The company I work for advised me today (via HR manager) that if I have GRS next year (which I plan to) that my payment while I'm off 'sick' for 7 weeks is depending on my sickness absences leading up to this on my record for that year.

Basically my payment is dependent on this. It seems questionable to me.

I work in housing sector. Been with company for a year. They work via Bradford factor.


Thoughts?

I guess it depends on how they phrased it? I was only allowed so much sick time per year, which is pretty typical with US employers, and if I'd used it up I would not have any more paid sick days - no matter what I'd used it on. (In my case, I'd banked tons of sick leave and didn't have a problem, but still.) Actually, offering you 7 weeks of sick leave at all sounds very generous.

On the other hand, if they're talking about limiting your short-term disability eligibility or messing with FMLA (which is unpaid)... that might not be legal.

I work in UK, so i think its all very different.

My contract says pay entitlements apply within a 12 month rolling period and are inclusive of statutory sick pay

Ah, OK. I don't know much about the UK except that allowances usually *are* more generous. Forget what I said about disability/FMLA, as those are US things.

But that quote you've provided sounds like they're saying more or less what I was wondering - you get so much sick time in a 12-month period, so you'll need to have at least 7 weeks left over/unused when the time comes. That doesn't seem unreasonable, unless they're putting other conditions on it.