Employment Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 10: 10: After Clause 3, insert the following new Clause— ““Statutory sick pay (1) An employee shall not suffer any loss of entitlement to statutory sick pay if the employee has been placed at a substantive disadvantage due to the resolution of either— (a) a grievance procedure, or (b) a disciplinary procedure. (2) Subsection (1) applies when a grievance or disciplinary procedure relates to— (a) an employee’s absence and statutory sick pay, or (b) a disability as defined under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (c. 50) and the absence can be shown to have been related to either the initial cause or process of resolution of such a procedure. (3) If an employee’s loss of entitlement to statutory sick pay is related to— (a) the number of available days for statutory sick pay being less than 14, excluding linked sick days, (b) a fixed contract length being exceeded, or (c) the employee cannot provide reasonable evidence that the health issue is work related, an extension of statutory sick pay shall be treated under normal statutory sick pay rules and not as an exemption on maximum number of days entitled.”” The noble Lord said: This is third in the series of amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Cotter and me. I suspect that this is the one that stretches the envelope of the Bill almost to its elastic stretching point. Nevertheless, I will have a go. The peril that this amendment deals with is a situation that often occurs in the workplace where a person is unable to deal with a grievance or a disciplinary matter due to a health condition that has been brought on by the events that have led to the grievance or disciplinary procedure. This is an attempt to deal with that situation, which often occurs in harassment cases where the victim, as part of the grievance or disciplinary procedure, has to face the alleged harasser. That may cause psychological manifestations: anxiety, fear-based conditions or post-traumatic stress symptoms. This is an attempt to deal with a situation that often occurs in the workplace. The Minister will no doubt say that whatever the merits or demerits of the point—again, I say that we have no pride in the drafting—the Bill is not the place to deal with it. Nevertheless, I have tried, and the envelope has not yet popped. Whether it pops when the Minister rises to his feet, we shall see. I beg to move.