The law and sick days?

[cliffdunedin 8]

My sister was crook on friday and her employer called up and asked for a doctors certificate, she was surprised as she had thought it was only after 3 days. I remembered the new law coming in to place but didn't know a lot about it, after a little bit of research i found that the employer had to pay for the costs of getting a doctors certificate...didn't really make sense too me!?

does anyone know the in's and outs of this?

Here's one of the links

http://www.unite.org.nz/sick_leave

[Creaver 55]

FYI - the 3 days includes weekends.

So Friday/sat/sun = can ask

[cliffdunedin 8]

FYI - the 3 days includes weekends.

So Friday/sat/sun = can ask

How does that work? say, if she only works mon-fri and only sick on fri.

[Hartage 0]

The basics of the new law are that the employer can ask for a sick note for any day, does not need to be after 3 days, But is required to pay for it.

I deal in this area for work, as an employer, and through the EPMU Union, the new laws came in to being in April this year. You should look into this, also individual contracts will make a difference, as opposed to group or mass agreements.

[Braeden320 0]

FYI - the 3 days includes weekends.

So Friday/sat/sun = can ask

Really?

I would have thought it is 3 normal working days. Its irrelevant to your employer if your sick on a day you don't normally go to work.

Cliff, this is generally a good website to confirm any laws etc - http://www.legislation.govt.nz/

I think it is the Holidays Act 2003 that would apply in this instance.

[cliffdunedin 8]

Awesome, thanks for that guys!

[kiwi535 538]

plus of course this weekend is a long weekend....sickies more common

[E30 325i Rag-Top 2957]

I would have thought it is 3 normal working days. Its irrelevant to your employer if your sick on a day you don't normally go to work.

The wording of the act was "absent from work for 3 days" so if away from work on a Friday or Monday, then that makes the 3 & Sun, regardless of whether it is a "working" day. It has always been there in the act, but is very rarely used.

The working has now changed, and it can now be an absence of one single day before a doctor's certificate can be requested. I believe the person above might be mistaken, it is not the employer's responsibility to pay for the doctor, it is still the employee that has to pay.

It is very strange how many people are sick on either a Friday or a Monday, but never seem to get ill on Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday!

[cliffdunedin 8]

plus of course this weekend is a long weekend....sickies more common

True! I never thought about that.

I believe the person above might be mistaken, it is not the employer's responsibility to pay for the doctor, it is still the employee that has to pay.

Yeah i wasn't too sure on that myself but from what i have found on the net (particularly the Unite Union link) it seems that, that is the case.

[RvT 9]

I am under the understanding that the employer has to still pay for the certificate.

This is taken from the Dept of Labour site which we use to clarify grey areas ...

http://www.dol.govt.nz/er/holidaysandleave...-of-illness.asp

Special rules apply if the employer requests proof within three consecutive calendar days of the employee taking sick leave. The employer must inform the employee as early as possible that the proof is required, and pay the reasonable expenses in getting proof.

[E30 325i Rag-Top 2957]

Great, another piece of poorly written legislation, what is the definition of "reasonable exepnses"? I certainly would not include the Doctor's fee, etc as expenses. If someone is sick they would need to be seeing their Doctor anyway, surely??

Also, this only applies within the 3 days, being sick on Friday is (unless working over the long week-end) over the 3 day absence period.

[Lucan 196]

Did your sister sign a collective agreement or a personal contract of any sort? The recent changes may not affect her until the current contract ends...??

Edited June 5, 2011 by Blackie

[cliffdunedin 8]

Great, another piece of poorly written legislation, what is the definition of "reasonable exepnses"? I certainly would not include the Doctor's fee, etc as expenses.

This quote was taken from the Unite Union statement:

*Where a certificate is required before three days the employer - not the worker - must pay or reimburse all reasonable medical costs. This will still be the case after 1st April 2011.*

I would assume that this would be reasonably accurate seeing as it comes from a pretty big union.

If someone is sick they would need to be seeing their Doctor anyway, surely??

Not necessarily! I'm sure most people are not going to go too the doc if they have the flu and know they have the flu to be told what they already know etc

Did your sister sign a collective agreement or a personal contract of any sort? The recent changes may not affect her until the current contract ends...??

