# GDPR & GP certs/HR Dept



## kitty81 (15 Oct 2018)

Hi, I'm looking for some advice from both sides of this, if possible.

This is not something I am in the habit of doing but last week I had to visit my GP where he prescribed an antibiotic and gave me a note for work for 3 days. ( I actually cant remember the last time I was off from work sick)

While he was doing up the note I asked him to put down the reason as to why I was unfit for work as our HR require it.

My GP told me he can longer do that due to the data changes & that HR can only request that directly from them with a request that is signed by me. 

I accepted this & brought this note to HR. I told HR that while I asked, the GP cannot disclose this without the request from them.

HR are saying that I won't be paid now unless they get a new note with the illness recorded on it & are not prepared to write to GP for it.

Can anyone help me with either side of this please? Who's right, who's wrong?? I can't solve it without either of them but gp is adamant it can't be given.

Thanks in advance for any advice.


----------



## thos (15 Oct 2018)

None of your employers business, gross breach of privacy. Challenge them on it and seek legal advice if necessary.


----------



## Leo (16 Oct 2018)

Your employers have no entitlement to that information. Covered in the [broken link removed] Annual Report of the Data Protection Commission, and strengthened with GDPR. Employers can only process sensitive data with consent and where there is a legitimate reason for doing so. For a short term and one-off absence such as this there is no legitimate reason for the company to request this information.


----------



## Steven Barrett (16 Oct 2018)

You would think that someone working in a department that deals with such issues would actually know what information that can and can't request from individuals...


----------



## mtk (16 Oct 2018)

kitty81 said:


> HR are saying that I won't be paid now unless they get a new note with the illness recorded on it & are not prepared to write to GP for it.


HR can be just unbelievable!


----------



## T McGibney (16 Oct 2018)

kitty81 said:


> My GP told me he can longer do that due to the data changes



Sounds ridiculous on his part.

You are surely entitled to written confirmation of your own personal information if you request it and once your request is neither unreasonable nor onerous on the third party from whom you request it?


----------



## Gordon Gekko (16 Oct 2018)

To be fair, HR departments tend to be populated with eejits who don’t know their backside from their elbow. Expect the worst, always.


----------



## Clamball (16 Oct 2018)

No one where you work needs to be aware of the reason for your illness, they can ask, but legally cannot insist that you supply this detail to them.   Of course you can tell them that the company doctor has your permission to speak to your GP to discuss if he now considers you medically fit for work.  You are not preventing the company from investigating if you were ill and are now fit.  The company doctor usually gives a one line reply to the company. “Kitty81 is fit for work in my opinion”.   But he will not disclose your illness. 

There are many reasons why people do not disclose the reason for their illness, or the reason why they are medically unfit.  What if you were undergoing fertility treatment and did not want work asking you every few weeks if you were pregnant yet?

This is personal private information which your company has no need to know, your doctor is correct.  All he needs to say is that you are unfit for work between x and x dates.   You need to push back at HR and get them to explain why your certificate is invalid under current GDPR regulations.

The workplace relations commission would also be helpful to you.


----------



## kitty81 (16 Oct 2018)

Thank you all for replies & advice. I had a chat with someone from mngt today, off the record, & was told that part of the companies sickness policy is that a reason for an absence is provided.

In my limited knowledge on this & based on the comments above, I assume this may breach data protection also. Could this be something that is signed to accept when accepting the employment contract - I signed mine about 10 years ago?

I feel like a fight is on my hands with this crowd as they are very hard to deal with.


----------



## Thirsty (16 Oct 2018)

Leaving GDPR out of the equation, they were never entitled to insist on the reason for being unfit for work as a condition of sick pay.

Write a letter, keep it simple; make it clear you want a written reply.

They'll think twice - and hopefully check the law - before replying.


----------



## Clamball (16 Oct 2018)

It used to be part of our company’s policy too, you gave your cert to your manager, s/he gave it to HR, but then they changed to sent cert to HR, and then they changed again, saying HR really do not want to know, give it to your boss.  But our written policy did not change.  

So your company’s written policy has not kept up with the times and neither have the HR guys.  

