sick/personal leave policy

[mrsrodriguez]

Several co-workers and I were notified that if we use more than 60 hrs sick/personal time within a year we would be terminated. Our employees manual states that you will be given an unsatisfactory evaluation. Many employees have accrued sick leave days but if they use them, they will be terminated.
Several women have been forced to come to work extremely sick. One of my co-workers was vomitting blood and had 3 days sick time accrued but because she had used personal time she could not utilize her sick leave or she would lose her job

 

[Ex HR Guy]

That's an insane HR policy, particularly in a tight labor market. In fact I can't believe any sane company would or could do that. If someone needed an operation and was out for a week and a half she'd be history.

Are you sure that's what was said? Or did someone say "We look very closely at anyone taking more than 60 hours a year as it may be a sign of abuse. For any abuse we terminate an employee." That I could understand.

Is it a local manager saying that or someone at headquarters? Does the head of HR or the CEO know about it?

 

[mrsrodriguez]

HR GUY-
I will quote from the "record of discussion" (pink slip) I received.
"As per our discussion you have used 33.0 hours since you started working here on 8-23-99. The PSW policy is not to miss over 60 hours per evaluation year. If you miss over 60 hours personal/sick leave, you will be terminated"
Along with the pink slip, we were given a copy of the evaluation guidelines from the employees manual. It clearly states "0-8 hours excellent rating, 8.1 - 60 hours a satisfactory rating and over 60 hrs needs improvement.
I questioned the policy with our facility superior who stated this is their new policy. I explained my concerns and those of my co-workers, to a deaf ear. And then, without my knowledge, he contacted the big hr boss, who personally came to our facility to enlighten me of the policy again. When I voiced my concern that it wasn't in the manual, I was told, "We can't put everything in the employees manual."
The one thing he did add is that if you are an employee for more than 12 months, HR could approve FLMA for serious illness' lasting three days or more, of course...without pay....while you have hours and hours of accrued time building up.
I hope to here back from you HR Guy. I really needed the support.

 

[Ex HR Guy]

Most employees are employees at will, and can be fired for no reason at all at any time, unless there is a state or federal law preventing that (such as the FMLA or anti-discrimination laws of pro-unioninze laws).

You seem to be a short term employee, and thus more vulnerable than others. And they know you are a "rabble rouser" about this. Can someone else contact your State Department of Labor and find out if this is legal?

Also, I never thought I would ever say this -- but here goes.... A Labot Union would love to learn about something like this. Which proves my old theory that places that have bad managements have unions.

 

[Attorney_Replogle]

The HR guy is right that in California all employment is presumed to be at-will. However, that does not mean that employers can abuse employees. One question I have for the employer is what is the purpose of the accrument of personal/sick leave year after year if the employees can not use it all or sell it back for money? Second, if you were out sick (under the conditions that you have noted it would have to be pretty serious so this point assumes that) and you were terminated, I would venture to say that the employer would have a hard time to prove that the termination was not on the protected basis of a physical or medical condition. Third, could one say that the employer via its policy is threatening to endanger the health of its employees? So you should check with an employment law attorney near you. Try to find one at attorneypages.com.

------------------
Mark B. Replogle

[This message has been edited by Attorney_Replogle (edited January 03, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by Attorney_Replogle (edited January 03, 2000).]