Not 100% sure her contractual status but know she has, what i'm assuming a standard employment contract.

[JaseNZ 53]

The law

The Holidays Act 2003 provides a minimum requirement of five days' paid sick leave per year after the first six months of continuous employment and an additional five days’ paid sick leave after each subsequent 12 month period.

Sick leave can be taken when an employee is sick or injured, or when the employee's spouse or a dependent person (such as a child or elderly parent) is sick or injured and needs care. Sick leave can be accrued up to a maximum of 20 days.

Proof of illness

Under the Act, an employee must notify their employer of their intention to take sick leave as early as possible before the employee is due to start work on the day; or if that is not practicable, as early as possible after that time.

An employer may only require the employee to produce proof of sickness or injury for sick leave (ie a doctor's certificate) where the employee is sick or injured for three or more consecutive days.

However, an employer can request a doctor's certificate earlier than the three days if:

they have reasonable grounds to suspect the sick leave is not genuine;

they inform the employee as early as possible after forming this suspicion that proof is required; and

they agree to meet the employee's reasonable expenses of obtaining a medical certificate (or other form of proof).

If the employee does not provide proof when requested without reasonable excuse, the employer has the right to withhold sick pay for the period until it is provided.

This is how the law used to be where you had the right to request a medical cert after 3 days and if you requested one for say 1 or 2 days then the employer had to pay for it.

Now we are able to request one after 1 day and the employee has to foot the bill instead. However the employer must communicate to the employee why they are doing this and must have a valid reason to back this up. Ie they have a historic amount of sick time off on given days etc.

I am a manger of approx 70+ staff and I would only use this on any staff are taking the piss and are off constantly , You know if somebody is not being truthful and if they say have no history of being off sick then I would let it slide. However if somebody was off say every second Friday or something like that then I would activate the 1 day request of med cert to try and break the cycle.

Via law this overrides any individual or collective agreement that is in place for the purposes of this specific change.

Edited June 6, 2011 by M-Spec

[E30 325i Rag-Top 2957]

I would assume that this would be reasonably accurate seeing as it comes from a pretty big union.

And we all know how accurate and un-biased Unions can be, that is purely their interpretation of the lax wording of the new legislation. I would wait for the first test case to be heard before taking their view as gospel.

Not necessarily! I'm sure most people are not going to go too the doc if they have the flu and know they have the flu to be told what they already know etc

The empasis then falls on the employee to provide evidence of some other form for the sickness, just saying "I know I had flu" is not sufficient and never has been. The Doctors Certificate is the tried and tested method.

As M-Spec has said above, it really comes down to if it is a repeat behaviour and someone taking the piss, or a one-off from a good employee. Any employer jumping on this new legislation at the first opportunity is being a bit heavy handed IMHO. Within their rights, but not building a good relationship with the employee.

[cliffdunedin 8]

Now we are able to request one after 1 day and the employee has to foot the bill instead. However the employer must communicate to the employee why they are doing this and must have a valid reason to back this up. Ie they have a historic amount of sick time off on given days etc.

I am a manger of approx 70+ staff and I would only use this on any staff are taking the piss and are off constantly , You know if somebody is not being truthful and if they say have no history of being off sick then I would let it slide. However if somebody was off say every second Friday or something like that then I would activate the 1 day request of med cert to try and break the cycle.

Via law this overrides any individual or collective agreement that is in place for the purposes of this specific change.

See this is where it's confusing eh, like what RVT quotes above from the dept of labour website and this link is an updated new zealand legislation website seems to cotradict what you have said. Confused much, i am!

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/...3_resel&p=1

[JaseNZ 53]

hehe, Yes I know your pain, To be honest mate I just go off of what my HR people tell me. I am pretty much just saying what they told me. Subsection this article that its all bloody gibberish.

You would think things could just be laid out in plain english. What I said is what I have been going off of in relation to dealing with my staff. However I have not had to use any of the new legislation yet in regards to sickness

[cliffdunedin 8]

plain english.

That's asking way to much i think :lollies: