No RTW slip since he used vacation time?

DB · July 2003

Give me an honest opinion if I'm being the big, bad HR lady again:

A union employee was taken from work with shortness of breath and other symptoms indicating heart problems. He was hospitalized for at least two days and off for a total of five. I asked for a return to work (RTW) slip when he returned. He used vacation time to cover his days off (questionable but not unusual) so he doesn't think he needs a RTW slip. The union contracts states that a RTW slip is required if the employee is on sick leave for 3 or more days.

Since the entire chain of command is aware that this is a health related time off, don't we have an obligation to make sure that the employee should be working? The work can be physically demanding.

I haven't even gotten to FMLA with the employee.

Am I being paranoid or responsible?

Ranger · July 2003

We are a manufacturing company, and allow employees to substitute vacation if they have no sick days accrued. Regardless of what you call it or how you are paid (or not paid)for it, we require a RTW note for all hospital stays, injuries (work-related or not), and surgeries.

This is my first post. I'm at a 400 employee manufacturing plant in Wisconsin.

tbehan · July 2003

I agree with Ranger- any known medical condition causing an absence over a certain # of days should be cause to require a RTW authorization from a doctor. Unlike days of old, diagnosis and other medical information is not necessary- just whether the person has been treated and whether the person can return to work and perform his/her job.

clarkbar · July 2003

I agree. We are a manufacturing company and in this instance would require a return to work slip just to make sure the employee is physically well enough to be at work. This way we are protected if anything should happen to this employee.

Whatever · July 2003

Agree with the others. We are also a manufacturing plant. Anyone who is out for three days or more for a medical reason must bring in a fit for duty certificate.

Balloonman · July 2003

Sick is sick. You were kind enough to let him cover the time off with vacation, does not change the fact he has missed 3+ days off sick. I would not allow him to work without a release. Heck if I suspected heart attack, even if out just 2 days I would require the release.
My $0.02 worth.
DJ The Balloonman

Don D · July 2003

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 07-02-03 AT 01:06PM (CST)[/font][p]Although I agree with Ranger, and congratulate him on his virgin post, I must disagree with all of you because a union contract is in place. When that happens, we are not able to mix and match our rules. When you say, 'he took vacation' I take that to mean members of the bargaining unit have the option of deciding to take it or not. Most companies would require a request for vacation, which would be disapproved since the event was sick and not vacation. If however, he simply 'took' vacation to get paid and you have him shown documented as sick, hospitalized, ill, FMLA eligible, you have a dilemma in that the language in the contract does not mesh with the circumstance and the contract will rule if the local demands it be followed. I would tell the union and the ee that it is in the employee's best interest to be shown on FMLA because that act simply protects the ee's rights, not the employers. If they agree, then the RTW document is essential.

LindaS · July 2003

We are a union facility as well but our attendance policy dictates that an absence of three days or more, or hospitalization, require a dr's release before being allowed to return to work. That being said, I would notify him that he needs to provide you with a release ESPECIALLY after he was taken from work to the hospital in the first place. You also have a responsibility to notify him of his FMLA rights and have him complete the necessary paperwork.

Kiwi · July 2003

Since he was taken to the hospital from work, I would be very hesitant to let him return without a RTW slip, even if it hadn't been deemed a WC event.

Whatever · July 2003

Everything is in the wording of the union contract. If an employee is going to take a vacation, he must have prior approval. Therefore, under your contract, who decides if days off are sick or vacation and can it be applied retroactively? Our contract allows the company to get certificates of fitness for ees who are out sick for three days. Vacation is never paid retroactively.

Ranger · July 2003

"Him" is a her. Look out, Don. I just may have to challenge you someday.

psrcello · July 2003

Whatever -

Everything is in the wording of the union contract? Lucky you, I think! All of the union contracts I've ever worked with are deliberately vague, with lots of room for "interpretation" (i.e., grievances) on both sides!

Our attendance policy is outside the contract, and we require a return to work slip from the doctor once an employee is out three days. Our contract does include wording that allows us to compel an employee to undergo a fitness for duty exam "for sanitary and safety reasons" during employment.

Whatever · July 2003

Some clauses in our contract are clearly written. Others are written vaguely. And a few seem to be written in a language that probably has the same derivation as English but isn't quite.

