In this month's webinar with the HR Suite, Caroline Reidy, Managing Director joins Rolanda Markey from the Legal Island Knowledge Team to discuss issues of absence management in line with the introduction of Statutory Sick Pay from January 2023. 

Carolie and Rolanda answer and discuss questions from listeners on the topic of absence management in line with the introduction of Statutory Sick Pay from January 2023. 

 Lgal Island webinars are sponsored by MCS Recruitment. For more details on MCS and the services they can provide, please visit www.mcsgroup.com

To view the webinar recording remember you must be signed into you Legal Island Employment Law Hub subscription.

Watch the recording

Transcript:

Rolanda:  Good morning, everyone, and welcome to your webinar with me, Rolanda Markey from Legal-Island, and Caroline Reidy, the Managing Director of The HR Suite.

Legal-Island's webinars and podcasts are sponsored by MCS. MCS help people find careers that match their skill sets perfectly, as well as supporting employers to build high-performing businesses by connecting them with the most talented candidates in the market. If you're interested in finding out how MCS can help you, then head over to www.mcsgroups.jobs.

Now, if you're new to our webinars, then you're more than welcome. Let me tell you just a wee bit about Caroline, first of all, who is our speaker for today.

Caroline is a past member of the Low Pay Commission, and she's also an adjudicator in the Workplace Relations Commission. She has completed a Master's in Human Resources through the University of Limerick. She is CIPD accredited, as well as being a trained mediator.

And Caroline has worked across various areas of human resources for over 20 years, including in the Kerry Group and in the retail and hospitality sector, where she was the operations and HR director of the Garvey Group prior to setting up The HR Suite in 2009.

Caroline speaks widely and writes articles on papers on thought leadership in relation to the future landscape of HR and the challenges and opportunities that that presents for employers and employees.

Caroline is also a regular speaker at the Legal-Island Annual Review of Employment Law in November each year, and the confirmed dates for this year's event are 30 November and 1 December. And this year, Caroline will be talking about the codes of practice for bullying and harassment and the kind of crossover and the similarities with those two.

Caroline, do you want to add anything to your Annual Review session description there?

Caroline:  No. Good morning, everybody. Delighted so many of you have taken the time to join. I suppose I picked that topic because we are having so many queries in relation to, first of all, the new requirements and also the challenges in relation to the new code of practice and what it means. Obviously, we've a new code of practice in relation to bullying and we've a new code of practice in relation to harassment. So I think it's a very topical one. I think a lot of people will get a lot of value out of it, and the fact we're focussing on the nuances and the challenges is always good.

So I hope many of you will join our session, and as you know from any of these webinars, we try and make it really practical and value-add as well.

Rolanda:  Thank you, Caroline. So in this month's webinar, then, what we're going to look at are absence issues arising in line with the introduction of the Statutory Sick Pay scheme from January 2023. Caroline will summarise the new changes at the start and then deal with issues in relation to absence that could arise as a result of this.

Remember, if you have any questions for Caroline, then please pop them into the question box. Thanks very much.

Caroline, just over to you.

Caroline:  Huge thanks, Rolanda. Always lovely to be here, and always delighted to be speaking at these events. Rolanda, in fairness, and her team make it so easy and straightforward. And I think we're all looking forward to the Annual Review also.

So today I'm going to take you through the new Statutory Sick Pay. And particularly, I'm going to take you through kind of the challenges and the opportunities.

Usually, once the topic goes up, people have the opportunity to come back to Rolanda with questions, and it's fair to say that this has been an overwhelming response to questions in relation to this new piece of legislation due to all the queries that it presents for many organisations.

So just to give you a little bit of backdrop first of all, and as always, then, we'll take your questions at the end. So make sure you take advantage of that opportunity.

So I suppose this came about particularly due to COVID where people were feeling the need to come to work even though they weren't feeling 100% because they had an issue associated with not being paid.

And as you know, the current social welfare in relation to illness benefit means that you don't get paid for the first three days of absence, and then social welfare kicks in after that. So ultimately this Sick Pay bill came about as a result of that.

And this is a new right where I suppose it means now that initially in 2023, the employees will get three days' paid sick pay per year, the full cost of which is covered by the employer. And we'll talk about the rates, etc., in a sec.

