A friend of mine who works for the Home Office has told me on a few occasions that, for whatever reason, any employee who takes more than a certain number of days off sick has to recieve some kind of warning, and have their absence reviewed. This has come about because of union pressure, apparently, as the union felt that 'taking a view' on someone's sickness could effectively equal an imbalance of treatment.

In other words, you could get situations where an employee could be disciplined for taking 'excessive' sickness, whereas another employee with comparable or greater levels of sickness wouldn't be.

It would appear then, that your wife is a victim of a policy created to weed out those who take the Mick, and I'm sure that if there is any common sense to be had, she will be all right, as long as she defends this in the right way, and doesnt get on her high horse about it.

Purely from a 'Devils Advocate' point of view though, could it be that they're suggesting she COULD be at work, if she has - say - a desk job? That said, if she has been signed off sick by her doctor and ordered to stay away from work, then they really can't dispute it.

You might be right, it could be similar to ours at work. She did ring her boss and offer to do something 'lighter' in the office, but she was told that she couldn't, so she is sat at home climbing the walls. Of course, its all 'my fault' when I get home

You sound surprised.

Unless there is more to it, your wife's boss must be a clown. He or she actually took the time to ring her with news of a formal warning whilst she is absent due to a work related injury?? Worlds gone mad.
She didn't by any chance break her leg kicking the said boss did she?

Or it could be that his wife's boss is acting under orders from his boss, who is taking orders from his boss, who is taking orders from his boss, who is taking orders from a committee set up to appease the union. In other words, his hands are tied and that he is compelled to follow procedure.

He probably didn't like making the call any more than she liked to receive it.

Poor boss. Doomed forever to blindly follow the commy unions as much as his/her heart yearns for freedom. He or she could have refused and then at the disciplinary meeting sought help from his/her union.

SO basically, he's damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't, in your opinion.

That's a bit silly, isn't it?

If this is correct: "Her boss (local authority) rang her today to tell her that he is giving her a formal warning for her sick record"

Then what he did is beyond "silly", whether he was "following orders" or not is completely immaterial. The bloke's an imbecile

Let's be clear though: what you have suggested is not even opinion, but the foisting of a scenario from a different case onto this one.

OK, I get what you're saying.

So you're saying he should refuse to do the warning, then possibly end up with a warning (or worse) himself?

That said, for both parties, there will be a right to appeal, which is all well and good, if not a pain in the arsse to go through.

What none of us know, is the boss's attitude to it all. Did he ring and say "look, I'm sorry, but I HAVE to give you a warning as it's policy, but you can appeal, I'll back you up, you should be ok and I believe the policy is rubbish" or did he say "you're off sick, I'm warning you, tough titty"

There's a world of difference between those two attitudes - the former is not that of an imbecile, but the latter certainly would be.

I think we could deduce that her boss was a clown by the fact the words works for local authority were used