Just send them a note along with your cert saying, My doctor has certified me as being medically unfit for work from x to x therefore I did not attend work from x to x.  Please ensure I am paid as normal for my work on date, it is unacceptable that my wages are reduced due to being on medically certified leave.  Please acknowledge in writing that my wages will be paid in full. 

You could if they refuse ask them for a list of illness and or medical conditions that they agree are legimate medically certified reasons for taking sick leave and a list that they find unacceptable. This might help them realise that they cannot judge your illness seeing as they have no knowledge or legimitate reason to know.  If you had a communicable disease like, I don’t know, thypoid, and worked in a good handling role then they might have a legimate reason to know, but this is something you would be aware of and would reveal yourself.


----------



## Slim (17 Oct 2018)

Hi. Two points here:

One: as stated above, our laws and DP laws are clear that your employer is not entitled to know the details of your illness unless that itself becomes an issue regarding your ongoing or future work ability and that is where Occupational Health/Company doctor come in.

Two: You GP is interpreting GDPR overly strictly. As you are the  data subject and you asked him to put the nature of your illness on your cert, he should have complied even if he asked you to sign something in writing about it.

You can choose to drag your HR department and managers through the hedge on this, apparently minor illness which you had no problem disclosing, or you can write to your GP and ask for confirmation of his most recent diagnosis in relation to your cert.

Is it worth antagonising your management over this?


----------



## Sunny (17 Oct 2018)

Slim said:


> Hi. Two points here:
> 
> One: as stated above, our laws and DP laws are clear that your employer is not entitled to know the details of your illness unless that itself becomes an issue regarding your ongoing or future work ability and that is where Occupational Health/Company doctor come in.
> 
> ...



I would say it is worth antagonising the management. It is a extremely dangerous policy for a company. Women in the early stages of pregnancy, people with mental illness, people with STD's, People with stress would all have to reveal information with who knows who in 'HR'. They have no right to the data and in fact are opening themselves to large fines under GDPR for requesting personal data that is not warranted. If they want detailed medical records, a company doctor should contact the GP and the GP can hand over details with the employees consent but the details of the condition should never be handed over to the company management or HR.

And the GP is technically correct not to share the data with your employer. Most GP's have a data policy about who they can share medical details with and it is usually limited to other medical organisations/doctors, HSE, and some medical research. If you company wants the data, they should make an official request and it should be signed by you. And even then, you shouldn't agree to it.


----------



## Slim (17 Oct 2018)

Sunny said:


> I would say it is worth antagonising the management. It is a extremely dangerous policy for a company. Women in the early stages of pregnancy, people with mental illness, people with STD's, People with stress would all have to reveal information with who knows who in 'HR'. They have no right to the data and in fact are opening themselves to large fines under GDPR for requesting personal data that is not warranted. If they want detailed medical records, a company doctor should contact the GP and the GP can hand over details with the employees consent but the details of the condition should never be handed over to the company management or HR.
> All of what you say here is correct but it's not your or my career at risk in this situation.
> 
> And the GP is technically correct not to share the data with your employer. Most GP's have a data policy about who they can share medical details with and it is usually limited to other medical organisations/doctors, HSE, and some medical research. If you company wants the data, they should make an official request and it should be signed by you. And even then, you shouldn't agree to it.
> The GP should follow the wishes of the data subject who asked him to disclose the nature of the illness. Also, a request from the company which is countersigned by the employee may be considered 'forced' and is not allowed under Data Protection.


----------



## Blackrock1 (17 Oct 2018)

this is some nonsense, if someone is paying you while you arent available to work they should have some entitlement to know why, doesnt have to go into specifics.


----------



## Leo (17 Oct 2018)

Blackrock1 said:


> they should have some entitlement to know why



Under current legislation, they have no entitlement to such information. They only need to know is whether the person is fit to work or not.


----------



## Blackrock1 (17 Oct 2018)

Leo said:


> Under current legislation, they have no entitlement to such information. They only need to know is whether the person is fit to work or not.



i understand that but its nonsense. In reality anyone who goes to a doctor who wants to be signed off will get signed off. We had someone get signed off by a doctor for 2 weeks the afternoon after they were questioned about the quality of their work. There was nothing wrong apart from being annoyed at being questioned.

In this scenario it was a non irish person going to a doctor of the same nationality.

