Sick Leave

Johanaf

We have an employee that was out for 3 consecutive days but didn't bring a doctor's note. However, the employee called the supervisor all 3 times to let him know that she was out sick. She has 52 hours available for her sick time. Our policy reads as follows: " If sick for 3 or more days a note from your Doctor will be required". Do we have to pay the employee for her days out?
Thanks for Phoenix, AZ

Jane Reddin AZ

You are permitted to have a policy that requires the employee to produce a doctor's note to qualify for payment for days out sick.

But, I'd think about whether this is a good policy. Do you really want to drive up your health care expenses (if you are self insured) or your claims experience (if you buy private insurance) by requiring anyone with the flu to see a doctor?

Also I'd caution you that you need to be consistent in your company in the application of this policy. You shouldn't have Mary Smith out for 4 days but because "we trust her," no note is required; whereas Joe Jones is out 3 days and we don't pay him because he didn't bring a note. . .

Good luck!
Jane

Down_the_Middle

I think this is a great example of how HR gets it's nickname of being the "policy police". Seems to me this verbiage is too restrictive and may obligate you to create all kind of hoops for employees to jump thru. You might consider replacing the word WILL with MAY or suggest that Normally........ This will give you more flexibility and still provide discretion.

Requiring employees to seek an MD for a RTW note is not prudent for such ailments as flu, colds, etc..... I think the verbiage change will offer you more judgment without creating so many obstacles that employees look for ways to beat the system.

Rockie

I agree. It's hard enough to get a doctor's appointment when you are really sick. I can't imagine they would see someone with just 3 days notice. I would also change my policy to "may" instead of "must". This gives supervisors a leeway in weeding out the chronic sick leave offenders.