But that's rising to five days in Year 2, seven days in Year 3, and eventually 10 days in Year 4. And that's obviously subject to ministerial change, but that's the proposal at the moment.

So the amount is a rate of 70% of the employee's wages, up to a daily maximum of €110. And again, that can be revised by ministerial order in line with inflation and changing incomes. But as of 2023, it's 70% of an employee's wage up to maximum of €110.

Also, it's necessary that all employees must obtain a medical cert to avail of it, and they must have 13 weeks worked at minimum with their employer. And once they've got their entitlement from their employer and if they need to take more time off, they may qualify for illness benefit from the Department of Social Protection, subject to their PRSI contributions, which is that illness benefit that I mentioned.

I suppose the key element of this is that this entitlement starts with everybody who has 13 weeks' service, and many employers don't have a sick pay scheme that starts until after the employee has reached a certain specific period of time. So that's an important point to note, because if your sick pay scheme that you currently . . .

So, first of all, some of you may have no sick pay scheme, and if you've no sick pay scheme, this is the only scheme that is in place. And your obligation is to have a policy in relation to this and also to notify employees that this scheme exists. That's one of the requirements of the proposed bill.

So once you do that, the employee knows of their obligation in terms of having the cert, etc. So if the employee is out for one individual day or three consecutive days, they need to have the cert for each individual day or for the three consecutive days.

And that was one of the critiques, obviously, in association with the fact of the cost of somebody getting the certification from their GP versus the benefit that they were receiving in terms of the 70% or €110.

So that's the key to it. Obviously, you can waiver anything yourself. So as an employer, you may decide that you're not going to request the cert and you're still going to pay the sick pay. That's always your option.

Once you meet the statutory requirements, you can do anything more to enhance that. But you must meet the statutory minimum.

The second important point to note is that for all sick pay schemes that are in place, this needs to be complementary to that. So, for example, if you have a sick pay scheme at the moment that says, "You need 6 months' service or 12 months' service to be entitled to the company's sick pay scheme", that's perfectly fine. You can have separate entry requirements for that new scheme, but you have to still put in this statutory minimum at the start of the sick pay scheme.

So really important that you are very clear in relation to the employee's obligation in relation to both the statutory and to your own sick pay.

What is happening for a lot of clients is they're revising their own absence policy, and they're revising their own sick pay terms to complement this scheme.

 Obviously, for employees that are currently employed, the benefits that they enjoy currently, should they need to be changed, will need to be done so with their agreement, because sick pay is a specific term and condition and it's a benefit that they enjoy.

But it's important that you look at how you're managing absence and, again, things like, "Who should the employee contact if they're absent? Is a text acceptable? At what time should they call? Do they need to provide a cert after X many days, etc.?" So consider all of your requirements in line with both this Statutory Sick Pay and potentially any other sick pay scheme that you have in place.

Also, consider when you're drafting your policy now that the entitlement is going to increase. So for many employers, they're saying, "Well, for three days, I don't mind wavering, for example, the right to bring a cert". But when it goes to 5 days or 10 days, your requirement may change.

So make sure that anything you're putting in place is very reflective of what . . . You're not setting, for example, a new custom and practice that you're going to be sorry in relation to setting when the terms change. So just keep in mind the longevity of that and keep in mind the basics around that as well.

Other key queries that have been coming in, in relation to this sick pay, are in relation to the waiting period. So, ultimately, when somebody gets their three days, they need to then wait for whatever amount of time until they're entitled to your sick pay scheme. So it's important that you are clear in relation to that.

If the employer already gives sick pay and starts from day one, then you've already met the Statutory Sick Pay entitlements once you pay them more than the basics that's put down by the Statutory Sick Pay scenario.

So, again, if you don't require a medical cert currently and the Statutory Sick Pay comes in, you need to make sure that you're now deciding are you going to change that, particularly if it was from day one.

And I would say if you don't require it at the moment and you've been always paying it, this Statutory Sick Pay is complementing what you have, but then you need to think about it when you're moving on to, for example, day four or day five as the terms of this scheme increase.

The other point to note is if you don't pay, for example, during probation at the moment, or you don't pay during a set period of time, you are obliged to pay the Statutory Sick Pay from the first 13 weeks once they've met that bar. So there's no option of excluding somebody, for example, due to probation, etc. That's really important.