Companies that pay during illness should have a discretionary sick pay policy, if a company pays sick pay at the moment there isnt enough protection as doctors will give certs out as long as their consultation fee is covered.


----------



## thos (17 Oct 2018)

Slim said:


> All of what you say here is correct but it's not your or my career at risk in this situation.



Agreed.

I would be inclined to discuss with your direct line management, or other trusted non-HR senior management with whom you are familiar and get their feedback. Ideally you want someone else on your side to help sponsor this topic and have a reasonable conversation with HR about reviewing and updating this process.


----------



## kitty81 (17 Oct 2018)

Thanks again for replies & opinions. 

I will ask for HR to confirm in writing to me the reason they will not accept my current cert.

As someone pointed out in earlier posts, the fact that the leave was 3 days and is an isolated incident I don't believe that warrants undue worry from my employer about my health/well-being!

My GP simply put that I was unfit for work for 3 days & told me he would provide the info if requested through the correct channels, which I told HR.  My problem is HR won't use the correct channels and are asking me to get the GP to breach his responsibilities under Data Protection.  I can't, nor would I expect, him to do that. 

The GP himself explained to me that he had put the nature of an illness on another patients cert for their work, as requested by the patient (a Government employer) & received a response for them to say that he should not disclose that unless specifically requested from said employer.

HR's opinion of it is, that it is part of their 'sickness policy' that the reason is provided, which I now understand is breaching personal data. 

I understand that if I am not available for work, my employer should have an interest in it (& I personally have no problem with telling them what it was) however, if it had been a more personal issue they should not (& seems they don't) have access to details of it without specifically requesting it from the GP.

I'll await HR response in writing and take it from there


----------



## Clamball (17 Oct 2018)

Blackrock1 said:


> this is some nonsense, if someone is paying you while you arent available to work they should have some entitlement to know why, doesnt have to go into specifics.



But they do know why.  They have a certificate from a qualified medical doctor who has certified that medically they are unfit to carry out the duties of work.   The reason why they are medical unfit is not required, that is private.  

Ask yourself, what are you going to do with the reason why they are sick.  Are you going to judge the person?  (Oh I had pneumonia and I came to work every day but this person just has a cold and their doctor is giving them two weeks, they are slacking... sort of thing.)  The question the medical professional would ask is where are your medical qualifications to make such a judgement, it is not your place.  What if you had a temporary staff member who was undergoing fertility treatment and you decided on the basis of this written in a medical certificate that you would not renew her contract even though her work was of a satisfactory standard?  It is to prevent such scenarios happening that the reason for the illness does not need to be on the certificate.



Blackrock1 said:


> i understand that but its nonsense. In reality anyone who goes to a doctor who wants to be signed off will get signed off. We had someone get signed off by a doctor for 2 weeks the afternoon after they were questioned about the quality of their work. There was nothing wrong apart from being annoyed at being questioned.
> 
> In this scenario it was a non irish person going to a doctor of the same nationality.
> 
> Companies that pay during illness should have a discretionary sick pay policy, if a company pays sick pay at the moment there isnt enough protection as doctors will give certs out as long as their consultation fee is covered.



What you have here is a performance related issue rather than an illness related issue.  If you have an issue with the quality of their work then put them on a PIP.  If you are concerned that they are fit for work despite being certified unfit by their doctor then send them to your company doctor.  This is a cost to you but there is a process in place to do this.  Companies like https://chi.ie/about-us/ are specialist in this sort of stuff (I have no connection to them).  If your worker says they are too sick to drive there etc, then pay and send a taxi to collect them.  Do it now, today, don't wait to let your suspicions fester.


----------



## Blackrock1 (17 Oct 2018)

Clamball said:


> But they do know why.  They have a certificate from a qualified medical doctor who has certified that medically they are unfit to carry out the duties of work.   The reason why they are medical unfit is not required, that is private.
> 
> Ask yourself, what are you going to do with the reason why they are sick.  Are you going to judge the person?  (Oh I had pneumonia and I came to work every day but this person just has a cold and their doctor is giving them two weeks, they are slacking... sort of thing.)  The question the medical professional would ask is where are your medical qualifications to make such a judgement, it is not your place.  What if you had a temporary staff member who was undergoing fertility treatment and you decided on the basis of this written in a medical certificate that you would not renew her contract even though her work was of a satisfactory standard?  It is to prevent such scenarios happening that the reason for the illness does not need to be on the certificate.
> 
> ...



dont worry the person involved wont be coming back, it was done before today 

And yes it is a performance issue but with a complicit doctor signing someone off.


