# Children sick, employer says short notice for annual leave is unacceptable



## Waves (23 Nov 2012)

My husband and I have two children aged 4 and 2. For the past 3 weeks, they've been sick on and off with a vomiting bug followed by ear and chest infections. We both work full-time, but obviously they can't go to the childminder when they are sick, so we've been trying to juggle work between us. We don't have any family in Dublin, so don't have any other back-up support for looking after the children.

Last week, I was off with them on Monday, but had an important meeting at work on Tuesday so my husband took that off. Then, I took Wednesday off and thankfully they were better by Thursday. We both took the days off as annual leave. 

My husband told his manager on Monday that he needed to take Tuesday off because the children were sick. This was the second time in the last 2 weeks that he had to do this as they were sick last week also. However, it hadn't happened before that for a very long time. My husband rarely takes sick leave. 

In a meeting today, his manager told him that this short notice for the time off wasn't acceptable and that in future he should make alternative arrangements when the children were sick.  He also asked why I hadn't taken the day off. He said that the company's interest had to come first.

My husband was very annoyed with this as we don't really have any other option when the children are sick. He is considering bringing the matter to a senior manager as he feels that it is unreasonable. 

Has anyone any advice in relation to this situation?


----------



## Janet (23 Nov 2012)

Is this link from citizens information website any use to you?  

The section on force majeure leave says the following (I've bolded the parts that seem relevant for you), although presumably things like "indispenable" and "illness" may be open to interpretation.  Still it would imply to me that that is the minimum you should be entitled to.  



> Force majeure leave
> If you have *a family crisis* the Parental Leave Act, 1998 as amended by the Parental Leave (Amendment) Act 2006 (pdf) gives an employee a limited right to leave from work. This is known as force majeure leave. It *arises where, for urgent family reasons, the immediate presence of the employee is indispensable owing to an injury or illness of a close family member.*
> 
> Force majeure leave does not give any entitlement to leave following the death of a close family member.
> ...



Does his contract have anything in regard to the situation of taking leave at short-notice, parental leave etc.


----------



## Waves (24 Nov 2012)

*Force majeure*

Hi Janet
Thanks for this feedback. 

To be honest, I don't think that the kids having a chest infection constitutes a reason for force majeure leave. I know that in my work, the policy specifies it is  not for a child's 'routine' illnesses such as cold and flus.

We have no problem taking annual leave when the kids are sick. The issue here is that my husband's manager is saying that he didn't give enough notice when he needed to take the day off, as he just told him on the Monday that he needed to take Tuesday off.


----------



## wbbs (24 Nov 2012)

He kind of has a point, it would be hard to run a business with that sort of short notice, I know that doesn't help your position but not too many businesses are likely to give a day off on a day's notice whatever the reason.  With my last employer you would be expected to give nearly 6 weeks notice and you still might not get the day off, hence I suspect the high level of sick leave!


----------



## Maggiemoo (24 Nov 2012)

The employer certainly does not have any point regardless of what laws cover this situation!    An employer who thinks their business comes before a sick child should be ashamed of themselves.  

The employee states they hardly takes sick leave and was happy to take it from annual allowance which in my opinion was very considerate - now where is the consideration from the employer??    My manager called me recently to say its almost December and your child will have school events etc coming up, make sure you dont miss any of them!!   That's whats called an employer with respect for its employees, hence I work with a great team and enjoy my job.   Like this employee I dont take time off only when absolutely necessary.


----------



## wbbs (24 Nov 2012)

Lovely in theory but the bulk of employers are not like that, in an ideal world of course sick children would come before work but we live in a far from ideal world.


----------



## truthseeker (24 Nov 2012)

I would think your husband is right to go higher with this. The manager is on very dodgy ground asking your husband why you did not take time off. I smell sexism. Suggesting that the companys interest comes first is just silly. Peoples lives come first, we work for money to enjoy and sustain those lives.

If I were your husband I would be raising the matter with a senior manager and complaining that the person who told him the company should come first is being unreasonable.


----------



## Importer (24 Nov 2012)

Take three deep breaths and let the matter rest...

Going over the Manager's head to a senior manager on a small irritation like this is not the way to go. No senior manager worth his salt will get involved with such an issue regardless of the rights or wrongs of the situation

If you are adamant that the matter should be taken further, have another word with the immediate manager and explain how the matter has irritated you and then try to come to a mutual understanding how such matters should be handled in the future.

It really worries me how some posters on here appear so militant and ready to unleash all their bullets at the first sign of an indian on top of the hill.

Surely,people working together need to get along as well as possible. Heading into confrontation on every occasion is not very professional and not very smart


----------



## SarahMc (24 Nov 2012)

Manager's view, and most likely senior Managers too - your sick child is not their problem, you should have a back up plan for this eventuality. Its not fair on your co-workers to drop them in in like this.

Fellow parent's view - I have resorted to this on couple of occasions during the pre-school years - phone in sick yourself. Much less hassle.


----------



## BoscoTalking (26 Nov 2012)

Importer said:


> It really worries me how some posters on here appear so militant and ready to unleash all their bullets at the first sign of an indian on top of the hill.



having been that militant- I wholeheartedly agree - i regret manys the bullet i sent when something got my back up. 

My approach would be much the same as Sarah Mc - phone in with a "rotten dose" which might contaminate the whole office and there will be a different reception to the same issue - you taking time off.


----------



## ajapale (26 Nov 2012)

When the employer says "*short notice for annual leave is unacceptable" *he is of course well within his rights.


----------



## Ceist Beag (26 Nov 2012)

Waves, whilst your honesty is admirable and it certainly seems you and your husband are trying to be up front and open with your employers, it isn't necessarily always the best policy. I will probably get told off for this view but if my company were acting in the manner that your husbands company are acting I would have absolutely no problem ringing in sick on the Tuesday instead of requesting a day off.


----------



## Waves (26 Nov 2012)

*Sick leave v annual leave when children are sick*

Thanks everyone for all the feedback.

We have been mulling over this at the weekend and to us the option of my husband calling in sick seems like the most pragmatic option in the situation that we are in. It is all very well to say that we need to make alternative arrangements but the only option we have when the kids are sick is to look after them ourselves as we don't have any other support available from family etc. 

I don't think that it is reasonable that I am the only one to take time off work to look after the kids because I am their mother - but I won't start a rant on that........

It just seems a bit wrong to me that my husband is getting hassle for being honest about the situation and taking annual leave.


----------



## orka (26 Nov 2012)

Just a suggestion in case the illnesses continue: could you advertise locally for an on-call childminder/babysitter who you could ask to step in at short notice?  It might suit someone who didn't want a fulltime commitment but could do the odd day here and there with no obligation to always be available.  There may also be agencies who already provide this type of service.  With no family around, it would reduce the stress of worrying about short-notice childcare.


----------



## Purple (26 Nov 2012)

Maggiemoo said:


> The employer certainly does not have any point regardless of what laws cover this situation!    An employer who thinks their business comes before a sick child should be ashamed of themselves.


It is not unreasonable for an employer to expect parents to have contingency plans in place for when their children are sick. I have 4 children and both parents work. If they are sick we both still go into work. There is extra cost involved but that’s our problem. Your personal circumstances are not your employers concern and you shouldn’t make a personal problem your employers problem. 




Maggiemoo said:


> The employee states they hardly takes sick leave and was happy to take it from annual allowance which in my opinion was very considerate - now where is the consideration from the employer??    My manager called me recently to say its almost December and your child will have school events etc coming up, make sure you dont miss any of them!!   That's whats called an employer with respect for its employees, hence I work with a great team and enjoy my job.   Like this employee I dont take time off only when absolutely necessary.


  take it that you don’t work for a small private business.


----------



## Waves (26 Nov 2012)

*Alternative arrangements*

Hi Purple

Could you tell me please what your alternative arrangements are? 

Like most childminders, ours won't take the children when they are sick. I would be very reluctant to leave them with a stranger when they are out of sorts. My mother sometimes steps in but as she lives outside Dublin, it isn't feasible to call her in at short notice.


----------



## Leper (27 Nov 2012)

I'm with Purple on this issue. You both have responsibilities to your employers. A sick child is not their problem.

I have heard people complaining about the cost of child minding. To be abrupt (not unusual for me) a good child minder is priceless. On a tangent, parents who on their impromptu day off will still give their offspring to the childminder on the grounds that that is their job sends ripples through my system as time with your kids is priceless and you cannot get that time back.

Here are a few solutions:-

1. Use your annual leave or time worked up to care for your child.

2. Pay a good childminder, and pay well for a good service.

3. Reducing your work hours might be an option.

4. Take a Career Break.

5. Give up work completely (you will be compromising your financial independence though) and return to work years later when your kids are reared. 

The solutions above may not suit you, but you asked for solutions; don't condemn me.


----------



## Purple (27 Nov 2012)

Waves said:


> Hi Purple
> 
> Could you tell me please what your alternative arrangements are?
> 
> Like most childminders, ours won't take the children when they are sick. I would be very reluctant to leave them with a stranger when they are out of sorts. My mother sometimes steps in but as she lives outside Dublin, it isn't feasible to call her in at short notice.



We employed someone to mind the kids at home. Before that the hassle of getting someone to look after them when they were sick was way too stressful for all concerned. There is of course a financial hit but it’s far less stressful.


----------



## Ceist Beag (27 Nov 2012)

With all due respect Purple I think it is easy to take the high moral ground on this when you can afford to have someone employed to mind the kids at home. Not everyone is able to afford this. Obviously it is not the employers problem to sort this out but I would imagine that most employers take a reasonable line on this if they value their employee.


----------



## TarfHead (27 Nov 2012)

Ceist Beag said:


> With all due respect Purple I think it is easy to take the high moral ground on this when you can afford to have someone employed to mind the kids at home.


 
+1

Even if you could afford it, having someone available at short notice, someone you trust, someone who will care for your children and not just 'mind' them, is a more difficult proposition.


----------



## Janet (27 Nov 2012)

Leper said:


> Here are a few solutions:-
> 1. Use your annual leave or time worked up to care for your child.


If you read the OP again, you'll see that that is exactly what they did.  And the husband's employer is not happy with him doing that because of the short notice.  And you can't really apply for holidays in advance to cover situations like illness.


----------



## Firefly (27 Nov 2012)

Waves said:


> In a meeting today, his manager told him that this short notice for the time off wasn't acceptable and that in future he should make alternative arrangements when the children were sick. *He also asked why I hadn't taken the day off*. He said that the company's interest had to come first.


 
A vaild question, I mean you're only a woman and obviously, the man's job is far more important yours .

I think the manager is being unreasonable. It's not like, God forbid, that one of your kids has an underlying illness - it was an isolated case. I'd bet he doesn't have children himself, as if he did, he'd know that coming to work is a lot easier than staying at home with a sick child, nevermind 2 sick children. 

Phoning in sick is probably the pragmatic approach as you say, however, sadly, it may affect your husband's career prospects in the company if he gets a reputation for "being sick".


----------



## Purple (27 Nov 2012)

Ceist Beag said:


> With all due respect Purple I think it is easy to take the high moral ground on this when you can afford to have someone employed to mind the kids at home. Not everyone is able to afford this. Obviously it is not the employers problem to sort this out but I would imagine that most employers take a reasonable line on this if they value their employee.


 Employers should be as flexible as possible but it’s not unreasonable to expect employees to do what they can to put contingency plans in place. Your personal finances are not your employers concern.



TarfHead said:


> +1
> 
> Even if you could afford it, having someone available at short notice, someone you trust, someone who will care for your children and not just 'mind' them, is a more difficult proposition.


 I didn’t say it was easy.



Firefly said:


> A vaild question, I mean you're only a woman and obviously, the man's job is far more important yours .


 That was a disgraceful question by your employer. It’s none of their business what your husband is doing and the comment is very sexist.


----------



## AlbacoreA (27 Nov 2012)

Human beings are fallible. They break, get sick from time to time. Their child support network breaks down etc. Seems poor (and unrealistic) planning, and unsustainable if a company regardless of size can't survive someone being out. If that applies to the parents with no backup support for childcare, sick kids, it also applies equally to the company. Often childcare places won't accept sick kids. 

If someone a good employee with good productivity, it seems strange to me, a company would ignore that to penalise them for being out regardless of their performance otherwise. Dragging sick people into an office, or stressing them out, to tick a box on a attendance sheet seems like "Cutting off the nose to spite the face". What cost to the company if the employee decides to leave and find somewhere else with a better leave policies.


----------



## wbbs (27 Nov 2012)

Nobody is leaving jobs these days regardless of policies, there is no where to go!   All that is fine and dandy in a good economy but the reality is very different.


----------



## Purple (27 Nov 2012)

wbbs said:


> Nobody is leaving jobs these days regardless of policies, there is no where to go!   All that is fine and dandy in a good economy but the reality is very different.



Not in my sector. We are struggling to find people. 
The same applies in much of the IT sector as well.


----------



## AlbacoreA (27 Nov 2012)

Theres a point for many where a job won't cover the cost of childcare and/or they can't work their childcare around the hours they have to work, or work is inflexible to make it impossible. I know a surprising number of couples like that, where one of them has had to quit work. 

I'm in IT, and there's a lot of leeway given which is especially with women, to work part time, or from home on distinct projects, that otherwise wouldn't get done. A lot of them have experience, that isn't easily replaced.


----------



## wbbs (27 Nov 2012)

Fair enough, the IT sector needs people as we keep hearing but it's one of the few areas.


----------



## Purple (27 Nov 2012)

wbbs said:


> Fair enough, the IT sector needs people as we keep hearing but it's one of the few areas.


I'm not in IT, I'm in manufacturing engineering.


----------



## terrysgirl33 (27 Nov 2012)

Have you got the children in a creche, or a childminder?  I was talking to another parent (her kids are adult or nearly so now) and when her kids were young, the childminder would take them if they were sick, once they were over the contagious part, or the part where they only want their mammy (or daddy).  Creches don't seem to take children if there's anything at all wrong with them, which is why parents often switch to a childminder, especially when the kids get older and you are more experianced in when they really are sick, and when they are a little unwell.


----------



## Slash (27 Nov 2012)

Importer said:


> Take three deep breaths and let the matter rest...
> 
> Going over the Manager's head to a senior manager on a small irritation like this is not the way to go. No senior manager worth his salt will get involved with such an issue regardless of the rights or wrongs of the situation
> 
> ...



This is very good advice.

Taking the "I know me bleedin' rights" approach will not help an employee's chance of promotion or advancement in the future.


----------



## Magpie (27 Nov 2012)

Purple said:


> Employers should be as flexible as possible but it’s not unreasonable to expect employees to do what they can to put contingency plans in place. Your personal finances are not your employers concern.



They sort of are though. If your employer doesn't pay you enough to afford a nanny, they are. Not everyone can have a contingency plan in place, if you have no family and child carers don't take sick children, what can you do? 
Any decent employer should understand this and be flexible. Telling an employee that the business interest must come before their children and family is just idiotic.


----------



## Waves (27 Nov 2012)

*Follow up*

Thanks everyone for all of the replies, it has been eye-opening to see all of the different viewpoints on this issue.

My husband decided that he wasn't going to let this one go and spoke to a senior manager about the issue today (calmly). There was acknowledgement that he had been upfront about the issue and that once the time was taken out of annual leave then the company should be able to manage without him for a day. (She has children herself so perhaps is more aware of family pressures than my husband's manager). We are hoping that this will be the end of it and are a bit relieved as my husband has never abused his sick leave and doesn't think that would be the way to go. 

BTW, we have a wonderful childminder who is very practical and will take the children when they are not 100% (colds and flus etc.) but like most childminders will not take then when they are sick.


----------



## Purple (28 Nov 2012)

Magpie said:


> They sort of are though. If your employer doesn't pay you enough to afford a nanny, they are.


 No, they are not. People are paid based on the value (economic or social) that they bring to their job. Their personal financial needs or outgoings are never the business of their employer and a persons pay rate should never be influenced by their financial circumstances.


----------



## Purple (28 Nov 2012)

Waves said:


> Thanks everyone for all of the replies, it has been eye-opening to see all of the different viewpoints on this issue.
> 
> My husband decided that he wasn't going to let this one go and spoke to a senior manager about the issue today (calmly). There was acknowledgement that he had been upfront about the issue and that once the time was taken out of annual leave then the company should be able to manage without him for a day. (She has children herself so perhaps is more aware of family pressures than my husband's manager). We are hoping that this will be the end of it and are a bit relieved as my husband has never abused his sick leave and doesn't think that would be the way to go.
> 
> BTW, we have a wonderful childminder who is very practical and will take the children when they are not 100% (colds and flus etc.) but like most childminders will not take then when they are sick.



I'm glad it has been resolved.


----------



## mir2001 (13 Dec 2012)

I have to say I am incredulous at some of the replies here. 

I noticed somebody pointed out that it was not a company concern if the employee could not afford some terribly expensive childcare person willing to look after a sick child. Well this works both ways, as an employee one could also say it is not my concern if the company management need me to put in extra hours to help meet a deadline too. Inflexibility works both ways. If/ when things improve on the jobs front then the company will only have itself to blame when the better people leave and it earns a poor reputation as an employer. 
If companies were to behave as some posters here suggest then they would only employ single workers with no children. I have no doubt that some people would welcome such a situation but they might change their minds when their own circumstances change. 

Both companies and employees live in a real and imperfect world and a little flexibility goes a long way to keeping everyone happy.


----------



## Purple (17 Dec 2012)

mir2001 said:


> I have to say I am incredulous at some of the replies here.
> 
> I noticed somebody pointed out that it was not a company concern if the employee could not afford some terribly expensive childcare person willing to look after a sick child. Well this works both ways, as an employee one could also say it is not my concern if the company management need me to put in extra hours to help meet a deadline too. Inflexibility works both ways. If/ when things improve on the jobs front then the company will only have itself to blame when the better people leave and it earns a poor reputation as an employer.
> If companies were to behave as some posters here suggest then they would only employ single workers with no children. I have no doubt that some people would welcome such a situation but they might change their minds when their own circumstances change.
> ...



Flexibility means taking things into account that aren’t your responsibility, i.e. allowing an employee to take time off at short notice or working late to help your employer meet a deadline. That still doesn’t mean such issues are the responsibility of the other party. 
If the employee can’t work the extra hours all the time then the employer shouldn’t take that out on the employee and if the employee’s personal circumstances mean they keep having to take time off that shouldn’t become the employers problem.


----------



## Leper (18 Dec 2012)

Kind of Off-the-point comment (not intended at any poster on the subject here) :-  When we had our first child my wife resigned her job (this was a prerequisite within two years of marriage back in the 1970's).  We were reduced to one income, but that was the norm back then.  She became a child-minder of another couple's child in our home.  This continued with various couples for 20 years. I must say that Mrs Leper worked her butt off for ours' and others' children.

I must say though, that many never made any allowances for the child minder.  No holiday pay was ever offered, Mrs Lep was usually 'docked' of Mum-of-the-year was handing her precious over to her Mum.  Common decency is not so common among working mothers and working fathers.  Junior was always delivered early and collected late, sometimes 10.00pm or thereabouts.  But, Mrs Lep kept the smile, provided the service and returned 20 years later to fulltime employment for a break.

She keeps talking about people in her workplace condemning the child minder and complaining about child minding costs.  Furthermoe, she reckons that many people don't have a Plan B in the case of illness of the child.  At the risk of upsetting some she says that many modern day parents want to spend as little time as possible with their children. From what I see around me I think she is right.


----------



## terrysgirl33 (18 Dec 2012)

Leper, fair play to Mrs. Leper for dealing with that!  Out of interest (because we haven't dealt with it yet), what do you suggest as a plan B for a family, where neither mother or father can take time off, and there is no family around to help out?  In the case of a sick child, I am presuming that friends with kids the same age don't want the bug in their house.


----------



## becky (18 Dec 2012)

Leper, I don't have kids but have heard many parents moan about the cost of childcare but never the childminder.  All parents really appreciate a good childminder.  Your wife was a dream though. 

I was sitting on an interview board a few years back when one of the board members had to leave with 2 candidates to interviews as his wife's car broke down and she wasn't going to make it to the childminders.  

He told us if someone didn't collect the child she would be left outside.  I don't believe that would have happened but from speaking to other parents she isn't alone in being strict on pick up times and rightly so.


----------



## Leper (19 Dec 2012)

Hi Becky and Terry'sgirl33. Thanks for your reaction, I was expecting much more adverse replies. I don't have the answer to peoples' childcare problems. To be honest Mrs Lep and I didn't have the answer to our own childcare problems. We were forced into the situation of Mrs Lep being under company policy to resign her post within 2 years of marriage. We had to go down this line, there was no choice. In the 70's during Ireland's normal ongoing financial recession (which makes the current recession look like a doddle) Mrs Lep had little or no chance of obtaining another job. Our backs were to the wall. The future looked bleak and it was. Believe me, I would not wish those times on anybody.

