Statutory sick pay

S

Showme tm

Registered User
Messages
18
Morning guys
Could anyone please advise me on this please
My son is out on certified sick leave but is not entitled to company sick pay as he's only there 10 months must be there at a minimum of 12 to be on there sick pay scheme.
But he's not entitled to statutory sick pay according to his HR department as they have there own scheme.
Surely this can't be ok
Any advice would be greatly appreciated
 
Thanks for the reply mathepac that's what I was thinking too.But the HR department are adamant that they don't have to pay this so where do you go from here.
 
Showme tm said:
so where do you go from here.
Click to expand...
As per the article above, the WRC deal with such complaints. However, does you son want to go down that road? Perhaps another conversation with HR asking why they think 12 months and not 13 weeks applies in his case. It is possible the employer is unaware of the 2022 act coming into effect.
 
Thanks for the reply Leo.
The 12 months is how long he has to be employed by to company to be eligible for there sick pay scheme and as he's only there 10 months he's not eligible.
HR seem to think because they have there own scheme they don't have to pay the statutory sick pay.
 
They have to pay up to 5 days at 70% of his pay (up to a max of €110 per day). Assuming he has provided them with a doctors cert he should chase this up and send a copy of the relevant guidelines from citizens information or similar. He only needed to be working there for 13 weeks to avail of this.
 
Thanks Marsha25
I totally agree with all the comments doctors certs have been sent in to and his illness benefit only started after 6 days because of the statutory sick pay scheme but they still won't budge on it.
Seems like the only thing here is to make a complaint to the WRC.
 
I don't think your son is going to get anywhere with the WRC - they have already heard a similar case and your son's employer's scheme would probably be held to be better for employees overall.

Here is an article on their judgement.
 
Mrs Vimes said:
I don't think your son is going to get anywhere with the WRC - they have already heard a similar case and your son's employer's scheme would probably be held to be better for employees overall.

Here is an article on their judgement.
Click to expand...
The company may claim that its sick pay scheme IN ITS ENTIRITY, is superior to the statutory sick pay scheme that would otherwise allow 5 paid days.

Your son may therefore just be unfortunate that he himself does not benefit on this occasion from the superior scheme.

However, the HR department should at least clarify the reasons why it believes the statutory sick pay scheme doesn’t apply.
 
Thanks for the link Mrs Vimes
While I understand as does my son that the overall picture is that there scheme is better it still is not in his benefit as the act implies.
 
I suggest your son sends them the link below and ask them to explain why they believe he is not entitled to it

Sick leave and sick pay

This page describes the new entitlement to paid sick leave of 5 days a year, paid at 70% of normal pay up to a maximum of €110 a day.
www.citizensinformation.ie www.citizensinformation.ie
 
Thanks daddy man
He has already sent a link to them for the sick pay act 2022 and is waiting on a reply from them.
His first payment was paid from illness benefit today after 15 days but it was only paid from the sixth day with the statutory pay taken into consideration..
Seemingly this is not the first time this has happened with his employer but nobody questions it any further as most of the workforce are young and in college.
He is 100% in his mind that he is entitled to this after his I.B payment today and is adamant he should be paid.
Thanks again
 
"The WRC agreed and concluded that the duration of paid sick leave in the employer’s sick pay scheme, coupled with the amount of sick pay provided, outweighed any negatives derived from a 3-day “waiting period” and the requirement to have 6 months continuous service to avail of the employer’s scheme. "

if the employer offers full pay (not 70%) and longer than 5 days per year in their scheme after a year, I would suggest they are probably right to be confident that their own scheme betters the statutory in its entirety, given the supervalu ruling
 
Thanks messyleo
I completely understand this point but surely if your not entitled to one your entitled to the other.
Hence the name SSP
 
The point is that the wrc case shows an internal sick scheme trumps the SSP if it is more favourable on the whole, even if it may not be more favourable in one particular instance - in the supervalu case it was only open to employees after 6 months for example
 
I understand that messyjoe but his payment from illness benefit only started after 6days so he's losing out twice.thanks again for your reply
 
Showme tm said:
I understand that messyjoe but his payment from illness benefit only started after 6days so he's losing out twice.thanks again for your reply
Click to expand...
I think it is just one of those unfortunate situations, not much consolation I know - on the plus side, in another two months he will be eligible for the full employer scheme which could well be 100% of pay from day 1 so it should only be a short term temporary issue at least
 
Last edited:
It's looking like that ok.if and when HR get back to him I will reply again.thanks everyone for you comments
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top