Share this content
6

Calculation of sick pay

What is the correct calculation of contractual sick pay in these scenarios

Didn't find your answer?

If a sick policy is to pay 4 weeks full pay and 4 week half pay in any prior 12 month period.

Scenario 1: An employee is off for 8 weeks from 1st January so is paid 4 week full pay 4 weeks half pay.  They return to work then go off sick again for 4 weeks the 2nd week of the following January.

Are they:

A - paid 4 weeks full pay (because, at the start of the 2nd period of sickness, in the prior 12 months they have had 4 weeks half pay and 3 weeks full pay, and each week a full pay drops off  from 12 months ago - so they get the 4 weeks full pay again)

B - paid 4 weeks half pay (because they have had 7 weeks off in he last 12 months so they are at a half pay week i.e week 8 of 8, and they will be at week 8 of 8 for the full 4 weeks, because weeks will keep dropping off at the other end)

C - something else

Scenario 2: An employee is off for 60 weeks continuously Jan 1st onwards (and we assume they're not sacked).  In week 2 of the following January...

A - they get nothing because it's one perod of sickness

B - They go back into benefit at full pay for 4 weeks then half pay for 4 weeks,  because every week that goes by, 1 week of drops off from 12 months ago - the first weeks to drop off are the full pay ones, then the half pay ones

C - They go back into benefit but at half pay because they have had 7 weeks off in the last 12 months so it is calculated that this new 8th week of sick is at half pay - because the policy says weeks 5 to 8 are half pay.  This half pay would continue for 8 weeks (as each week a prior paid week drops off from 12 months ago so they have only had 7 weeks pay as each new week start), After 8 weeks,  they will have had 8 weeks in the last 12 months so sick pay is exhausted.

D - something else

 

If the answer is 'A' in scenario 2 then if they were to, say, return to work for a month in the December before the 2nd year starts then presumably as this is two periods of sickness the scenario can be re run again, but this time answer A is not the case - so what is it (alhough this is in essence the same as scenario 1 now)

many thanks

Replies (6)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

RLI
By lionofludesch
25th Nov 2018 09:23

I vote

1. A

2. A

Thanks (0)
avatar
By hairyfingers
25th Nov 2018 10:41

Hi

Interesting. See, I think it's

1 - B
2 - A

Then in effect scenario 3 (the re run of 2) is back to B again. So there's a debate about scenario 1 but interesting also, for scenario 2, that even if they returned for just a short period of time in the December they would be eligible for full benefit again whereas the continuous one gets nothing.

Re scenario 1 - I think they would only be eligible again for full pay if they went off in week 9 of the second January. I understand your view - looking back over 12 months they have only had 3 full and 4 half so must be full again but I *think* the 7 weeks off sick is taken as read, that anything more than 4 should be at half even though they've only actually had 3 at full.

Or am I wrong...

Thanks (0)
Replying to hairyfingers:
RLI
By lionofludesch
25th Nov 2018 16:55

hairyfingers wrote:

Hi

Interesting. See, I think it's

1 - B
2 - A

Then in effect scenario 3 (the re run of 2) is back to B again. So there's a debate about scenario 1 but interesting also, for scenario 2, that even if they returned for just a short period of time in the December they would be eligible for full benefit again whereas the continuous one gets nothing.

Re scenario 1 - I think they would only be eligible again for full pay if they went off in week 9 of the second January. I understand your view - looking back over 12 months they have only had 3 full and 4 half so must be full again but I *think* the 7 weeks off sick is taken as read, that anything more than 4 should be at half even though they've only actually had 3 at full.

Or am I wrong...

Where we disagree is you're looking at the weeks they were paid.

I'm looking at the weeks they worked.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By ArunKa
25th Nov 2018 23:27

Remember, Company Sick Pay is a voluntary contribution by the employer and these rules are subject to employer interpretation of the rule. You need to clarify this question with the employers HRBP or HRD to confirm their interpretation, rather than assuming or going by the advice here.

However, for information purpose, I have followed and advised HR to follow this interpretation where they have asked me. This includes lot of large public sector and private sector clients.

The rules states "4 weeks full pay and 4 week half pay in any prior 12 month period". I take the liberty of assuming this rule is evaluated and applied as of the first day of the sickness start as in case of SSP.

on scenario 1, as of 2nd week of Jan year+1, in last 12 months, employee has used 3 weeks of FP and 4 weeks of HP. Taking this out of their entitlement, employee is left with 1 week of FP and nothing else.

Secnario 2, as employee is continuously off for 60 weeks, employee will not be eligible for any pay during the 2nd week of Jan year+1. This is because employees sick pay entitlement is calculated only at the beginning of the sickness period and not recalculated until they return. However, remember, employee is eligible for their Annual leave accrual during this period of sickness.
Any LTS case should be dealt with case by case approach by HR, however the above is the default rule.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By kestrepo
26th Nov 2018 14:42

My vote is:

S1: C or A - Do you really mean a Rolling 12 month period rather than Any prior?

S2: D - SSP is only payable for 26 weeks and employee should be sent the forms for claiming ESA at +/- week 23

Thanks (0)
avatar
By hairyfingers
27th Nov 2018 18:48

Thanks for your replies.

Yes I'm asking about a true 12 month rolling period.

SSP is a separate conversation. I'm just thinking about contractual sick pay.

So I think so far, there is agreement from you two, that in effect the full pay resets for scenario 1.

Thanks

Thanks (0)
Share this content

Related posts