We had no other choice. When I think of those times it is difficult not to become emotional. The mortgage interest rate reached 19.5%. I had a job that paid little enough and was forced into part-time work and doing odd jobs and locking the car (an old banger) into the garage for a year because we could not afford fuel, insurance and maintenance. The bank did not want to know us (a story for another day). Furthermore, I didn't have exclusive rights to the foregoing, it was the norm for many many people.

So, when I hear couples (both with cars, a fully furnished five bedroom house, holidays in USA, meals out with Jamie Oliver) moaning about childcare costs I cringe. For the record:- Mrs Lep returned to fulltime employment after 20 years in the home and has often said she would pay to go into her job let alone get paid.


----------



## Bronte (19 Dec 2012)

Leper said:


> . Thanks for your reaction, I was expecting much more adverse replies. I don't have the answer to peoples' childcare problems.
> 
> .


 Goodness Leper no one could be adverse to what you've posted.  Your wife sounds absolutely wonderful. You're a lucky man, but I guess you already know that.


----------



## Leper (19 Dec 2012)

Thanks for that Bronte, you're right I don't have to look too far for a hero. I am interested in this subject because I used to work with many parents of young children and I could not understand the kind of schadenfreude that went on between them especially the women (forgive me, but it is true). It seemed the more one suffered the more some others were delighted in their plight. Some got their act together (probably the Plan B I mentioned earlier) and could cope. Others for some reason or other could not cope and had to leave work early or at short notice. A sort of "dont-burden-me-with-your-childrens-problems" scenario used to happen every so often. Occasionally, there was chaos and a blame game started. Life became pretty tough at work, not knowing what was going to happen next. Some used to panic if junior had sniffles and gave the impression that the Blackrock Clinic is the only place for junior and fast. Somebody elses child would trip over a saddle-board or something and suddenly you thought their darling was in a plane crash. The stories mounted and mounted until somebody called a halt and drew up some sensible ground rules. Any deviation from the ground rules meant expulsion from Plan B i.e. going to look after junior while others battened down the hatches at work covering, working harder etc.

Strangely enough, the men seemed to cope better (Please, I am not being sexist, I'm calling the situations as I saw them). They would come back to work after the "emergency" or worked later or earlier as the case may be.

I think I am going to be sorry I posted this.

I know there are situations where work cannot be abandoned pronto e.g. working as a check out operator in a busy supermarket etc. But, I reckon most situations with some planning and co-operation could end up favourably for all.


----------



## Bronte (20 Dec 2012)

Leper said:


> I know there are situations where work cannot be abandoned pronto e.g. working as a check out operator in a busy supermarket etc. But, I reckon most situations with some planning and co-operation could end up favourably for all.


 
Yes I think you're right on that.  And I've no idea why you think you'd get in trouble for what you've posted.  You've only posted what long experience has shown you.  

And you must be in a very well paid workplace if people can be bringing their kids to the Blackrock clinic for snifles so you'd think they of all people could afford a Plan B


----------



## BONDGIRL (19 Jan 2013)

first of all fair play to your husband sharing the days like that with you. Believe you me a lot of men dont...  Mine is good at sharing but a lot of my friends husbands think because they earn more gives them the right not to share these type of things.

Anyway I dread this all the time... I have 2 children now so double the chance of one being sick and having to ring my employer. I have been lucky with my job last 3 years where I have put in excessive hours to get business to where it is and my manager respects that and always meets me half way. I never ring in sick,.. If I am sick I come in literally crawling and he sends me home.  If my child is sick I usually work from work for the day and send back to childminder day 2 when hes bit better.... But now I am returning to work again from maternity leave and my hubbie works away mon  to fri so I thought how the hell will I do this..
So as suggested by someone else I have a minder coming to my home every day.. costing about 100 euro more a week than if I dropped them off but if they are sick she will take care of them here - obviously if very sick I will be here.. BUT yes I had to think of something as no matter what a company will only care so much at the end of the day you are a number.. if you know this you will reall thrive and tip - dont take it personally....


----------

