web analytics

Key lies about sick leave

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, July 21st, 2010 - 35 comments
Categories: national, workers' rights - Tags:

No Right Turn has a good post pointing out that John Key’s petty fascism on sick leave is already covered by the law. An employer can demand a worker provide a medical certificate after one day’s sick leave – so long as they have reasonable grounds for suspecting the sick leave is not genuine.

Here’s what the Holidays Act says:

68 Proof of sickness or injury
(1) An employer may require an employee to produce proof of sickness or injury for sick leave taken under section 65 if the sickness or injury that gave rise to the leave is for a period of 3 or more consecutive calendar days, whether or not the days would otherwise be working days for the employee.
(1A) Despite subsection (1), the employer may require proof of sickness or injury within 3 consecutive calendar days if the employer—
(a) has reasonable grounds to suspect that the sick leave being taken by the employee is not genuine because none of the grounds in section 65(1) are met; and
(b) informs the employee, as early as possible after forming the suspicion that the sick leave being taken is not genuine, that the proof is required; and
(c) agrees to meet the employee’s reasonable expenses in obtaining the proof.

So, when Key says the law needs to be changed so poor abused bosses can crack down on ‘the worker who calls in sick every second Monday’, he’s lying. The employer would already have the grounds to demand a medical certificate in that situation.

All this law change will do is remove the requirement for our employers to behave reasonably when we’re sick. The only effect of that, of course, will be to empower unreasonable employers.

Anyone else starting to see a pattern here?

Update: And in the Dom Post today an employment specialist points out the new law could lead to workplace bullying. The Nats facilitating bullying? Who would have thought.

35 comments on “Key lies about sick leave ”

  1. tsmithfield 1

    But now of course the employer has to pay for it.

    Thinking about it, this could be great for employees. Usually when my wife goes to the doctor she has a list of questions she wants to ask (about herself, the kids etc) so she can maximise the value she gets for the fee. Now employees will be able to do the same at the boss’s expense.

    • IrishBill 1.1

      That’s ridiculous.

      • ghostwhowalksnz 1.1.1

        Thats right just get sicker so you can have a list?
        The getting the employer to pay, will almost never happen. These things are handled at the foreman/supervisor level so they will just say a flat no to ‘re imbursment’, unless its a unionised workforce

        • Pascal's bookie 1.1.1.1

          Nah g. The minister sez they expect the employer to pay up front for the doctor visit.

          How this is supposed to work, we were not told. She said it was practical and pragmatic though, so all good.

          • Lew 1.1.1.1.1

            Pretty straightforward. Employees who lack cash on hand or aren’t confident their employer would reimburse them promptly or in full can just give the doctor’s receptionist their boss’ business card and let them sort it out business-to-business. This is more or less what happens at present, though it’s not common. Doctors unwilling to accept such a circumstance are not the employee’s problem, and if they employer wants an employee to get a medical certificate, it’s on them to grease the wheels.

            L

  2. tsmithfield 2

    Why so? If the change was framed as “government requires employers to pay for employees health checks” the change might be seen in quite a different light.

    Also, now there is a practical test for “reasonable grounds”. That practical test is whether or not the boss thinks it is serious enough to part with some of their own cash. You pointed out yourself on a previous topic how murky the term “reasonable” can be. Under the current law, an employer trying to require a medical test on “reasonable grounds” and dismissing as a result of what he found could most likely end up in the employment court because the employee disputed the grounds for the test in the first place.

    • Juan Manuel Santos 2.1

      See, I’d rather my employer was required by the law to be reasonable than make it so that he just had to pay for me to see a doctor if he was determined to punish me for being sick.

      Believe it or not, there are bosses like that. The law shouldn’t be empowering them.

    • Lew 2.2

      Try to keep up, TS, I thought you worked in HR or something?

      The employer already has to reimburse “reasonable costs” (there’s that word again) incurred by getting a medical certificate if the employee has been off for less than three days.

      L

    • comedy 2.3

      Stupid and facile

    • felix 2.4

      TS you’re defending the current law you fool. Might as well pull a sickie, you’ll be getting your pay docked today if you keep this up.

      • tsmithfield 2.4.1

        Actually, Felix, I’m talking about the stupidity of including the “reasonable” aspect as per the current law, if you’ll teach yourself to read.

        Is it reasonable for an employer to require a medical check if an employee has been off work five Mondays in a row? Probably. How about five Mondays in the last three months? A little less clear.