----------



## Blackrock1 (17 Oct 2018)

Clamball said:


> But they do know why.  They have a certificate from a qualified medical doctor who has certified that medically they are unfit to carry out the duties of work.   The reason why they are medical unfit is not required, that is private.
> 
> Ask yourself, what are you going to do with the reason why they are sick.  Are you going to judge the person?  (Oh I had pneumonia and I came to work every day but this person just has a cold and their doctor is giving them two weeks, they are slacking... sort of thing.)  The question the medical professional would ask is where are your medical qualifications to make such a judgement, it is not your place.  What if you had a temporary staff member who was undergoing fertility treatment and you decided on the basis of this written in a medical certificate that you would not renew her contract even though her work was of a satisfactory standard?  It is to prevent such scenarios happening that the reason for the illness does not need to be on the certificate.
> 
> ...



do you believe that in all cases that doctors that are giving people certs are convinced of their inability to work? 

I dont.


----------



## Leo (17 Oct 2018)

If you have concerns that sick leave policy is being abused, you should have documented procedures to deal with such cases and have your company doctor assess them. Even when your company doctor carries out such an assessment, you'll note that they will share little or no specifics of the nature of the illness with you, just the details you are entitled to regarding their fitness to work.

Having specifics of the nature of the illness exposes the company to discrimination, or wrongful or constructive dismissal claims. 



Blackrock1 said:


> do you believe that in all cases that doctors that are giving people certs are convinced of their inability to work?



Absolutely not, and the DEASP issued new guidelines to GPs in 2015 with the aim of limiting time certified off work as in many cases this is found to prolong or exacerbate the underlying issues. If you run a fair and honest workplace, your staff for the most part will reciprocate that fairness and will not abuse sick leave. If you manage an environment of mistrust, prying into your employee's private lives, you can expect that culture to reach every level of the organisation.


----------



## Sunny (17 Oct 2018)

Blackrock1 said:


> do you believe that in all cases that doctors that are giving people certs are convinced of their inability to work?



No. Do I believe in all cases where an employee has a cert saying they are unfit for work but do not go into specifics that they are lying lazy slackers. I don't.

Leo is right. The only places I have ever seen sick leave abused is in places where employees are treated like schoolchildren with managers questioning them or doubting them and putting them under pressure to come in when sick. Some people will abuse sick leave but there are laws in place that allow employers deal with that. People who automatically look at certs or sick leave like it is a symptom of some sort of weakness or an employee taking the p*ss should not be in a management position.


----------



## Blackrock1 (17 Oct 2018)

Leo said:


> If you have concerns that sick leave policy is being abused, you should have documented procedures to deal with such cases and have your company doctor assess them. Even when your company doctor carries out such an assessment, you'll note that they will share little or no specifics of the nature of the illness with you, just the details you are entitled to regarding their fitness to work.
> 
> Having specifics of the nature of the illness exposes the company to discrimination, or wrongful or constructive dismissal claims.
> 
> ...



Without going into specifics , small to medium growing co's dont tend to have company doctors. In fact i dont recall ever hearing of a company doctor in any of the companies i have worked in, ranging from 1000s of employee to hundred. Now i have been lucky enough to remain in good health so maybe i just never came across one.


----------



## Blackrock1 (17 Oct 2018)

Sunny said:


> No. Do I believe in all cases where an employee has a cert saying they are unfit for work but do not go into specifics that they are lying lazy slackers. I don't.
> 
> Leo is right. The only places I have ever seen sick leave abused is in places where employees are treated like schoolchildren with managers questioning them or doubting them and putting them under pressure to come in when sick. Some people will abuse sick leave but there are laws in place that allow employers deal with that. People who automatically look at certs or sick leave like it is a symptom of some sort of weakness or an employee taking the p*ss should not be in a management position.