We've loads of questions in relation to if you have a sick pay already that covers several weeks, so you might have two or three weeks, but not the first three days, do we need to pay these three days? And the answer is yes. So you must put these in place that they can do individual days or they can have three consecutively together. That question came up from lots of you, and it's one that you can't get around.

What you can do is, obviously, you can negotiate new elements in terms of the terms, particularly when it increases. So, for example, you may say, "For all employees who have joined up to 31 December 2022, these are the terms. And for anybody who starts from 1 January thereafter, these are the terms in line with the Statutory Sick Pay".

And obviously, if you're unionised, you need to agree that with the union. But again, what it means is you're just starting anybody new joining in terms of new requirements around that.

We got a phenomenal amount of queries linked to absence policies, which indicates many of you don't have an absence policy. And again, we will advise that all of you have your handbook and your contract reviewed at least once a year because of the amount of changes that occur.

We've emphasised to you all of the legislative changes in these webinars and in our own correspondence from The HR Suite in relation to all of the updates that have happened in the last 12 to 18 months.

So we need to make sure, for example, dignity and respect, the new bullying code of practice, the new harassment code of practice, which I'll be talking about further at the Legal-Island conference. But again, for example, the two of those and this Statutory Sick Pay, they're just three examples of policies, procedures, and clauses that you need to change in your contract and in your handbook. Obviously, we can assist any clients in terms of updating their handbook or drafting these policies.

In relation to your absence policy, you need to consider a number of key areas in relation to absence management. One is the whole idea of why we have an absence policy and a sick pay procedure in place is that people are clear what the expectations are before they ever go out sick so that there's no ambiguity in relation to that.

Secondly, it's really important that if somebody does go out sick, we have the ability to communicate with them, and that's inbuilt in your policy, and require them, for example, to visit a company doctor, require them to engage with us to keep us updated in terms of their likely return, etc.

For many employees, they refuse to go to our company doctor or they refuse to be allowed to be contacted while they're out, and that presents a huge issue for us from an engagement perspective in an effort to try and help the employee to return, especially if it's linked to a grievance or an issue that they may have.

So it's always better in your absence policy to have all those clauses built in. For example, that they have to go to a company doctor and that they have to engage with you.

Also, the reporting requirement, how often we need certs. If somebody is out on a more long-term absence, again, what are the requirements linked to that?

Obviously, Statutory Sick Pay at the moment only covers the first three days, and it hasn't yet been commenced, which is the final stage, which it needs to be signed by the President to come into law. But we've been told that that is going to happen by 1 January. So that's our timeline.

Again, now we have this lead-in number of weeks to update our policies in relation to the sick pay, in relation to absence, and in relation to the current scheme that you may have if you have one in place.

The other key area that this overlaps within is the need for reasonable accommodation. So if somebody explains to you that they're out sick to do with mental health, out sick to do with other disabilities . . . So we mentioned mental health. It might be they have a back injury. It might be that they're suffering from an early onset condition, etc.

We are very clear in our absence management policy how we handle reasonable accommodation and the process somebody needs to go through in relation to that, because for many employees who may be out on a long-term basis, by providing reasonable accommodation, we may be in a position to facilitate their return.

So I suppose I'm going to recap on a few more of your key questions that have come in, in advance of today, and then I'm going to pass you over to Rolanda and we're going to manage some of the queries that have come in, in today's webinar.

So, in relation to a query associated with illness benefit, there's no requirement for the employee to have any PRSI or any other requirements other than to have 13 weeks' service before they're entitled to receive the illness benefit under the Statutory Sick Pay. So there's no issue linked to that.

Also, in terms of social welfare, there's no change to any of the requirements linked to social welfare in relation to the introduction of this sick pay. So, at the moment, they're two separate elements, and that's the way they need to stay, particularly for this year.

In terms of what is a day, a day is what the person's rostered for, as we understand it. And obviously, any legislation that comes about, we need to test it in terms of cases to the WRC or to the Labour Court before we really see the detail.

But at the moment, the understanding and the ethos and the purpose of this legislation is that if I was rostered to work for three days this week and I'm absent for those three days, I'm not financially at a loss.

