# Reason for Sick Leave:is your employer ENTITLED to know exactly what was wrong with u



## Booh (1 Aug 2007)

If you are out sick for 4 or 5 days with a sick note, is your employer ENTITLED to know exactly what was wrong with you?


----------



## ClubMan (1 Aug 2007)

*Re: Reason for Sick Leave*

Not sure what the statutory rules are but many employers require a sick cert after a few days (e.g. 3+) continuous sick leave and, as far as I know, this normally states the nature of the illness. Some _GPs _may issue certs that are deliberately vague where divulging the nature of the illness to the emloyer may cause embarrassment or other problems. Not sure what the legitimacy of this is but my _GP _has done it for me in the past!


----------



## Gordanus (1 Aug 2007)

*Re: Reason for Sick Leave*

I don't think that employers are entitled to know exactly what the illness is, just that you are certified by a medical professional as unfit to work.  Whether you feel comfortable divulging your gynaecological history, state of your digestive system, or mental health state to an employer is up to you.


----------



## Mpsox (1 Aug 2007)

*Re: Reason for Sick Leave*

Employers are entitled to ask for a sick cert and I would expect a doctor to put a truthful explanation as to why you are sick. Morally a lot depends on whether or not your employer is paying you sick pay whislt you are off. You shouldn't expect them to pay you, if you are not being truthful about your illness.
There is normally nothing to be embarrased about, believe me when I say that most managers have heard just about every story and illness.
Bear in mind however that, depending on your contract, if they are not satisified with what you are telling them about your illness (and they probably wont want much more then the basic facts) they may have the right to refer you to their company doctor


----------



## homeowner (1 Aug 2007)

*Re: Reason for Sick Leave*

If it is something embarassing you could ask HR to not disclose the nature of the illness to anyone.  Your manager only needs to know you are legitimately sick, he/she doesnt need to know the nature of the illness but I expect HR does need to see the sick cert.


----------



## Booh (1 Aug 2007)

*Re: Reason for Sick Leave*

Thanks for the replies. It's nothing embarassing thankfully but I do consider my medical history and condition to be personal and private. 
It does not interfere with my work (other than this modest period of sick leave). I would like to hand over my sick note which just states that I was unfit for work for the period, say I'm fine now and let that be that. I would rather not have to divulge why I required medical attention. But I don't want to seem evasive either.


----------



## Trish2006 (1 Aug 2007)

*Re: Reason for Sick Leave*

I had an issue a few years ago where my dr filled out a different illness on my cert. We thought I was pregnant (false positives DO exist) and having a miscarriage when that time of the month came round, but after a trip to the hospital preceded by a couple of days bed rest it turns out that it was just nature taking its course and I wasn't pregnant in the first place. My gp asked what I'd like her to put on the cert. We went with a stomach bug. It was quite a personal ordeal and not something I wanted to get into with HR (and she would have asked about it, noone else knew and I wanted it to stay that way), and it would also let them know that I was trying to conceive which is also something most women do not want their workplace to know about. Perhaps if you explain the situation to your gp he/she may be accomodating. As long as you were actually ill and unable to work I don't see that the company were deceived just by not knowing exactly why you were sick.


----------



## lightswitch (1 Aug 2007)

*Re: Reason for Sick Leave*

Ask your doctor to put down viral infection or a back problem.  This happens all the time and most GPs will have no problem with it.


----------



## Thirsty (1 Aug 2007)

*Re: Reason for Sick Leave*

GP is certifying that you are unfit for work, employer does not have a legal entitlement to get exact details.  However, your employer will most likely have guidelines in place whereby if you have x number of days in sick leave over y period of time they may require you to attend a company dr to assess your future ability to continue to do the job and at this point the exact nature of your illness will be available to them.


----------



## scudder (2 Aug 2007)

*Re: Reason for Sick Leave*

Your employer has no legal entitlement to enquire as to the nature of your illness.  We had someone off work for quite some time who provided a generic sick leave note from the doctor.  We were not legally entitled to ask what the problem actually was.


----------



## MidlandsBase (2 Aug 2007)

*Re: Reason for Sick Leave*



scudder said:


> Your employer has no legal entitlement to enquire as to the nature of your illness. We had someone off work for quite some time who provided a generic sick leave note from the doctor. We were not legally entitled to ask what the problem actually was.


 
Would it not depend on the business you work in? If you handle food as part of your job it is an offence under law not to notify the owner, manager or senior person on duty of any notifiable conditions such as diarrohoea, vomiting and infected skin surfaces or to attempt to conceal their symptons in any way. Of course it can covered generically by the doctor that the person returning is fit for work AND is able to handle food. This is specifcally required for food outlets. I know as part of HACCP there is a requirement to have a Return to Work questionnaire (to be filled in when returning from holidays) and asks specifically did the employee suffer from a list of 7 items during their holiday. It also asks where did the employee holiday. I was present at an audit before where a member of the HSE asked for these forms to see they were being complied with.


----------



## RainyDay (3 Aug 2007)

*Re: Reason for Sick Leave*



lightswitch said:


> Ask your doctor to put down viral infection or a back problem.  This happens all the time and most GPs will have no problem with it.



Couldn't this come back to haunt the GP if there is a pattern of illness? Surely the GP has a professional responsibility to be honest and truthful on a signed document like this?

I can imagine a GP being vague, but it seems strange to me that they would write down an outright lie and put their signature at the end.



Booh said:


> Thanks for the replies. It's nothing embarassing thankfully but I do consider my medical history and condition to be personal and private.
> It does not interfere with my work (other than this modest period of sick leave). I would like to hand over my sick note which just states that I was unfit for work for the period, say I'm fine now and let that be that. I would rather not have to divulge why I required medical attention. But I don't want to seem evasive either.



Note that it should not be a face-to-face issue for you. You just hand over your sick note which will have your doc's explanation of the illness. You shouldn't be asked further questions, and if you are, just refer them to your sick note.


----------



## ClubMan (3 Aug 2007)

*Re: Reason for Sick Leave*



RainyDay said:


> I can imagine a GP being vague, but it seems strange to me that they would write down an outright lie and put their signature at the end.


My _GP _did in the past. He asked me at the time for my opinion but I wasn't really in a position/condition at the time to worry about what he wrote on a piece of paper. I am happy to this day that he had my best interests at heart and I still attend him. I doubt that anything he wrote could ever be established as a lie given the rules that govern patient/doctor confidentiality?


----------



## RainyDay (3 Aug 2007)

*Re: Reason for Sick Leave*

I presume that any legal inquiry into the doctor's actions (such as a Medical Council Fitness to Practice inquiry) would override patient/doctor confidentiality. I can't see how any such inquiry could operate without getting down to the details.

I don't doubt the doctor may have the patient's interests at heart, but to me, there does seem to be something fundamentally wrong with a direct lie. At a minimum, such lies mean that any statistics developed from these certificates about causes of absences are skewed. It may also mean that HR departments  do not get to see trends about (for example) a pattern of illnesses caused by stress in certain sections or teams.


----------



## huskerdu (3 Aug 2007)

*Re: Reason for Sick Leave*

I know of a case where the GP made sure that he wrote the official latin name for the illness on the sick note, which meant he was telling the truth and also protecting the patients privacy.


----------



## ClubMan (3 Aug 2007)

*Re: Reason for Sick Leave*



RainyDay said:


> I presume that any legal inquiry into the doctor's actions (such as a Medical Council Fitness to Practice inquiry) would override patient/doctor confidentiality.


I would hope that this is not the case and that personal details can only be divulged with the agreement of the patient or relevant next of kin if applicable.


> I don't doubt the doctor may have the patient's interests at heart, but to me, there does seem to be something fundamentally wrong with a direct lie. At a minimum, such lies mean that any statistics developed from these certificates about causes of absences are skewed.


What statistics?


----------



## RainyDay (3 Aug 2007)

*Re: Reason for Sick Leave*



ClubMan said:


> What statistics?


[broken link removed].


----------



## ClubMan (3 Aug 2007)

*Re: Reason for Sick Leave*

Looks like those stats are collated on a partial sampling basis so they are unlikely to be 100% accurate anyway even without (most likely) relatively isolated incidents of doctors issuing sick certs with misleading details. The accuracy of _HSA _statistics would not be something that would worry me personally unduly anyway.


----------



## RainyDay (4 Aug 2007)

*Re: Reason for Sick Leave*

Why would you think that the issuing of certs with misleading details is relatively isolated?


----------



## ailbhe (7 Aug 2007)

*Re: Reason for Sick Leave: s your employer ENTITLED to know exactly what was wrong with u*

I know I was off for a week due to stress (a lot going on at the time). I was having panic attacks etc but the doctor put down "viral infection" as I requested. My employers would not have been sympathetic about me beingoff for a week due to things that were happening in my personal life.

I don't see anything wrong with that.


----------



## ClubMan (7 Aug 2007)

*Re: Reason for Sick Leave*



RainyDay said:


> Why would you think that the issuing of certs with misleading details is relatively isolated?


Maybe it's not. I don't know. Personally I don't really care about the accuracy of _HSA _statistics. I would imagine that I am not alone. That's all that I have to say on this matter.


----------



## RainyDay (7 Aug 2007)

*Re: Reason for Sick Leave: s your employer ENTITLED to know exactly what was wrong wi*

At the macro level, I can see there is an issue over whether an employer needs to know the reasons for sick leave. Would anyone like to refer this issue to the Data Protection Commissioner to see if it would pass their 'need to know' test? Perhaps any HR people could advise as to whether an employer ever takes action on these reasons stated on the sick note. So if a sick note states that there was a back injury, should an employer be reassigning a warehouse worker to light duties? If a sick note states stress, should an office worker be reassigned to a less stressful environment?

I'm also wondering if a doctor's lies could come back to haunt them? If an employee was to make a compo claim regarding a back injury, could a doctor be deemed liable if he had failed to notify the employer accurately of a previous back injury? Similarly, if there was a claim for job-related stress, could the doctor be liable for failing to notify the employer?




ailbhe said:


> I know I was off for a week due to stress (a lot going on at the time). I was having panic attacks etc but the doctor put down "viral infection" as I requested. My employers would not have been sympathetic about me beingoff for a week due to things that were happening in my personal life.
> 
> I don't see anything wrong with that.



The question is were you off work due to mental health issues (stress and panic attacks) or due to personal issues which needed organising. If (as I assume) the former is correct, than you were fully entitled to your week off. If the latter, than perhaps you should have taken urgent annual leave.

I wonder if the apparent avoidance of stating mental health issues on sick notes and inaccuracy of HSA statistics contributes to the [broken link removed]?


----------