I dont think that was my contention either, in the main i think people who are off sick are genuine in that regard but its very easy to get signed off if you arent sick, that was the point i was making.

I disagree with your second contention, sick leave is also abused in companies where sick pay is paid and people arent questioned at all, there is a happy medium somewhere.

And you are drawing inferences that werent made in your last statement.


----------



## Sunny (17 Oct 2018)

Blackrock1 said:


> I dont think that was my contention either, in the main i think people who are off sick are genuine in that regard but its very easy to get signed off if you arent sick, that was the point i was making.
> 
> I disagree with your second contention, sick leave is also abused in companies where sick pay is paid and people arent questioned at all, there is a happy medium somewhere.
> 
> And you are drawing inferences that werent made in your last statement.



That is your contention. It is easy to get signed off sick when you aren't. It actually isn't easy. Most companies have policies to stop people taking repeated or long term certified sick leave without their own medical checks. Days of walking into a surgery asking for a cert on a Monday are gone. Having said that, if someone walks into a Doctor and says they haven't slept in a few days, are very stressed and worried about work, are you saying that a GP should always operate on the premise that the person in front of them are lying?

Sick leave is paid in my company. We have a certain number of uncertified days every year. That is not abused i.e. most recent stats to hand show that out of 400 people there was a total of 150 uncertified sick days taken in 2017. If people in your company or people reporting to you are abusing sick leave then you need to deal with that and ask why and not make general statements that companies should be entitled to know a person's medical details because they get paid by the company.


----------



## Blackrock1 (17 Oct 2018)

Sunny said:


> That is your contention. It is easy to get signed off sick when you aren't. It actually isn't easy.



i dont recall referring to repeated or long term sick, i contend that you can walk into a doctor on a monday morning and get signed off a for a few days pretty easily and if you tell them you are suffering stress a couple of weeks isnt hard to get.

I am referring to a particular situation where someone who was perfectly fine left during the day, never returned and then had a cert for longer than a week. Im not saying that means everyone who is off sick is taking the mick, far from it. In this particular situation the person was and i take issue with the fact that the cert gave no detail. I understand the legislation is contrary to that view point but i maintain my entitlement to at least have an opinion if thats ok.

And i don't need your management advice thanks, thats more than once in this thread you have offered it.


----------



## Sunny (17 Oct 2018)

Blackrock1 said:


> i dont recall referring to repeated or long term sick, i contend that you can walk into a doctor on a monday morning and get signed off a for a few days pretty easily and if you tell them you are suffering stress a couple of weeks isnt hard to get.
> 
> I am referring to a particular situation where someone who was perfectly fine left during the day, never returned and then had a cert for longer than a week. Im not saying that means everyone who is off sick is taking the mick, far from it. In this particular situation the person was and i take issue with the fact that the cert gave no detail. I understand the legislation is contrary to that view point but i maintain my entitlement to at least have an opinion if thats ok.
> 
> And i don't need your management advice thanks, thats more than once in this thread you have offered it.



Well no it's not ok. Maybe the person was taking the mickey. But just maybe the person had personal problems that you knew nothing about. Maybe being questioned about the quality of their work was just the straw that broke the camels back. Maybe they had been struggling for weeks or months with personal issues that they didn't feel like they were in a position to share. I don't know. You don't know. But you still jumped straight to the conclusion that is all a con job because they were pulled up on something in work. The fact that you then said they won't be back with a winking smiling face kind of says a lot as well. Maybe this has been going on for months and you have tried and tried to deal with it in different ways but that's not what you described above. And then you think you think you are entitled to see details on a cert. You are legally not allowed to and I am sorry but don't know who would expect to see personal medical details on a cert. You are entitled to know if a person is fit for work or not. It protects the employee and it protects the employer to have it that way. If you have concerns about the cert issued, then you deal with the employee and if you think the GP simply issued the cert because he was being paid €60, then there are steps you can take there as well.


----------



## Blackrock1 (17 Oct 2018)

Sunny said:


> Well no it's not ok. Maybe the person was taking the mickey.



yes it is ok, its not for you to decide

and yes they were. I have been managing people long enough to understand genuine illnesses, genuine issues, genuine personal circumstances that require understanding of which we have had a lot. This wasnt any of that, it was someone deciding a job wasnt for them and taking a holiday before they left in lieu of notice.

