As a Civil Servant of many years, I was disconcerted to read a statement by Michael O'Leary in yesterday's Sunday Independent, stating that 'most' civil servants must take a compulsory 10 days sick leave a year. On my first day at work, some lying meany in Personnel told me the following:
You could only take 7 uncertified sick days a year, and this was a maximum figure not a target.
You could only take 2 days in a row uncertified and after that, you had to produce a doctor's note.
You could only take sick leave if you were actually sick, and abusing this would be a disciplinary action.
You could only take a certain number of sick days (certified or uncertified) over a 3 year period before you were barred from going for promotion.
Like an eejit, I fell for all that rubbish and am now owed scores of 'compulsory sick days' that I haven't been taking over the years. I was just wondering if any fellow civil servants could direct me to the 'compulsory sick leave' circular, to back up my claim. I'm sure it must exist as the article in question was edited by Senior Reporter, Daniel McConnell, and I'm sure he wouldn't print something like that (and flag it on the front page) without checking his facts.
Thanks.
You could only take 7 uncertified sick days a year, and this was a maximum figure not a target.
You could only take 2 days in a row uncertified and after that, you had to produce a doctor's note.
You could only take sick leave if you were actually sick, and abusing this would be a disciplinary action.
You could only take a certain number of sick days (certified or uncertified) over a 3 year period before you were barred from going for promotion.
Like an eejit, I fell for all that rubbish and am now owed scores of 'compulsory sick days' that I haven't been taking over the years. I was just wondering if any fellow civil servants could direct me to the 'compulsory sick leave' circular, to back up my claim. I'm sure it must exist as the article in question was edited by Senior Reporter, Daniel McConnell, and I'm sure he wouldn't print something like that (and flag it on the front page) without checking his facts.
Thanks.