So the idea is that it's for the days the person is rostered that they are absent from work, and they're not disadvantaged because of the fact that they've been sick. That's an important point to note.

The current year is from January because that's when the legislation is going to be enacted. And obviously, if the person takes all of their three days in January, then that's ultimately going to be the entitlement.

There's no reference in the legislation at the moment, but again, we'll wait and see the finalised draft. And as soon as we get that, we'll clarify any elements of it, and we'll communicate that. We'll send it out to everybody who's on our newsletter list. So if you're not, info@thehrsuite, and we'll get you on our newsletter list, and we'll be sending it out to confirm.

One key area that hasn't been addressed at the moment is if somebody joins halfway through the year, is it prorated to the number of days? And at the moment, there's no reference to that, nor is there any reference to it being a rolling year from the first day that somebody's out. So we're taking it as a calendar year from January to December, and if somebody joins midyear, it still seems to be that they're entitled to three days. However, we await clarity in relation to that.

So if somebody doesn't submit a cert for day one and you've clearly outlined that that is a requirement, then that means that the person is not entitled to it. They preclude themselves. But that's the advantage to you ensuring that you do a very complementary policy to make sure that that's very clear in relation to it.

Rolanda, I'm going to pass over to you because I know we've a number of queries in relation to it that have come in. And then at the end, I'll do a summary, if that's all right.

Rolanda:  That's fine. Thanks, Caroline. There have been quite a few questions come in this morning as well. It is a topic that I think will raise more questions than answers until we kind of see how it beds in. But here are just a few of the ones coming in so far.

So, for example, does the SSP have an impact in absence policy in terms of occurrences of absence? For example, if a company absence policy states that X amount of sick occurrences may result in disciplinary action, should days counted under SSP be excluded? So those three days from next year, should they be excluded from absence management? How should they be dealt with in the policy?

Caroline:  So one of the requirements in the legislation is that no one would be victimised for pursuing their statutory entitlement, and that applies in nearly all of the statutory legislation.

So, ultimately, we can't disadvantage somebody from having taken those three days. So I would definitely suggest that you need to tread very carefully there. However, three days in most organisations won't trigger any form of disciplinary action of any make, shape, or form. So normally it would be more than the Statutory Sick Pay amount.

And again, where a lot of these challenges, Rolanda, will occur more is when the number of days is going to increase over time, where you may have somebody and they're taking each Monday, for example, over three weeks, or one Monday every so often. So I think if there's a pattern that you feel is an issue, then you're dealing with the pattern. You're not dealing with the fact that they're taking their sick leave.

So I wouldn't say, "It's a blanket. Don't go near it at all", but be very careful, I would say, that you're not saying, "Somebody has taken three days and as a result, that should result in potentially triggering a disciplinary scenario". Instead, I would say you might look at the pattern, for example. That might be a safer way to go around it.

Rolanda:  Yeah. I think that is one that might well result in a wee bit of case law and a few judgements on that, and that will hopefully provide clarity on that. As you say, once that goes to 10 days, then it becomes a bit of an issue for employers.

Caroline:  Yeah. I think, Rolanda, as well, the other key message here is somebody can't be disadvantaged if, for example, they've got mental health issues.

Normally, if somebody is telling you, "I'm absent", obviously, they don't need to give us the detail of why. But if they're saying to us, "Look, I'm absent because of mental health", the more you know, the more requirement you have obviously to try and facilitate and support, which is always our ethos.

All organisations now are so focussed on the well-being piece. So we're balancing supporting well-being with the very rare occasion that somebody is going to take advantage.

Rolanda:  And speaking of people taking advantage, it's quite a good question here that I have to say I wouldn't have thought of. But is the Sick Pay for calendar years? So, for example, if an employee is jumping jobs, they could take advantage of the system, especially when it gets to 10 days. So because there is no service requirement there, what do you think that will mean?

Caroline:  So that was one of the things that, for two reasons, we're unclear about. One is if somebody joins midway through, should it be, for example, six months, they get 1.5 days? But at the moment, it doesn't differentiate between a part-time worker or a full-time worker or somebody having had two jobs in the calendar year.

 So if you read the legislation that's proposed, it says anybody who's got more than 13 weeks. Therefore, it doesn't say you can't, as an employee, take more than three days in a given calendar year. The obligation is back on the employer, not on the employee.

So the obligation is, as an employer, anybody with more than 13 weeks in your employment, you are obliged to provide them with this leave. So that implies that an employee could take it from multiple employers once they have more than 13 weeks' service.

Rolanda:  And I suppose . . .

Caroline:  There's no obligation back on the employee.

Rolanda:  Yeah. So you could have somebody who has two jobs all the time. So, that situation could arise with them, for example.

Caroline:  Well, yes and no. So if they've two jobs at the one time, ultimately, it's the three days that they're out sick. So, for example, the days that they're actually absent, but they could be absent from the two employers on different occasions.

Rolanda:  Okay. Good. And I think you dealt with the probation one. There isn't a requirement to wait until people have completed probation before they be entitled to this.

Caroline:  Rolanda, just to mention also, we also have a new directive coming, which basically maxes probation at six months and also prohibits us having any issue with somebody having double employment. So there are more rights coming in to support people in that regard. Therefore, I would expect that that would be the case in relation to this as well.

Rolanda:  Okay. So this is a question about sort of current scheme as well. "Our current sick pay scheme can only be availed by staff who have old contracts". Obviously, there's some sort of transfer situation here. "New staff members don't have access to that". So what about people who currently have a company sick pay scheme and the SSP comes in? Are they now entitled to that in addition to the company's sick pay scheme, where that's more generous?

Caroline:  So the answer is yes, they're entitled to the minimum of the statutory, and then anything more than that is enhanced. For example, many clients have said, "Look, we offer two months' sick pay or a month's sick pay, but we just don't pay for the first three days of any absence". Now, they need to pay for the first three days of the first absence.

So they can say, "We don't pay for the first three days of any absence after somebody has reached the entitlement of the Statutory Sick Pay", and then they don't get it after that. So you can still keep that requirement in there after that initial first time that they've taken those three days.

The other point to note is if somebody is only taking it temporarily, so if somebody is missing a half a day, for example, it doesn't differentiate between, "That means then they have 2.5 days left". No. That means that it's one of their three days if they claim for it on that day.

So my advice would be that you have a claim process where the employee confirms, "I've met the criteria, so I want to claim for it and I want to submit my search, and then I'm claiming, so I'm confirming I'm meeting the requirements of the scheme".

For some employees, I would suggest . . . They may say, "Look, I was only out sick for half a day. Save that day for another time that I'm out sick for a full day", for example. Or they may say, "Well, I'm not going to get a cert", and you can say, "Well, then you don't qualify because that's a requirement of the scheme".

But the key thing here is, in advance, you're making it clear to them what the eligibility criteria is. And that's a requirement, that we tell everybody what that entitlement is.

Rolanda:  Yes. And actually, that leads nicely into the next question, which is really saying, "Look, our sick pay policy is much greater than the new legislation and staff wouldn't benefit from this. Do we need to inform them?" And I guess the answer to that is yes.

Caroline:  Absolutely, yes. It's a requirement of the legislation. And the key message is it may be way more generous currently, but over time, the 10 days might creep in.

Second of all, as I mentioned, for some organisations, sick pay is a really big benefit that people really appreciate when they have it in their job. But this is designed for people who . . . This is starting on the basics. So it's giving you the requirements to put in, that they have to have the cert, etc.

But also, it's giving you the opportunity to update your absence policy in relation to the criteria that you need for people in terms of reporting. I mentioned examples of engagement. For example, visiting the company doctor. For example, being available to communicate with you while somebody is out. So it is good to reform and review your absence policy and your Statutory Sick Pay.

And the other area that's becoming very topical now as well, Rolanda, is if somebody is working remotely from home that they're basically saying, "Look, I'm sick, but I actually think I'm fine. I'm going to work away today". So again, that element of, "Well, actually, you're better off taking it as a sick day, getting better, and then being back faster than being out on half throttle for the whole week because you never took one day off to recover".

So I think we blurred some of the lines in relation to being absent and being sick and the provisions around reporting, etc. I think it's good to take this opportunity for there to be clarity, whether that's in a hybrid, whether that's to do with the new Statutory Sick Pay, or in general in relation to reasonable accommodation or any of the other points that I mentioned.

Rolanda:  Okay. I'm not sure if you know the answer to this one, but once the company pays 70% of a day's pay, can they claim the 30% from social welfare?

