Time of Service While on Leave

2284103

We recently hired a person who is blind. We knew, when we hired her, that she would need an unpaid leave of absence for approx. 1 month, within the next six months. She must go out of state to train with her new dog.

She got the call sooner than expected and will be gone during her probation period and waiting period for benefits.

She obviously does not qualify for FMLA, yet. Our question is.....do we need to count the time she is on LOA towards her fulfilling her 90 day probationary/waiting period? She is eligible for benefits the first of the month following her 90 day probationary period.

POPEYE

My first response would be to follow your policy and minus a policy, what you have done in the past. However, while beginning to compose this post, I just realized that we don't have a policy for this scenario, nor have we had it come up in the last few years.

As far as insurance, your plan documents and or carrier contracts would probably address the issue.

2284103

Thanks for your response, Popeye. Our plan doc only says:
"If a Participant has not commenced employment, working 32 hours or more per week, on the date coverage would otherwise become effective, due to an approved leave of absence, other than a health factor, the coverage will not become effective until the date that he/she commences employment."

She has commenced work. She's just taking a month in the middle of her 90 day probation/waiting period. I suppose I could answer myself and say that we don't subtract days from other employees if they're sick for a week during their first 90 days, so maybe we should look at her situation the same way. It's just that it's so long, and being ADA and all, I don't want to appear like we're discriminating.

Don D

Based on what you've said, I don't think you have a basis to exclude the days she is off training with the dog. I recommend you do nothing in that regard and let the insurance take effect in it's normal process. It seems an odd maze one must negotiate in order to get coverage at your company. The point of offering employees the benefit of group coverage is obviously so that they will have insurance. I see no reason to complicate the process in this employee's case, or, in fact, in any employee's case.

I would also work to get this cumbersome, unfriendly requirement changed so that employees see your place as a place they feel comfortable, not stressed wondering when their insurance will kick in. What you have is an unfriendly requirement that was obviously put in place to please one or more administrative clerks who have probably bitched about the manual process of getting people on insurance, only to have them quit or get terminated during probation. Either that or someone in the bean-counting group saw that as wasting the company's money. So to solve that non-problem, a senior manager agreed to craft the policy language to please the clerks and/or bean counters. Tell me if I'm wrong...........x:-)





**When we do for others what they should do for themselves, we disempower them.**

2284103

Whooh!!!
I guess I must have made us sound like a bunch of Nazi's around here. We are the exact opposite, and go out of our way to do what is best for the employee. I just get concerned, sometimes, with all the discrimination & reverse-discrimination charges that come out these days. I was more concerned that employment lawyers would say we were treating her better than anyone else, not the other way around.
We had already decided to count her time gone as part of her 90 day waiting period, but thought we should get objective input from others who may have run into this before. In all our years, we've simply never had anyone need to take a leave of absence during their first 90 days. We've just been lucky, I guess.
I'm sorry if I came across as a "bean-counting, administrative bitch"!

Don D

Whoooah back to you. Nobody called you a bean counting bitch. (And assuming that persons were bitching is quite different than calling someone a bitch). I have no idea who crafted such a cumberson, unyielding policy in your company.

My analysis of the reason for the policy aside, I still feel that the policy is, at best, an odd one. You should treat this person just like any other employee, no better, no worse. I would not work for a company that had a 90 day probationary period prior to insurance coverage. Employees and their families NEED insurance coverage. That's why I suggested you analyze the whole policy.





**When we do for others what they should do for themselves, we disempower them.**