        The employer thinks its reasonable so he demands a medical test. The employee thinks its unreasonable (because he doesn’t want to get found out perhaps) so declines on the grounds that the request is unreasonable. The employer starts deducting pay or dismisses. The employee gets pissed off and the case ends up in the employment court. Time and money wasted for everyone.

        At least with the change the requirement is very clear, and people don’t need to rush off to lawyers to define “reasonable”. Also, the worst downside is that employees get to go to the doctor more frequently, which has to be a good thing.

        • Lew 2.4.1.1

          TS, that’s ridiculous. This is the sort of thing which is done without hassle every single day by hundreds of employers already. There are only a handful of terms better-understood in law than “reasonable”. You’re jumping at shadows.

          L

          • tsmithfield 2.4.1.1.1

            Well, when the opposite phrase “unreasonable” was used in respect of employers not “unreasonably” refusing consent for union members to enter a work place, Irish considered that this phrase would make it incredibly difficult for union members to get access to workplaces. Here is our exchange below:

            tsmithfield 5.1.1
            20 July 2010 at 7:37 am
            Irish, I would agree with you if the “unreasonable’ part has no teeth for the unions to force compliance. However, assuming there is a reasonably straightforward process for the unions available to unions, then there will be a threshold of annoyance level for employers that makes it easier for them simply to comply with the request than tangle themselves up in processes that the would rather avoid.

            Reply
            IrishBill 5.1.1.1
            20 July 2010 at 7:44 am
            Nope. That’s not how it works now in fact unions have to go to court to get access to some employers’ sites under the current law. That takes time and resources that are already stretched. “Unreasonable’ and it’s myriad definitions will increase the number of times this happens, probably to the point it can’t be done.

            So which is it? Either terms like “reasonable” and “unreasonable” are incredibly easy to interpret and should cause no problems. Or else they are a minefield of problems waiting to trip up the unwary.

            • Lew 2.4.1.1.1.1

              The reality is that it’s different in different cases.

              Instead of repairing to hypotheticals on a blog, perhaps you could cite examples from your own employement or management experience where “reasonable” has been the source of a problem?

              L

  3. joe90 3

    Righto, an employer requires a medical certificate for a one day absence with the employer to pay the doctors fee but does the employer also refund the GMS or do they expect the taxpayer, via the GMS, to subsidise their business?.

    • Craig Glen Eden 3.1

      Also this is an invasion on the employees time to have to get out of their sick bed and go to the Doctors. While I totally accept that the employer should have a right to request a sick leave certificate for extended leave or if a pattern of one off’s is occurring they should have good reason for the request. Otherwise this is the employer determining what the employee can do in paid time outside of work. I guess it goes to show how important having a good work relationship is and sadly their will always be people on both sides who exploit their position/entitlement.

      Lastly when will Key stop lying its just constant now!

      • marsman 3.1.1

        Key lied to get himself into office and he’ll keep lying to stay in office,and probably after he’s been booted out . He’s a liar pure and simple.

  4. just saying 4

    I understand that if a third party pays for medical treatment, the payer becomes the doctor’s ‘client’ for that visit. I’m pretty sure this is the situation with insurance paying for visits, and that the Medical Council recognises the fact, in that patients may not complain about a doctor where an insurer pays the bill.
    I realise the insurer would likley have actual or assumed consent for the release of private info, but it’s possible an employer might have some entitlement to see the employees medical notes for the visit or even to contact the doctor for “further information”.
    Anyone know the legal position?

    • loota 4.1

      As far as I know, whoever pays the bill has no effect on the duty of care the healthcare practitioner must show that patient, nor the responsibilities that healthcare practitioner must meet as regards to HDC standards and privacy law.

      As an aside, the moment a patient signs their ACC claim they allow all the clinical information gathered by their health practitioner to be shared with ACC, but that is compliant with all of the above as the patient gives explicit authority for that to happen.

      I suppose it is possible that another insurer might require patients to sign paperwork saying that they agree to share all medical information gathered with their employer – but it would be a bad idea to sign that IMO as most employers aren’t set up to manage and compartmentalise that kind of sensitive information.

      • Lew 4.1.1

        Enforcing that in a uniform fashion would likely be a breach of the Health Information Code of Practice. This isn’t exactly law (it’s a policy guide), but failure to adhere to it is grounds for a complaint to the Privacy Commissioner and/or the Human Rights Review Tribunal.

        L

      • Craig Glen Eden 4.1.2

        Another point, I believe that its a breach of the human rights law for anyone to be forced to see a health practitioner against their free will no matter who’s paying the bill, which when you start to think about it is a pretty fundamental right. So this could result in some interesting appeals. So the logical thing to do is for any employer ( of which I am ) having to accept that the employee can go to ever they decide to see not who I would like them to see.

        Any contract or policy that undermines this principle would probably lose in a court of law and rightfully so!

        • Lew 4.1.2.1

          Yes. The right to refuse medical attention is fundamental. But exercising that right doesn’t entitle you to be paid as if you’re sick.

          L

  5. Julie 5

    It’s incredibly depressing that neither the PM nor the Minister of Labour appear to understand really basic bits of the law they now want to quite significantly amend. Particularly when they don’t understand the stuff they’ve already changed themselves (by which I mean the 90 day stuff covered in another post). I can haz new election?

    • Draco T Bastard 5.1

      It may be sad and depressing but not unexpected, this is National after all and they work entirely on belief and blind faith rather than fact.

    • The Voice of Reason 5.2

      I’d go further, Julie. I think Williamson meant to change the sick day law to mean the employee pays, not the employer. Otherwise, what’s the point of this feeble change? I think she simply mispoke, and is now to embarrassed to admit the cock up.

      On another point that seems to have been missed. The employer doesn’t just pay for the doctors appointment, but reasonable expenses related to the visit. So if you are too sick to drive, the boss also has to pay for the taxi fare. I can’t see too many employers enforcing this provision if workers say “cool, boss. It’s gonna cost you $30 for the appointment and fifty for the cab. You still want me to go?”

  6. tc 6

    “It’s incredibly depressing that neither the PM nor the Minister of Labour appear to understand really basic bits of the law they now want to quite significantly amend.”

    Extend this to education/justice/environment etc and bingo it’s a full house….style over substance and an MSM heeling obediently at their feet……easier than any dealing room ever was for Sideshow.

  7. kriswgtn 7

    and whats the bet the 5 days sick leave get tossed out soon by these fascists

  8. bbfloyd 8

    i wonder what Mcjonno’s mother would think of her son implementing the same kind of policies that forced her to run away from her homeland.

  9. Helen Kelly 9

    pity the worker who gets sick or has a sick child in the first 90 days! Maybe they will just go to work sick or leave the child home alone.

  10. RedLogix 10

    I’ve been talking with a lot of folk the last few days about this. Invariably when the reality of the proposed change is explained to them, they are appalled at the consequences.

    Because it is virtually impossible to obtain a medical certificate for just one or two days of flu, cold, tummy bug, etc (and doctors have clearly stated they do NOT want their waiting rooms full of this sort of thing)… then almost all people who do take a few days sick leave are NOT going to be able to obtain proof.

    But the proposed change gives employers the unconditioned right to demand proof the leave is genuine, proof that mostly cannot be provided. Which of course gives the employer unilateral rights to demand the leave be converted to annual leave, docked pay, or of course creating ready made grounds for an unfair dismissal. Without exaggeration, it is a petty fascists charter.

    (And in practise many, many folk will simply turn up to work with the illness, underperforming and spreading the illness…rather than face the risk of being hassled over it for a certificate.)

    • loota 10.1

      (And in practise many, many folk will simply turn up to work with the illness, underperforming and spreading the illness rather than face the risk of being hassled over it for a certificate.)

      Which says something about how boneheaded the ‘pro-business’ supporters of this bill are.

  11. aj 11

    Proof? bring the boss a snotty hankie, a bottle of diarrhea or vomit. If that ain’t proof get them to dna it.

Links to post

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Twenty highlights of 2020
    As we welcome in the new year, our focus is on continuing to keep New Zealanders safe and moving forward with our economic recovery. There’s a lot to get on with, but before we say a final goodbye to 2020, here’s a quick look back at some of the milestones ...
    2 weeks ago

  • Bay Cadets learn skills to protect environment
    Bay Conservation Cadets launched with first intake Supported with $3.5 million grant Part of $1.245b Jobs for Nature programme to accelerate recover from Covid Cadets will learn skills to protect and enhance environment Environment Minister David Parker today welcomed the first intake of cadets at the launch of the Bay ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    8 hours ago
  • Cook Islanders to resume travel to New Zealand
    The Prime Minister of New Zealand Jacinda Ardern and the Prime Minister of the Cook Islands Mark Brown have announced passengers from the Cook Islands can resume quarantine-free travel into New Zealand from 21 January, enabling access to essential services such as health. “Following confirmation of the Cook Islands’ COVID ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 days ago
  • Supporting communities and landowners to grow employment opportunities
    Jobs for Nature funding is being made available to conservation groups and landowners to employ staff and contractors in a move aimed at boosting local biodiversity-focused projects, Conservation Minister Kiritapu Allan has announced. It is estimated some 400-plus jobs will be created with employment opportunities in ecology, restoration, trapping, ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    4 days ago
  • Border exception for some returning international tertiary students
    The Government has approved an exception class for 1000 international tertiary students, degree level and above, who began their study in New Zealand but were caught offshore when border restrictions began. The exception will allow students to return to New Zealand in stages from April 2021. “Our top priority continues ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    4 days ago
  • Tiwai deal gives time for managed transition
    Today’s deal between Meridian and Rio Tinto for the Tiwai smelter to remain open another four years provides time for a managed transition for Southland. “The deal provides welcome certainty to the Southland community by protecting jobs and incomes as the region plans for the future. The Government is committed ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    4 days ago
  • New member for APEC Business Advisory Council
    Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has appointed Anna Curzon to the APEC Business Advisory Council (ABAC). The leader of each APEC economy appoints three private sector representatives to ABAC. ABAC provides advice to leaders annually on business priorities. “ABAC helps ensure that APEC’s work programme is informed by business community perspectives ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    5 days ago
  • Govt’s careful economic management recognised
    The Government’s prudent fiscal management and strong policy programme in the face of the COVID-19 global pandemic have been acknowledged by the credit rating agency Fitch. Fitch has today affirmed New Zealand’s local currency rating at AA+ with a stable outlook and foreign currency rating at AA with a positive ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    5 days ago
  • Additional actions to keep COVID-19 out of NZ
    The Government is putting in place a suite of additional actions to protect New Zealand from COVID-19, including new emerging variants, COVID-19 Response Minister Chris Hipkins said today. “Given the high rates of infection in many countries and evidence of the global spread of more transmissible variants, it’s clear that ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    6 days ago
  • 19 projects will clean up and protect waterways
    $36 million of Government funding alongside councils and others for 19 projects Investment will clean up and protect waterways and create local jobs Boots on the ground expected in Q2 of 2021 Funding part of the Jobs for Nature policy package A package of 19 projects will help clean up ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • New Zealand Government acknowledges 175th anniversary of Battle of Ruapekapeka
    The commemoration of the 175th anniversary of the Battle of Ruapekapeka represents an opportunity for all New Zealanders to reflect on the role these conflicts have had in creating our modern nation, says Associate Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage Kiri Allan. “The Battle at Te Ruapekapeka Pā, which took ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • Better care for babies with tongue-tie
    Babies born with tongue-tie will be assessed and treated consistently under new guidelines released by the Ministry of Health, Associate Minister of Health Dr Ayesha Verrall announced today. Around 5% to 10% of babies are born with a tongue-tie, or ankyloglossia, in New Zealand each year. At least half can ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • Prisoner disorder event at Waikeria Prison over
    The prisoner disorder event at Waikeria Prison is over, with all remaining prisoners now safely and securely detained, Corrections Minister Kelvin Davis says. The majority of those involved in the event are members of the Mongols and Comancheros. Five of the men are deportees from Australia, with three subject to ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • Pre-departure COVID-19 test for travellers from the UK and the US from 15 January
    Travellers from the United Kingdom or the United States bound for New Zealand will be required to get a negative test result for COVID-19 before departing, and work is underway to extend the requirement to other long haul flights to New Zealand, COVID-19 Response Minister Chris Hipkins confirmed today. “The new PCR test requirement, foreshadowed last ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • PM congratulates New Year Honour recipients
    Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has added her warm congratulations to the New Zealanders recognised for their contributions to their communities and the country in the New Year 2021 Honours List. “The past year has been one that few of us could have imagined. In spite of all the things that ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 weeks ago
  • David Parker congratulates New Year 2021 Honours recipients
    Attorney-General and Minister for the Environment David Parker has congratulated two retired judges who have had their contributions to the country and their communities recognised in the New Year 2021 Honours list. The Hon Tony Randerson QC has been appointed a Companion of the New Zealand Order of Merit for ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 weeks ago
  • New Year’s Honours highlights outstanding Pacific leadership through challenging year
    Minister for Pacific Peoples Aupito William Sio says the New Year’s Honours List 2021 highlights again the outstanding contribution made by Pacific people across Aotearoa. “We are acknowledging the work of 13 Pacific leaders in the New Year’s Honours, representing a number of sectors including health, education, community, sports, the ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 weeks ago
  • Supporting seniors to embrace technology
    The Government’s investment in digital literacy training for seniors has led to more than 250 people participating so far, helping them stay connected. “COVID-19 has meant older New Zealanders are showing more interest in learning how to use technology like Zoom and Skype so they can to keep in touch ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 weeks ago