Also you have no information about the circumstances around the person not returning so your speculation and inferences you are drawing have no merit.


----------



## odyssey06 (17 Oct 2018)

Blackrock1 said:


> i dont recall referring to repeated or long term sick, i contend that you can walk into a doctor on a monday morning and get signed off a for a few days pretty easily and if you tell them you are suffering stress a couple of weeks isnt hard to get.
> 
> I am referring to a particular situation where someone who was perfectly fine left during the day, never returned and then had a cert for longer than a week. Im not saying that means everyone who is off sick is taking the mick, far from it. In this particular situation the person was and i take issue with the fact that the cert gave no detail. I understand the legislation is contrary to that view point but i maintain my entitlement to at least have an opinion if thats ok.



I don't understand your issue with the fact that the cert gave no detail. Even if the cert had said stress, what could you have done to act upon it that doesn't involve a company doctor?

You are entitled to you opinion about what is and is not a genuine medical sick cert, but I think the Workplace Relations Commission would take a rather dim view of your standing wrt providing expert medical opinions.


----------



## Blackrock1 (17 Oct 2018)

odyssey06 said:


> I don't understand your issue with the fact that the cert gave no detail. Even if the cert had said stress, what could you have done to act upon it that doesn't involve a company doctor?
> 
> You are entitled to you opinion about what is and is not a genuine medical sick cert, but I think the Workplace Relations Commission would take a rather dim view of your standing wrt providing expert medical opinions.



i dont think the WRC will be taking a view dim or otherwise. But i have taken a dim view of what this person has done and the doctor that facilitated it for what its worth


----------



## odyssey06 (17 Oct 2018)

Blackrock1 said:


> I have taken a dim view of what this person has done and the doctor that facilitated it for what its worth



And you may well be right about both parties, but I don't see what material difference seeing the medical condition on the cert makes in terms of you being able to establish sufficient proof that your view of the incident is accurate such that you could convince a third party.


----------



## Purple (12 Nov 2018)

Your employer only needs to know you are sick. Unless they are also a doctor and have examined you they are in no position to second guess your GP.

Your employer cannot ask you for any information beyond that. It is not useful information to them and it is none of their business. 

Your GP doesn't understand the previous law or the new GDPR. It sounds very paternalistic for them to say that they won't write down what's wrong with you unless your employer says it is alright for them to do so. You are the data owner. You can take the detailed note the GP gives you are wear it as a hat and they still won't be breaching GDPR. Experts in one area are prone to thinking that they are experts in other areas as well.

Let your employers HR department know that they are currently breaking the law. They should be thanking you.


----------



## kitty81 (16 Nov 2018)

Just to provide an update. I asked my GP to put in writing the reasons why he would not put the nature of illness on cert to which I got no response & my HR didn't come near me again but I was paid as normal this month.

Hopefully I won't have this situation again but I would love anybody else's experience posted if anyone else finds themselves in similar situation.


----------



## DirectDevil (3 Dec 2018)

OP, FYI on this episode and the future it might be worth getting a view from the Data Protection Commission. 
Link https://www.dataprotection.ie/docs/Home/4.htm
E-mail info@dataprotection.ie


----------



## MangoJoe (4 Dec 2018)

A whole thread about supposedly professional people in Human Resources who cannot grasp the basic tenants of their own profession even subsequent to their failings being highlighted to them in simple terms by other parties operating outside of their field of "expertise".

In my career experience to date HR have always been an interesting cohort of people to watch as they go about making a lot of their own rules to feather their nests vey comfortably on a foundation of next to nothing.

And to the strident poster above who thinks that every 21 year old 'child' in HR should have access to everyone else's personal and private medical episodes which will often be of a potentially very sensitive/embarrassing/career limiting (through misconception or ignorance etc in the wrong hands) please do go have a bit of a think about what you're saying.


----------



## Leo (4 Dec 2018)

MangoJoe said:


> ...that every 21 year old 'child' in HR should have access...



There are good and bad in HR, and they can only be as good as their management allow them to be, but suggesting they're all children doesn't really add to the debate.


