Sick leave without proof has employers feeling unwell

By JIM EAGLES

Employers are extremely worried by a Government proposal to limit their ability to check the validity of claims for sick leave.

The Holidays Bill, now before Parliament, would prevent an employer from asking for a medical certificate unless an employee has been absent for five or more consecutive calendar days.

The provision has received little publicity until now but it was the biggest cause of concern at a series of 30 briefings on the bill conducted by the Employers and Manufacturers Association (Northern) over the past few weeks.

Graeme Perfect, employer services manager for the association, said he had expected the big issue to be the bill's proposal for increased pay for working on public holidays.

Instead "most concern was expressed at the changes proposed to proof of sickness or injury for sick leave payments", he said.

An explanatory statement by Labour Minister Margaret Wilson, when the bill was introduced to Parliament in February, said the provision on sick leave would ensure that "an employer cannot require proof of entitlement to sick leave unless the period of leave is longer than five consecutive days [whether or not the employee would have otherwise worked on all those days]. This clarifies an area that has caused dispute and litigation in the past because the act was silent on the issue."

Perfect said the 1500 employers who attended the association's briefings rejected the change.

"At present many employment agreements require medical certificates to be provided at the employer's discretion or after a period off work which is usually two to three days.

"The new law means an employee could take up to four consecutive days off without having to provide a medical certificate.

"The change removes a discretion for employers to manage employees who abuse their sick leave. It thereby discriminates against conscientious employees."

Perfect said many employment agreements would have to be redrafted if the new law was passed without change on this point.

"The present arrangements meet today's employment practices. They allow employers and employees to work together in good faith."

The other issues to loom large in employers' minds were:

* The increase in costs to employers when their employees work on public holidays.

* The proposal for a separate bereavement leave entitlement of three days to cover traditional family relationships as well as one other day each time an employer accepts that an employee has suffered a bereavement as a result of the death of any other person.

* The requirement to calculate annual holiday payments on a 12-month daily moving average basis.

Perfect said the principle involved in calculating holiday pay this way might be straightforward but in practice was far too complex and the bill was unclear about some key areas.

"Under the bill an employee will receive holiday pay calculated by dividing gross earnings by the number of days worked in the preceding 12 months to get a daily average payment for the holiday.

"Such a calculation every time an employee wants to take a holiday is a big complication and an additional cost."

Payroll systems were not always able to calculate gross earnings on a daily basis and calculations would be affected by issues such as the number of days of overtime worked.

"Employees will become less, not more, certain on what their holiday payments will be."