Don D · July 2003

Certainly did not mean to offend Ranger by calling her him. And I'm much too sensitive for you to challenge so cut me some slack. The fact is that the post said "Our contract says you can require a rtw slip in cases of sick leave" and I paraphrase. That's not speculative. A contract statement that precise does not and will not allow the flexibility of deciding to do it anyway or deciding that because it's done in other not-so-similar cases, it'll be applied that way in this situation too. First do whatever the contract says. Second, if it's vague do whatever you want to do within the bounds of reason as contemplated by the vagueness. Third, put the guy on conditional FMLA and let the situation roll on as it will. Even if it goes to arbitration, an arbitrator will sense clearly that the company was acting in the interest of the employee. Another way to look at the outcome of this might be to assume the guy had actually been on approved vacation of 10 days, and, on day 12, fell out of a u-haul trailer and wound up in the hospital. Certainly we would try to require a RTW for that wouldn't we? Don't violate the contract, just find a way to work with it. If you can't, screw it, move ahead and let them file a grievance.

watrsflo · July 2003

>Certainly did not mean to offend Ranger by calling her him. And I'm
>much too sensitive for you to challenge so cut me some slack.

I've been 'foruming' for awhile now; but funny thing, I've never thought of Don D as "too sensitive for ... challenge." I must have missed something; perhaps in the nuance.

(Ranger, be forwarned!)

Hatchetman · July 2003

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 07-03-03 AT 03:48AM (CST)[/font][p]We allow emplyees to use vacation time for sick leave purposes...when that occurs the time card is makred "VS" (paid vacation time in lieu of sick pay).

In this case, the fact is that he employee was on sick leave. The accrued time used in this case is only a pay mechanism. It doesn't change the reason for the absence, which was a sick leave. Any reasonable reading of the contract provision, as posted, says "sick leave" not "sick pay." Thus, if you would require a RTW clearance for employees who used sick pay or had unpaid sick leave for similar medical circumstances, then it would be appropriate to require one in this case.

Don D · July 2003

We've had a union rep or two posting to other threads recently. Usually they pop up and post when it's a question they think involves some right or other that the union has that might be denied by the company. Now's a great opportunity for one of the union reps to step forward and state their opinion on this contract related issue. Let's see if they are as employer friendly as they claim to be or if, instead, they will back the employer into a corner over this one. How about it union reps? S___, or get off the pot!

DB · July 2003

I started this post but the situation is now much worse.

The supervisor and I were to meet with the employee and the shop steward at noon today. The shop steward (who said I was a reasonable person and let's just talk about it) suddenly needed to take the afternoon off. The employee states that the business agent and the attorney will contact us on Monday to set a meeting.

I'm thinking that I should just go the FMLA route with this. Send the Employer Response to Employee Request for Family or Medical Leave. The employee didn't actually request FML but, to my understanding, just by being aware of a potential serious health condition, the paperwork should be sent. I do this with other employees so I would be consistent.

The supervisor of the employee wants to require a RTW slip or Certification of Health Care Provider no matter what. My boss does not want any problems or conflicts EVER and I think it's too late for that.

Please help.

watrsflo · July 2003

Yes, I'd conditionally designate the leave as FML and request Certification. Additionally, I agree with those who have stated they's require a return to work slip. Might the issue be the employee doesn't want to pay for the exam? Is this the burden of the E/ee or E/er under the labor contract? Does the employee have medical insurance with a co-pay; and if so, how much could it be?

DB · July 2003

I wouldn't think a separate exam should be needed but even if it is, there is no office visit co-pay and after the $100 deductible is met, the charges are paid at 100%. That should not be an issue.

LindaS · July 2003

The facts remain the same...an employee had to be removed from work due to a medical problem, was hospitalized and subsequently needed time off from work. Regardless of whether the employee utilized vacation time, you had a responsibility to make sure the employee was okay to return before allowing him back to work. I would stick with that and inform the business agent of the facts as they are. It sounds like there is something else going on that this employee does not want to provide the requested information but whatever those reasons are the facts remain the same (at least to your knowledge). As far as the issue regarding insurance and/or co-pays do not necessarily apply as the employee had already obtained medical treatment so the act of him contacting his physician to provide this information should not require another physician's visit, unless he has not been released to return to work yet. Stick to your policies and require this information - it's better to be safe than sorry.

Blondie · July 2003

I would ask for a RTW slip for his protection and the company's. Even if he took time from vacation to ensure payment he was still ill for the total number of days that made him fall under the report to work guidelines.

No RTW slip since he used vacation time?

Comments