----------



## MangoJoe (4 Dec 2018)

Leo your inference is incorrect - I never said that all HR personnel were 21 year old children, I was simply making the point that sharing personal and private medical details with HR would typically include sharing these particulars with all levels including the junior, inexperienced and relatively speaking, immature individuals such as I've seen in HR offices across the length and breadth of my employment history.

I can just imagine 20 year old Tyler the HR Junior Executive Associate shouting* "OK GOOGLE - WHATS A HYSTERECTOMY?!?!*" at his new smartphone as he wonders why Michelle from accounts has been out for 4 days in a row and debating whether should he just go right on ahead and send her a written warning anyway.....


----------



## Leo (4 Dec 2018)

MangoJoe said:


> Leo your inference is incorrect - I never said that all HR personnel were 21 year old children,



So why even bring up "every 21 year old 'child' in HR"?



MangoJoe said:


> I can just imagine 20 year old Tyler the HR Junior Executive Associate shouting* "OK GOOGLE - WHATS A HYSTERECTOMY?!?!*"



This is a serious topic, your musings are irrelevant and a distraction.


----------



## Feemar5 (12 Dec 2018)

I would ask for a copy of the Company's Sick Leave Policy - there is usually a date on it - and if the date is years old then it needs to be updated.     They are not entitled to know your medical details.


----------



## kitty81 (14 Dec 2018)

Although it has passed by me now I am still curious so I have queried it now with the useful link provided by DirectDevil. 

I'll post an update when I get a response.


----------



## kitty81 (16 Jan 2019)

I have received a response from the Data Commission Office & as promised I am updating this thread with it. To me it seems to confirm what most other posters advised.  


'Under Section 3 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 an
employer must provide an employee with a written statement of terms of
employment within two months of the commencement of the employment. One of
the terms referred to in this Act on which the employer must provide
information is the terms or conditions relating to incapacity for work due
to sickness or injury. Your employer can require you to provide a medical
certificate when you are on sick leave. For example, you may have to
provide a medical certificate if you are out sick for more than two
consecutive days. The medical certificate should state the date you are
likely to return to work, and as such does not have to provide a specific
illness for this purpose.

Data protection legislation provides rights to individuals in this context
but equally recognise the right of employers to seek certain types of
information in certain circumstances. It comes down to a question of
balance and certainly that balance would not be met by seeking of specific
illness/sick related information from all employees in all cases.  Under
the Acts any requests for information should be acceptable and justifiable'


----------



## DeeKie (22 Jan 2019)

[broken link removed]

“The Respondent employer sought a direct opinion from the Data Protection Commission, who notified it that the Parental Leave Act “allows for the employer to be informed by the employee of the facts of the force majeure leave” and that the Respondent had a “legitimate interest in obtaining this information as per statutory requirements of section 13 of the Parental Leave Act and therefore does not appear to be a breach of Data Protection Acts.” The Respondent further argued that, as an employer of 1,200 people, it cannot be left to individuals to determine whether or not force majeure leave applies. The Respondent insisted that it is “positively predisposed to granting the leave” and emphasised that it is not its role to decide whether or not the illness/injury is of a sufficiently serious nature.

The Adjudication Officer noted that the relevant legislation requires the employee to outline the “nature of illness/injury.” For this reason, she held that it was reasonable for the employer to request its employee to provide evidence in support of his application for force majeure leave.“


----------



## Leo (23 Jan 2019)

DeeKie said:


> For this reason, she held that it was reasonable for the employer to request its employee to provide evidence in support of his application for force majeure leave.“



Just to note, focus of this thread is sick leave which is a different animal to force majeure leave.


----------



## DeeKie (23 Jan 2019)

Leo said:


> Just to note, focus of this thread is sick leave which is a different animal to force majeure leave.


Thanks Leo. Is sickness not a force majeure in employment law? That’s really interesting. Sorry if I wrong footed people. I assumed as the issue in the AC nite pertained to illness it was relevant.


----------



## Leo (24 Jan 2019)

DeeKie said:


> Is sickness not a force majeure in employment law?



No, force majeure applies when you are perfectly well, but need to take time off to deal with issues such as family emergencies.



DeeKie said:


> Sorry if I wrong footed people.



No worries, it's very useful to highlight the differences in how these leave types are handles in legislation.


----------

