Sick employee requesting to work from home

JKK

Hi everyone,
I really need some help here... I have an employee who underwent surgery in December and starts Chemotherapy end January for over 6 months. We have a very good sick leave benefit in that we pay full salary for 6 months (we include the 12 weeks of FMLA in this 6 month period, notified in our Conditions of Service). Obviously, this person will go over the 6 months paid leave and we are investigating them going onto our Long Term Disability Insurance for any remaining time, which is paid at 60% of salary, but does mean the person has to pay the full cost of Medical Benefits.
The problem is that the same employee underwent similar treatment 2 years ago (before I was here) and was allowed to work from home during the 8 months. This person submitted time sheets during this time and by the end of the 8 months had supposedly only taken 58 sick days, even though the treatment involved 4 weeks of Chemo with 2 weeks off in a repetitive cycle for the entire time. The work is hard to quantify and because this employee was working, the company would not hire a contractor to fill in, which left the department severely stretched. With the treatment being much the same this employee wants to do the same this time around and be able to work from home. The difference this time is that the department has now been reduced from 4.5 staff to 3 currently, one of which is this staff member. I can't in good faith expect this department to function under these conditions.
Complicating the issue is that the ill employee is one whose job has been identified as being one that needs to go in our reduction in force. As they would have been eligible for early retirement without penalty in August, we were hoping they would choose to retire, which is not looking likely, and have not told this person about the situation.
What do I do now? I want to do the right thing by this employee, but having them work from home was a nightmare last time, and I don't want to go through the scenario again, particularly as our Long Term Disability insists that the person has to be on sick leave for 6 months to be eligible for the Insurance. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated, as I am still relatively new to this profession.
Thanks
JKK

Gillian

What a terrible situation to be in, both for the employee and for you, the one who has to deal with it. First of all, the needs of the business come first and unless there are some special protections in your state that protects employees in this situation, you should treat the person the same as you would anyone else. In this case, you seem to have clearly identified this position as the one to be reduced in a layoff so it doesn't appear to have any relationship to the person. You should start with the premise that you can't let the person work from home and that the position is going to disappear at some point. Then you think of how you might mitigate the impact on the person. Is there some sort of "bridge" that you can construct to allow this person to reach the early retirement point which you referenced. Some months ago we deleted a position which was held by a long term employee. He needed six months to reach the point at which he would qualify for something, I don't remember exactly what. The new VP of that department created a special short term position at a lower salary and committed to a longer term consulting contract with the employee. The employee jumped on the chance because we not only helped him reach the point he needed to reach but helped him get a consulting business going to boot. This may not fit your situation but creativity in these circumstances can sometimes turn a bad situation into one that is acceptable. Employees will sometimes be thankful for the "bridge" when they have a clear view of the alternative.

Rockie

This is way too nightmarish to keep up with. If this is an hourly person, it is very difficult to accurately track their hours. With your excellent benefit package, it's hard to understand why anyone undergoing chemo would actually want to or feel like working.

We don't allow anyone but our medical transcriptionists to work at home and we can keep up with their time via computer. In the past, we have tried to work this out for employees, but again, whenever you tried to find them at home, they were not available. Of course, their "cell phone was turned off","beeper battery was dead", "they were in the bathroom", etc....a whole myriad of reasons.

My feeling is this person should be put under FMLA - perform no work at home and come back to work whenever their physician releases them. When you start making special provisions for one employee, you may as well open the door to anyone who needs their work schedule adjusted to meet their needs.

Following a specified procedure is always best. I am sure you will meet resistance as this person has done this before, but I would explain that this was before your time and it is your opinion that this is the best and cleanest route to follow to make sure everyone is treated consistently.

Roberta

Be sure to check with your LTD carrier. Perhaps the coverage allows previous absence to count toward the 6-month leave requirement (ours does). If that is the case, there might be less of an issue in getting the employee to be completely off.

I would like to inject something here on a personal note. When you are facing treatments such as this, you want your life to be as normal as possible. It's very difficult to comprehend how your life becomes so dramatically different. I am very fortunate to have an employer who has worked around my appointments and treatments.

pecohr

I think that while you want to be and should be empathetic to your ee's needs what they are requesting would put an undue hardship on your company (based on the info in your post). I believe that your first responsibility is to keep your workplace healthy and reducing an already small staff would not serve that end. Because you've done it in the past does not mean that you are required to again accomodate this ee's request. I would explain the situation and look for a more workable accomodation.

Good luck,

ritaanz

I have a question. In your post you stated, "The difference this time is that the department has now been reduced from 4.5 staff to 3 currently, one of which is this staff member. I can't in good faith expect this department to function under these conditions.
Complicating the issue is that the ill employee is one whose job has been identified as being one that needs to go in our reduction in force."

How can you decide to eliminate a position when you know the department can not funtion without it?

HS

>I have a question. In your post you stated, "The difference this time
>is that the department has now been reduced from 4.5 staff to 3
>currently, one of which is this staff member. I can't in good faith
>expect this department to function under these conditions.
>Complicating the issue is that the ill employee is one whose job has
>been identified as being one that needs to go in our reduction in
>force."
>
>How can you decide to eliminate a position when you know the
>department can not funtion without it?

You took the words right out of my mouth Ritanz...I was wondering the same thing!

Don D

There you go gettin' analytical on us Ritaanz! But thanks for bringing that tomy attention.

Balloonman

There are situations where this can occur. In a past life, prior to the company going out of business specific departmental budget cuts were given. By the third round we were cutting people we "needed to accomplish the mission". If the company is struggling financially and are given specific cuts or numbers to work with then this situation can work/ be legitimate.
My $0.02 worth.
DJ The Balloonman

JKK

Ritanz,
Thanks for pointing that issue out - I need to provide slightly more info - basically two people have resigned from the department, leaving one staff member in the office and the aforementioned person on sick leave. We are in the process of recruiting a third person whose position will incorporate some elements of the sick staff members role and elements of the two resignation roles - but certainly not all of any one of them. This new hire is unlikely to be in position before the end of April. In the meantime I need to get some temporary help for the one remaining staff member, and the company is being unbelievably strict about headcount.
A major part of the issue is a new CEO who basically doesn't give a damn how we do it, just that we have to reduce the headcount and that the employees need to have a wider skill set - not so much speciality - and unfortunately the staff member on leave has a very specialized role.
Don't know if that clarifies it any further?
Thank you to all who have responded so far though, it has certainly given me some food for thought
JKK