HR Pulse - Spring 2008 - (Page 51) Scenario One An employee (Fred) has been out on a hitor-miss basis over the last six months. He never has missed so much work as to create problems in the department or register on the attendance-policy radar screen. His supervisor never reported any problems to you. He said it is because for the last five years Fred has been a really good employee. The supervisor was trying to work with Fred and cut him some slack. However, now Fred has told his supervisor that he needs a chunk of time to take care of some medical issues. He does not know just how much time he will need. Fred doesn’t even know if the time is going to be all at once, or if it is going to be intermittent. This is because the doctors are still doing tests to determine what the problem is. The supervisor is now in your office complaining that they are not going to be able to continue to tolerate the absences Fred needs. The supervisor states that the unreliable nature of Fred over the last six months has created a hardship in the department and the supervisor is no longer willing to work with it. Analysis This kind of reaction is all too common, unfortunately. Supervisors don’t always let you know what is going on as the trouble is building, so you can’t help them recognize the looming warning signals. Fred may have missed a lot of work, but except for using up his sick leave, PTO or vacation, there has not been any accounting. Now Fred is saying he may need additional leave for a medical condition. Here the supervisor is paying the price for the lack of attention to the warning signs and details. You give Fred the right forms under the family and medical leave statutes (both state and federal) and move on. Scenario Two Fred appreciates you providing him with the documentation. Off to the doctor he trots, and before you know it, you have a statement from the doctor stating that Fred just needs intermittent leave to undergo tests and treatment. Fred provides you and the supervisor with the list of scheduled appointments. When you check in with the supervisor after three months he is frustrated anew. It seems that Fred has been sticking with the treatment schedule but now also calls in saying the treatments have made him ill and he needs to stay home. The supervisor doesn’t believe Fred but knows enough that he can’t question him about the details. When Fred calls in, it always seems to be at the most inconvenient time, or when scheduling is at the tightest. The supervisor reminds Fred that the leave is for treatment, and he needs to work with the company to try and schedule appointments as near the end of the day as possible to minimize the disruption. As soon as this reminder is given, Fred misses the next two days. It is creating a hardship on the rest of the department. Things became complicated last Friday (one of the few days Fred actually did show at work). Fred complained about his shoulder after he assisted in transferring a patient from the wheelchair up to the MRI table. He told the supervisor he was fine. But then this morning (Wednesday) he called in and just said he was going to be out. He didn’t tell the supervisor what the problem was, just that he felt awful after the last treatment, and his shoulder still hurt. Analysis Fred is starting to complicate the situation. The leaves implicated here are the state and federal medical leaves (now referenced as FMLA –even though the state laws will have different acronyms) that were started in the first scenario. Now, however, there also is a workers’ compensation issue that overlays qualifying FMLA leave. The condition that was initially certified is not a qualifying condition (yet) that allows any leave for the workers’ compensation issue to be counted against Fred’s FMLA entitlement. Additionally, there may be restrictions on the state FMLA that does not allow it to be counted against the workers’ compensation leave. Thus, the leaves that need to be balanced in this scenario are the leaves granted under policies (vacation, sick, PTO), FMLA (both state and federal), and workers’ compensation. Here you have two different qualifying reasons for FMLA, but only one of them is certified. You want to be careful not to count the second reason (the workers’ compensation injury) as FMLA leave until you receive the certification on it as well. If the state has a restriction against counting workers’ compensation leave against the state FMLA equivalent, then you may end up with three different tracking issues. You need to be tracking the intermittent FMLA (and state equivalent) for the first illness. You also want to track the federal FMLA against the workers’ compensation leave. This means the federal FMLA count will now be different than the state FMLA count. Scenario Three Fred runs out of FMLA under the federal statute. He is still dealing with issues for the first illness. He is currently out on rehabilitation leave for his work-related shoulder injury. After five months of treatment, Fred’s workers’ compensation physician clears Fred to return to work. Fred returns, but lets you know he still needs time on an intermittent basis for the first qualifying reason, Supervisors don’t always let you know what is going on as the trouble is building, so you can’t help them recognize the looming warning signals. 51 HR Pulse Spring 2008
For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.