Caroline:  Not that I'm aware of. The social welfare haven't updated or changed that. So not that I'm aware of, Rolanda. That's all they get. And ultimately, then, they can qualify for the illness benefit per the terms of illness benefit.

Rolanda:  Yeah. I thought that. Haven't seen anything to that effect written anywhere.

Good one here as well. If an employee leaves work early, having worked a part day and then goes home sick at lunchtime or something like that, does that mean that they have 2.5 days left or is that counted as a full day?

Caroline:  That's counted as a full day. I would definitely clarify that in your policy to say . . . But I would put it back on the employee to say, "Should you wish to avail of the Statutory Sick Pay, then you need to meet the criteria, which is let us know that you want to avail of it and that you're going to submit your GP cert".

And again, as I say, you can waiver it, obviously, should you so wish, but for many organisations, they are including it as a requirement. I'm leaving that to every client to decide.

But if you do make that as a requirement, they're not likely, for the sake of half a day's pay to want to avail of the Statutory Sick Pay, depending on the cost of the doctor and the wages, etc. Remember, it's up to a maximum of €110 for that day.

Rolanda:  Yeah. So just on that, there are a few questions about certs, Caroline. "We currently have three days' paid leave, which doesn't require certificate. Do we switch to requiring a certificate then for those?" Or, as you say, they could waive that if they don't require it at the minute.

Caroline:  So you've a few key considerations to make, and the important thing is you outline it in your policy that's communicated to staff in advance of its introduction. Remember, if you're unionised, we need to do that obviously as part of our usual industrial relations negotiations.

So if you now are required and you didn't before, you're communicating to everybody what the new requirement is and why. And the important piece is that you're consistent. So you don't say, "Actually, Rolanda, we don't need any cert from you. We're making an exception. But Caroline, we do need a cert from you". That's where we always end up in hot water, where we're now making exceptions, but the exception is, "Why are you treating her differently to me?"

So just be careful that you're having one rule across the board for everybody rather than, for example, one manager doing one thing and another manager doing another thing.

It's probably one of the opportunities for doing a refresher training with your managers in relation to how you manage absence within the organisation so that there's a consistent approach across the board. We're finding that that inconsistency is what's really causing a lot of issues linked to somebody feeling aggrieved that they're not getting fair treatment.

Then update your policy, communicate it to everybody, and make sure that it's consistently enforced, whichever option you decide there isn't an issue with. But I would be very clear, "Now that it's three days, this is what we're doing. But if it increases to five, are you still happy with that?" Or have you said, "We're okay with no cert for the first three days or for three individual days, but then once it goes over three days we do require a cert"?

I'd be very clear so that next year when we're increasing the number of days, you're not tied into something contractually. Remember, in employment law, it's always going to come back to, "What does it say in the contract? What does it say in the policy?" Hence why we always say, "Get it right from the start".

Rolanda:  And on the subject of certs, the chances of somebody getting a cert exactly following their first day of absence from a doctor is probably a bit slim. Most GP practices are very busy. Let's say you're in a weekly paid situation, and the payroll will run every Thursday, and the person is off on Thursday. Can you decide to pay them for that day, hoping you'll get the cert to cover that? Otherwise, an employee might be penalised in a way for not having the cert on time if it's outside their control. What do you think, Caroline?

Caroline:  Again, I would reflect that now in your current policy to say, "Should you be absent on this day . . ." Now, most payrolls are retrospective. There's a gap in the middle, so it facilitates that, but I would definitely flag that.

One of the questions that comes up a lot, Rolanda, as well is, "Can somebody take a day's holidays instead of a day's sick pay?" And officially, annual leave is designed for rest and recuperation. For example, if you were on holidays this week and you happened to be sick, it would transfer from holidays to sick pay, and you would be able to take those holidays at another stage.

So that's officially the way it's designed. But again, once agreed with the employee is a rare exception agreed with the employee.

Again, I would refer to those kinds of examples in your policy because they're the queries that come up. And what we don't want is for somebody to say, "Well you're treating me differently". Again, we want it to be consistent. So the more that's in the policy, the more it means you're being consistent in your approach because you've drafted the policy before any specific employee query or an issue.

