Is calling out sick a secret?
tonia
38 Posts
If an employee calls out sick, can the immediate supervisor know why or does the HR department only have authority to know the reason? If there are any HIPPA laws out there that pertain to my question, I would greatly appreciate any feedback!
Comments
I look at this a little differently from the other responses. I think an employer has every right to know why the employee is unable to report for work as scheduled. We encourage suprv's to regularly contact employees:
1. find out how the ee is doing (general expression of concern);
2. determine est length of absence;
3. assess whether any communicable issues may be present b/4 returning to work;
I don't see any HIPAA issues when you're talking directly to the individual. The employee is free to inform the suprv any medical information w/o violating HIPAA. Calling out sick is only a secret if the organization permits it to be.
1. HR should be contacting the ee to determine if they need FMLA forms, disability forms etc.
2. If the ee is out for more than 3 days, it is up to HR to determine if they are covered by FMLA. It is HR that should be giving the supervisor an estimated period of disability based on written information received.
3. There are HIPAA issues when talking directly to the ee. That ee has every right to tell you that the diagnosis is none of your business.
4. Why a person is absent (whether or not they are sick, whether or not HIPAA is involved)should be limited by the company only to those who need to know. It is not a question of being secret. HR cannot function unless the ees have faith in the discretion of the people who work in HR.
As to the type of sickness, I think the supervisor should be aware of the problems his people have. IF the employee wishes to discuss it with him, what is the problem? I feel a supervisor is more than just an individual who has x number of people working for him to produce a product. He is responsible for his direct reports and should not be left out of the loop.
However, the question was, "If an employee calls out sick, can the immediate supervisor know why or does the HR department only have authority to know the reason?". Maybe my answer should have been "Yes, the supervisor can know."
The Sueprivsor and HR should be working together.
What makes HR sacrosanct?
If I were the superivsor who had actual responsibility for approving absences and controlling the emplyee and enforcing the policies and HR was telling me that I had no right to know about important information about my employee, I'd transfer the emplyee to HR and let HR handle everything.
I think the early responsies have it backwards. HR supports the supervisor and manager, not the other way around. I suspect in many compnay's where HR runs takes this "holier than thou" approach, HR is not a strategic partner with the rest of management.
Hey, guys, managing a workforce is a joint effort. Be a team player.
The bet was whether the supervisor knew the employee well enough to be able to distinguish between being too ill to come to work or just plain sick of work. Sadly, you did not cover that premise. Ergo, no donuts.
I also peppered my post with the UNDERSTANDING that the employee gave permission, agreed to, and/or approved to release the information to the supervisor.
You owe me a glass of Chardonnay.
Well, let's look at that issue. Ray was home sick with the trots last week, according to his Forum testimonial. Now suppose his boss had said, "Raymond, I don't think I believe that and I've decided to not grant your request for sick leave and this will be a step 3 for you young man, because 'I know you well enough to distinguish'" If the employee requested a sick absence in accordance with policy, it really doesn't matter what the supervisor thought about the illness or how much he knew about it.
I mentioned the donuts only 'cause I was hungry. I'll buy you a Miller Lite. Take what you can get girl.
Again you deviate from the original post. There was never a question of approving sick leave. Just giving out information.
However, you do score for reminding all of us about Ray's (ahem) affiction. Keep your Miller Lite. I'm sure someone out there is already pouring the wine.
You owe me the donuts. No, wait... forget that. I'll be back in a few minutes.
That being said...most ee's call off directly to the immediate supervisor...if these calls are routed through HR instead, then I have to agree that HR is under no obligation to release any information regarding having the trots. A simple notification to the supervisor "Ray is ill and will not be at work, but expects to be here tomorrow."
This goes back to my post on the FMLA board about HR not attempting to be doctors. Sure, some ee's call off sick when they are not. It's bound to happen, especially if you have a situation where ee's have far more sick hours than vacation hours.
Going back to the trot example...what are we to do? Ask for a sample? x:o
If the emplyee is required to report to HR (rather than the supervisor) that he or she will be late, or absent and then HR makes the decision to okay or charge the accrued time balance or whatever, then there would be no reason for the supervisor to know the cause for the tardiness or absence.
If the employee is required to report to the supervisor that he or she will be late or absent, who then decides what to do about the information, then there would be no reason for HR to know the cause for the tardiness or absence unless the supervisor sought HR's help on a related issue and the cause had a bearing on HR's recommended action.
As for keeping supervisors "out of the loop", I don't think any of the posters even implied that. One of the things HR is responsible for is maintaining confidentiality with regard to employee issues and medical issues are always a "biggie". Telling a supervisor that an employee will be out ill isn't "keeping them out of the loop" but rather protecting your backside as well as the supervisor's. The less people that have the information the less likely it is that the information will spread.
If an employee "elects" to tell a supervisor all the sordid details regarding what is wrong with them, I would still instruct the supervisor to stop the conversation as they don't NEED that information to get their job done.
If thee's no rason for the superivosr to know the medical cause for the claimed illness, then why would HR need to know either and why would the employee have to call HR?
We spend 8 hours a day, 5 days a week with these people. Some companies even call them assets. I personally think it is important that their direct siupervisor care enough that he at least ask them "How are you doing?" Or is that too much to ask?
The conversation is not about our degree of concern for our fellow employees, associates, team members, assets and co-workers. It's about the inappropriateness of sharing certain information, if we have it, and the inappropriateness of asking for certain types of information.
But often the emplyee will identify the reason -- "I have a cold so I won't be into work." Of course, sometimes the information can be more than the supervisor wants to hear:
"I wont be at work today because I have the runs and a weakened bladder and I'm vomiting a whole lot of green, yellow stuff."
My only concern is that somewhow HR intentionally keeps the supervisor out of the loop and that the more appropriate place for the employee to report a need to be absent is with the supervisor and not HR (assuming it is practical to report to the supervisor).
The part that always gives me pause has to do with whether or not the reason for being sick has to do with communicable illness. We have read posts where EEs want to work even with the flu, bad colds, measles, chicken pox, the black plague, etc and do not want to go home because they are out of sick leave. I don't want the rest of the work force coming down with the plague. So when do you know to require the doctors release to work and when was it just the trots, self diagnosed and cleared up on it's own?
x:-) it's Friday.....
Have any of you tried to educate your ee's that they do not need to give their supervisors an organn recital?
I've come to the conclusion that if an ee calls out sick for "one" day, it would up to our policy on who the ee contacts and it would be the supervisors' responsibility to know whether he could ask why or not. I'm in agreement that my employees need education on calling out and that they need to be told they do not need to give the reason to the supervisor (if they are uncomfortable), but they need to give it to HR if the absence is longer than 3 days.
Again, I appreciate all of the feedback and hopefully, I can stay out of the "can" and save a tree!