Not at the employers' expense, please!

The recent pronouncements by the General Workers' Union about sick leave entitlement and the role of the company doctor have raised justified concerns among employers. There is no uniform legal entitlement to sick leave. The Employment and Industrial Relations Act carries no mention of sick leave, and the dozens of different wage regulation orders provide for diverse entitlements depending on the sector. As things stand today, an employee whose work does not fall under any of the classifications of the Wage Regulation Orders and who is not covered by a collective agreement is, strictly speaking, not entitled to any sick leave.

However, normally, contracts of employment will specify some form of sick leave entitlement, and even where a contract of employment does not exist, employers do provide for a minimum sick leave benefit.

Therefore, there is no question that employers do endorse the view that sick leave is a right and it is part of their social responsibility to carry a part of the burden of sick leave (the first three days of consecutive sick leave are paid in full by the employer, for instance). It is also their duty to ensure that the work environment minimises the risk of ill health to employees.

However, employers cannot be reasonably expected to entertain claims for sick leave that do not arise from an illness, disease or accident, nor to waive their right to verify sick leave before they pay for it.

A clear case in point is the increasing trend to undertake cosmetic surgery. Granted, in some cases, this may be necessary because of previous injury, or else to address a deformity that is also causing psychological or physical suffering to the employee. In all such cases I have come across, employers have granted paid sick leave during the recovery period to employees requiring such interventions, often beyond legal and contractual obligations. On the other hand, it is unreasonable to demand that similar treatment be extended to employees who voluntarily decide to undergo a process of self mutilation to look like a Hollywood icon.

The same applies to cases of self-inflicted illness or injury. Should an employer pay for sick leave arising from sunstroke, or post-weekend hangover? Why should a company carry the cost of repeated absences resulting from injuries suffered during the practice of dangerous sports? Isn't the employer penalised sufficiently for such negligence through the cost of foregone production?

Unfortunately, the company doctor is a necessary cost to reduce sick leave abuse. It is a fact that private doctors cannot always be trusted to exercise objective judgement in determining whether an employee is fit for work or not. How can one justify certification for absence that follows a clear pattern, or seasonal fluctuations in sick leave that coincide with the hunting season? In the vast majority of cases, the conclusions of the company doctor correspond to those of the private doctor, and the company doctor acts as a deterrent against abuse of sick leave. However, cases do emerge where employers refuse to pay for sick leave that is not certified by the company doctor. This right is entrenched in numerous collective agreements and should be retained.

Abuse of sick leave benefits also acts against the interests of honest co-workers who frequently have to deal with an added workload to make up for lost production. This is one reason why it is expected of trade unions to support any measures to curb abuse, while protecting the employees' right to fair treatment.

So yes, anyone can aspire to have Carmen Electra's looks or act like Jackie Chan. But, please, not at the employers' expense.

Mr Farrugia is director general of the Malta Employers' Association.