Rolanda:  Now, somebody is asking a question, but I suppose you could also see this as a suggestion. For payroll purposes, then, can you stipulate in your policy and say that if the sick certificate is not provided in time for payroll processing, then once provided, those days will be paid in the following payroll?

Caroline:  You can, but remember the spirit of this legislation is designed and introduced so somebody is not going to be financially at a loss because they're out sick. So it's not in keeping with the spirit of the legislation, and I don't think you'd be doing yourself any favours, especially if it was deemed that it was just due to the fact of the dates of payroll, unless you had any other reason for it.

Again, we all have a clause in every contract that says, "Anything you've been overpaid can be deducted from you should you be overpaid in terms of wages". And if you don't have that clause, you should have that clause because mistakes do happen. So that can be remedied. I'd err on the side of making sure the employee is not disadvantaged unless you have a genuine concern that there might be an issue.

Rolanda:  Okay. And final two questions because I know Caroline has got to rush off to something else. First of all, just a question in relation to . . . So is it okay for an employer to do SSP for the first 6 months of service, from 13 weeks to 6 months, and then after that still have sort of probationary requirement completion, if you like, for enhanced sick pay? As long as they're providing the SSP . . .

Caroline:  Yeah, it's important that you don't limit, "You're entitled to the SSP only up to six months, and then we have a new scenario". They're entitled to get the Statutory Sick Pay for the entire calendar year, so you can't have any negative disadvantages, i.e. "You're not entitled to that. Then this other thing kicks in, and it requires something different".

Every single employee gets the minimum of the Statutory Sick Pay of these three individual days, either individually or the three days together. So you can't have any of those limits, I suppose, put in place.

Rolanda:  Okay. A question here just about relief staff. So I'm presuming by that you mean sort of casual staff that come in and cover. Does it apply to them as well?

Caroline:  Any employee who's got more than 13 weeks, and if they're rostered on that day, and they ring in sick, then they're entitled to it.

Rolanda:  Okay. And I promise that this will be the very last one, Caroline, because this is a question that I'm thinking, "I'm not quite sure how this applies", but . . .

Caroline:  I think, Rolanda, the biggest thing I would say to you is the amount of questions we got in relation was phenomenal, which means it's great that people are being so proactive in terms of updating their policies in advance of its introduction, which is really welcome and really positive.

So your last question, Rolanda? Go for it.

Rolanda:  Last question. So if somebody is currently off on long-term absence prior to the introduction, so presumably that would straddle into maybe next January/February, are they entitled to the SSP from January? So even though they're off sick, maybe they've exhausted sick pay, etc.

Caroline:  Yes. The answer is yes. So every year this is an entitlement for every employee who's on the books that has more than 13 weeks' service. It says it's the calendar year, so it doesn't say anything . . . Once they submit the medical cert and they meet their criteria, I don't think you can in any way disadvantage somebody to say, "Well, you're not entitled to it", yet they are an employee and they are out sick. So they are meeting all the requirements.

Rolanda:  Okay. Well, thank you all very much for your questions. There were loads there, and we could probably spend another hour talking about this topic. Obviously, as time goes on, we'll get greater clarity about this. But for now, thank you very much for your time, and thanks to Caroline.

Now, the webinar will be available up on the website later today and the webinars are also turned into podcasts. So if you're a podcaster, then you can pick it up there on Spotify, Amazon, and Apple Podcasts.

And our next webinar then coming up is with MCS Group. We are doing a webinar . . . Just want to flick on there, Julie, to see the date for that. I think it's 30 . . . Oh, a Lunch and Learn one on 20 October at 1:00 p.m. with MCS looking at issues around employer branding and recruitment.

We don't have a November webinar with Caroline because we have our Annual Review of Employment Law. So if you haven't booked your place in that, do that today.

Otherwise, then, we'll see you on the . . . I can't remember. Are you day one or day two, Caroline, of the Annual Review? Can you remember?

Caroline: I can't remember, no. But it'll fly around the . . .

Rolanda:  I think you're day one.

Caroline:  Yeah, looking forward to it.

Rolanda:  Yeah, it should be good. Well, listen, thank you all for your time, and thank you once again, Caroline. It's been great and we'll see you soon. Bye-bye.

Caroline:  Thanks, everybody. Take care.

Sponsored by: