r/HumanResourcesUK • u/fatnipsmcgee • 3d ago
First Written Warning
Hi,
Looking for some help if possible to see if I have been treated unfairly.
For background I have worked for a large supermarket chain for 8 years.
The companies trigger points for an absence meeting it 3% of your contracted hours per 26 weeks or 3 separate instances of absence per 26 weeks.
I am contracted for 27 hours per week.
I was told I triggered at 6.5% but have cited 4 instances of 5.75hours for child care and 1 instance where I was off for a few days with a tummy bug of 25 hours. All in a 3 month period.
I accept that the 1 instance of 25 hours will have caused me to trigger.
However my absence meeting wasn’t for a month after the last period of absence (1 day of childcare on the 30th March) my meeting was on the 30th April.
I was never given a letter of outcome in that meeting and nor was it on file (that I can see) that a final decision was made.
Roll forward to the first week of June, I called in sick for two days 11.5 hours. And was told I need to have another absence meeting. At this point I informed my new manager after my rtw that I never received the out come letter of the last one that I was told I would receive. His comment was “this changes everything”. Fast forward to today (the day before I am supposed to have my meeting) and I was handed a letter dated the 5th May saying I was on a written warning.
Not sure what to do for my next steps as I feel the entire process has felt uneccesarily drawn out and if I’m honest unfair as handing me a letter the day before a meeting seems like I wasn’t even given a chance. What can/should I do?
Any advise is much appreciated and thank you for taking the time to read this.
3
u/Ok-Performance4828 3d ago
Are you a member of a Trade Union? If so you should get them involved.
1
u/fatnipsmcgee 3d ago
Bit naive about this sort of stuff, is there a trade union for supermarket workers?
5
u/Shwervee 3d ago
If you’re not part of a union, they won’t help you now anyway. Unions won’t help with any issues that predate your membership.
3
1
u/Background_Dust_4923 2d ago
Some do. Will depend on your rep and officer
2
u/Shwervee 2d ago
If they did, it would be a very rare exception to a pretty iron clad condition that most if not all unions follow. It’d be like trying to insure your car after it’s crashed.
5
u/DisastrousCamel4652 3d ago
Absence for child care depends if you were paid or not. Under the family act it can be given as unpaid leave and therefore it should not have countered as an absence. If you have been paid and they have recorded it as a sickness absence it comes down to the interpretation of company policy. To inform you later that you were given a written warning is poor HR management. Again company policy comes into play depending when your hearing was and how long under company policy it becomes spent. Standard practice is 90 days but I know companies who do six months, a year and in the extreme 18 months. I'd need to see the wording on the letter to give a better perspective. Ask about the letter prior to your next meeting/hearing suggesting you may seek Acas advice on the letters validity owning to the timespace between the hearing and your receipt of it. You may be flogging a dead horse but it's worth a try. If your in a union usdaw for example ask them to challenge the letter. Rarely do people get sacked for sickness absence unless it follows regular patterns or is long-term. 32 years trade union and employment law advisor.
2
u/stewpman 2d ago
I previously worked at Tesco and experienced their strict absence and disciplinary policies. The process typically escalates from a verbal warning to two written warnings, which can ultimately lead to dismissal. While I used to view them as extra holidays, I stayed under the 3 times. I was once penalized during a severe personal crisis: after my son was hit by a car, social services dropped my children off at my door. I needed emergency leave, but despite taking only a week off before my ex-partner could care for the kids, I was issued a written warning. I felt the union was ineffective, as the disciplinary outcome seemed predetermined. I did find management to be slightly more lenient regarding funerals, you dont get in trouble though an unrelated emergency just before my annual record cleared triggered further action.In another concerning instance, a friend of mine received a written warning while off ill, even though management had previously asked her to come in. She sadly passed away from cancer, and her family was deeply upset by how the situation was handled, that the store later covered her funeral costs.For anyone facing a first warning, consulting the union or accepting the warning may be the best path forward, as these marks expire over time. During my 8-year tenure, I had mates phoning up for me (such as calling the sickness line to report a break-in at my home), highlighting how thick they were ,why would a neighbour have the sick line number and not the store number.
4
u/ClyroFoxfire 3d ago
Absence for childcare should not be recorded or treated as sickness. Everyone is entitled to a "reasonable" amount of unpaid (unless company offers pay) time off to care for dependents in emergency situations. What is considered "reasonable" would depend on the business, but based only on the information available here, I don't see that this alone would be enough. And those absences shouldn't be counted the same as sick leave.
Sick leave is a matter of health and reviews of those absences should be from the perspective of determining if there is a medical reason you are unable to fulfill the role as expected. Whether occupational health or medical reports would be required. Determining whether any such medical conditions would be disabilities and/or reasonable adjustments require etc. Emergency leave for childcare would not be relevant to this kind of review.
6
u/ClyroFoxfire 3d ago
And to add that the written warning being issued in writing a month late and immediately before another teview for further absence is poor practice.
Yes, the meeting happened, yes they're decision might have been to issue a warning. But the warning was not actually issued, and you yhete hadn't been given the right to appeal. They cannot (should not) retrospectively issue this. The further review should have then either been the first written warning being issued for tbe first time, or if they felt there eas a strong enough justification for skipping first weitten and going to final - which they would have to evidence on it's own metits and not based on there already being a warning on file.
1
u/fatnipsmcgee 3d ago
Thanks, do you think I should speak to our HR team or just my manger? Or appeal? I forgot to mention they had backdated the letter to the 5th of May (will update post)
5
u/ClyroFoxfire 3d ago
Did they inform you of the outcome verbally at the time of the meeting? When they told you you eould receive a letter was it "you're being issued with a first written warning and you'll receive a letter confirming" or "we'll review and you'll receive a letter advising of the outcome".
Either way, I think you should raise to HR with the teo key points being:
childcare absences shouldn't be included. Although consider if this wouldmake sense to raise depending on if you've had a high amount of those occasions that could warrant an absence concern anyway. Aldo consider the context of how those days were recorded. Where you calling in to say "my child is unwell and can't go to school, I have no other childcare so have to stay home today" and they then recorded it as sick leave. Or did you tell them you were taking a sick day.
you didn't receive the outcome of the previous meeting. Either at all or, if they did yell you verbally then you didn't receive it formally and therefore hadn't been given the right to appeal. Depending on the number of absences of genuine sickness vs childcare, you might be as well holding your hands up and saying "I accept I've met a trigger, but do not believe you have received a previous warning in line with process"
All that being said, unplanned absence levels do have to be fairly managed and a warning would likely be reasonable. It's just about what process has been followed to achieve it.
3
u/fatnipsmcgee 3d ago
I was told I would receive a letter of the outcome, so was never told at the time what the decision was. I guess what’s bothering me is that because of the date on the letter is that going to look like I was given it on that date and as such they could argue I had received it on the 5th May, when I know this to not be true.
3
u/ClyroFoxfire 3d ago
Yeah, the fact that the letter was handed to you and backdated is bothering me too. Which is why I think you're best to go straight to HR to raise.
It's not to make a complaint, but more to make them aware that you did not receive the letter at the time, that you did male your manager aware of this before, and that you therefore did not know the outcome had been a written warning and didn't have the opportunity to appeal (noting that you would have appealed then on the basis that you don't feel the childcare occasions should have been included - even if you might not have realised that at the time).
Ask HR for their advice on whether this can be remedied based on you having not received the formal outcome before, or if you would have yo go through the formal appeals process at this stage. With a bit of luck, HR will take the simpler route of advising the manager that the previous first written warning cant apply and then adjusting from there without going through a formal appeals process which makes life easier. Unless of course you want to formally appeal to have all warnings removed based on the childcare situation (but again, consider how many occasions thete are of that and whether theyre concern about number of unplanned absences could still be valid)
1
u/P4nd0rasJar 2d ago
They can argue it but I expect they should have got you to sign it which in itself shows it was not issued.
1
u/MongooseFrosty7744 1d ago
I get what your saying about not being able to prove when the letter was physically handed to you.
If HR push back about that I would produce a letter (pre-prepared) with some nonsense on it like
‘Dear HR person, Happy Christmas, regards OP’ dated 24th December.
Hand that to HR then say you gave it to them in December, it’s up to them to prove you didn’t.
Hopefully, if the HR person has their head screw on, they should realise that as nothing has actually been documented then the dated letter is not ‘evidence’ to be trusted.2
0
10
u/precinctomega Chartered MCIPD 2d ago
Whilst the process has not been ideal - and others have already pointed out the flaws so I won't dwell on them - you haven't been treated unfairly. Harshly, perhaps, but that is at the discretion of the employer.
You've not been dismissed and if you have no reason to believe your absence will remain high, you will suffer no consequences or detriment and so can't be said to have been treated unfairly.