-it note that says Y was 30 mins late on 30/6, and Z seems to take a lot of time making a hot drink) and that will be held up to demonstrate that records are kept, and therefore records should have been kept in the above cases, if their absences were genuine, and therefore this is an example of the employer not being reasonable – claimant’s claims succeeds.



Karl Limpert

 

[Lucan Unlordly]

Some really good advice, thanks all!

I spoke to him and turns out his mum is very sick, not sure why he did not just say that but anyway!

Because it exposes him to further questions and people - as Employment Law Clinic below - jumping to conclusions that the sickness can be passed off as simply being unwell and not worthy of a day off.

What I don’t get is why a parent being very unwell is a reason to assume one can take the day off, yet not even have to bother explaining their absence at the time – they can get in touch, but don’t explain the reasons.

Some years ago a friends mother heard the blood curdling screams of an assailant butchering a pregnant woman and was, whilst in a state of shock, being interviewed by the Police the following morning. Her son took the day off of work to support her. How should he have explained the importance of his absence?

 

[Employment Law Clinic]

Because it exposes him to further questions and people - as Employment Law Clinic below - jumping to conclusions that the sickness can be passed off as simply being unwell and not worthy of a day off.

Please Unlordly, have the decency to reference just once where I jumped to a single conclusion. Or retract your silly allegations.

Some years ago a friends mother heard the blood curdling screams of an assailant butchering a pregnant woman and was, whilst in a state of shock, being interviewed by the Police the following morning. Her son took the day off of work to support her. How should he have explained the importance of his absence?

The most sensible explanation would have been a honest explanation, a ghastly detail recorded by the employer so that they have more than a reasonable excuse to demonstrate why lenience was exercised on that occasion, a useful record if they don't exercise lenience in another similar case.

Karl Limpert

 

[Employment Law Clinic]

What some have to appreciate (and I include you @Lucan Unlordly in this) is that the employee, the subordinate in the employment relationship, made the deliberate choice to text to say “they’re not going to be in today, can’t go into it”.

They could just as easily have said “family issue, someone’s very unwell, I need to be with them today – I can’t make it into work; I’ll call later, when I can” or something similar.

The employee took the position of authority, announced they were not going to be in, with no explanation: there were no conclusions or assumptions reached by me on the reading of the message, as presented: the employee had simply announced they would not be in work, with no explanation, which in HR terms is AWOL.


If you don’t like facts & how the practice of employment law is applied in practice, that’s fine, but I only confer my views, based on experience of how easily these little things can inadvertently cause much bigger complications down the road.


Karl Limpert

 

[Bob Morgan]

Of course, there are also instances where the joke can wear a little thin . . . .
An Employee used the same excuse whenever he was absent from work - "Because my father is in Hospital!" Eventually, the Employer made some discrete enquiries, and visited the father . . . . Only to find that he was a Doctor!

 

[MBE2017]

I bow to your knowledge Karl and do not dispute it.

Thankfully I have never had many problems over the years, I tended to go in incredibly hard in my youth, as I have aged with a softer approach. Maybe I did not explain myself well, but there you go, 40 degree c and probably too many southern comforts.

I agree procedures should be followed and advise everyone else not to drink southern comfort before considering your responses.

 

[Lucan Unlordly]

The most sensible explanation would have been a honest explanation, a ghastly detail recorded by the employer so that they have more than a reasonable excuse to demonstrate why lenience was exercised on that occasion, a useful record if they don't exercise lenience in another similar case.

The grizzly details of the murders that took place that night would shock the most hardened of us to our boots. Thinking straight, worrying about informing one's employer, wouldn't be high on the Menu when the Police are sitting in your front room and a multiple murderer is on the loose.

Please Unlordly, have the decency to reference just once where I jumped to a single conclusion. Or retract your silly allegations.

I already did? You assumed that as it was the parent who was unwell - to what level we don't know - and that the staff member was in a fit and coherent state to enhance the message, wasn't themselves suffering from a panic attack, had enough charge on their phone, wasn't answering the door to medical services etc.,

I'm not disagreeing that a more detailed response wouldn't have been better. I disagree that with the notion that it's always possible and always essential. When my missus calls me to say she'll be home late from work and says 'gotta go, will tell you later', I think it quite normal

 

[anon328307]

You’re simply talking to an employee

This is what is wrong with so many employers.

You are actually talking to a human being, a person with feelings, emotions - much like yourself perhaps - someone who may have had some devastating news, someone who is putting family first (which is a priority in ALL cases), or maybe someone who simply can't cope on that particular day.

If employers stopped talking to employees as employees in the first instance, and spoke to them as equals, as people, what a better place the world would be. Kindness, understanding and compassion go a long way.

Treat people as a 'resource' if and when all other methods fail.

 

[anon328307]

What some have to appreciate (and I include you @Lucan Unlordly in this) is that the employee, the subordinate in the employment relationship, made the deliberate choice to text to say “they’re not going to be in today, can’t go into it”.

They could just as easily have said “family issue, someone’s very unwell, I need to be with them today – I can’t make it into work; I’ll call later, when I can” or something similar.

The employee took the position of authority, announced they were not going to be in, with no explanation: there were no conclusions or assumptions reached by me on the reading of the message, as presented: the employee had simply announced they would not be in work, with no explanation, which in HR terms is AWOL.


If you don’t like facts & how the practice of employment law is applied in practice, that’s fine, but I only confer my views, based on experience of how easily these little things can inadvertently cause much bigger complications down the road.


Karl Limpert

As a former employer myself, initially I would be very concerned for my employee's welfare if they sent me a message such as the OP received, more than I ever would employment law. The latter could be dealt with when the facts were known. Right now, the employee has declared they aren't going to be in work and declined to say why for whatever reason.

However, I do see your POV, simply because HR departments are rarely staffed by anyone who actually cares about employee welfare. For me, the very term "human resources" conjures up images of Matrix like breeding vats where humans are grown to replace anyone who fails to meet inhuman expectations.

 

[Newchodge]

As a former employer myself, initially I would be very concerned for my employee's welfare if they sent me a message such as the OP received, more than I ever would employment law. The latter could be dealt with when the facts were known. Right now, the employee has declared they aren't going to be in work and declined to say why for whatever reason.

However, I do see your POV, simply because HR departments are rarely staffed by anyone who actually cares about employee welfare. For me, the very term "human resources" conjures up images of Matrix like breeding vats where humans are grown to replace anyone who fails to meet inhuman expectations.

I don't think there is any need to be offensive, is there?

 

[anon328307]

I don't think there is any need to be offensive, is there?

Offensive? Hardly. 'HR' is there for management, and compliance. The 'human' element rarely exists. And the image that is conjured up in respect of the "human resources" term, is not aimed at the profession, per se. I much prefer the 'old fashioned' and more appropriately named, "Personnel".

 

[Bob Morgan]

The 'Human Remains Department' - The gift that keeps on giving!

 

[anon328307]

The employee took the position of authority...

Another infuriating point.

Since when do employers have any legal "authority" over employees, aside from the social misconception of such? Contracts are two way - and should be fair and equal. No one party has any 'authority' over another. The employee agrees to carry out the work as stipulated in the contract for which the employer agrees to pay them.

An employee merely needs to notify an employer they are not attending work; they aren't even obligated to say why, should, for example, the reason be a sensitive one. The employer can ask, but the employee doesn't have to give complete details. It is up to the employer to ask for details. The employee notified the employer they weren't coming to work and "can't even go into it" which very clearly demonstrates something has occurred preventing them from attending work.

It should also be noted that no contract can ever overrule Statute or Act either.