In our company we have a policy of deducting the salary if the leave is taken without any leave balance or leave taken without any intimation which is discretion to the manager. But what if the employee takes leaves even if he knows that his salary is going to get deducted, that means the employee doesn't care if his salary is being deducted. Help me with new rules which can be applied in such cases to solve such issues.
From Japan,
From Japan,
PROFESSIONALS AND BUSINESSES PARTICIPATING IN DISCUSSION
Leave benefits available to industrial employees are of two types - one is statutory i.e C.L, S.L,E.L/P.L as per the provisions of establishment-specific law applicable and the other is those provided in the contract of employment/leave regulations/standing orders/collective bargaining agreements etc. After exhausting all kinds of admissible leave, if any employee has the necessity to go on authorised leave, it can only be leave on loss of pay. The only concession available to any employee availing LOP is that it will not be considered as a break in service - that's all. If the employer wants to control the tendency of availing of the LOP very frequently or beyond certain limits for obvious reasons, he can lay down the maximum limit of LOP in a year beyond which it would be treated as break in service of the employee concerned. Also, he can instruct the Leave Sanctioning Authorities to exercise reasonable restraint in the matter of sanction of such leave.
Apart from such restrictive endeavor, I think that it would also be pertinent to analyse the causes for such a tendency with the employees. Naturally no prudent employee would prefer leave at the cost of his earnings unless it is compelled by circumstances of dire necessity or beyond his control like long-drawn ill health of any dear one or self or fulfillment of religious or social commitments and the like. Else, the jobs and working environment in your organization should be relatively more demanding with poor compensation package and perks and there could be better chances of compensating such loss in earnings. After all, salary is the reward for the effective time spent and the efforts put in only but job satisfaction is a derivative from the sum total of organization culture.
From India, Salem
6015Apart from such restrictive endeavor, I think that it would also be pertinent to analyse the causes for such a tendency with the employees. Naturally no prudent employee would prefer leave at the cost of his earnings unless it is compelled by circumstances of dire necessity or beyond his control like long-drawn ill health of any dear one or self or fulfillment of religious or social commitments and the like. Else, the jobs and working environment in your organization should be relatively more demanding with poor compensation package and perks and there could be better chances of compensating such loss in earnings. After all, salary is the reward for the effective time spent and the efforts put in only but job satisfaction is a derivative from the sum total of organization culture.
From India, Salem
Sirs,
Taking further the subject, in our mfg. plant there is a tendency / casual attitude of the Workers to proceed on leave during the harvesting period of April to June every year on the pretext of some marriage in the family. Besides, some Workers overstay their sanctioned leave with / without request for extension of leave and come back to join duties.
Now, my question is (i) "In what circumstances can the Company penalize such Workers ?"; and (ii) "Can the Annual Increment be postponed proportionately to the absence (no. of days) of the Worker/s with Loss of Pay ?"
From India, Khargone
Taking further the subject, in our mfg. plant there is a tendency / casual attitude of the Workers to proceed on leave during the harvesting period of April to June every year on the pretext of some marriage in the family. Besides, some Workers overstay their sanctioned leave with / without request for extension of leave and come back to join duties.
Now, my question is (i) "In what circumstances can the Company penalize such Workers ?"; and (ii) "Can the Annual Increment be postponed proportionately to the absence (no. of days) of the Worker/s with Loss of Pay ?"
From India, Khargone
Dear friend, As per leave rules, you may give them notice of absents, even you may take action / put up inquiries. another solution - Attendence bases increament.
From India, Jalalpur
From India, Jalalpur
Dear Colleague,
It is common experience in any industrial establishment that there will always be some employees who, after availing full quantum of leaves will habitually go on loss of pay or habitually abstain from work without permission or intimation and loss of pay does not deter them from repeating it frequently.
I just want make some observation on the usage of terms in the post. Leave is not taken but applied for by the employee and it is granted or refused by the management as per rules. This way it emphasises that an employee can only apply for leave but it is up to management to grant it or not. The implication of this is that leave is not as a matter of right of an employee and management can refuse in fit cases even if leave is there in the credit of an employee. It also gives handle to management to control grant of leave based on exigencies of work .
But despite such controls, it is the habitual employees who don't get affected by the loss of pay after leave is refused or are willing to lose wages after exhausting all leaves and proceeding on leave without pay.
To check such truant employees, the only option available is to follow disciplinary action and progressively build the record of punishment starting with warnings, suspension without wages up to 4 days and finally termination after holding enquiry. No doubt , it is long drawn out process but it is legally mandatory.
The suggestion of Mr Umakanthan sir of giving breaks in service by way of punishment, may pose legal challenge as the Standing orders do not contain it.
Any unauthorized absence from work is considered as misconduct and its repetition for 3 or more times is considered habitual which merits disciplinary action.
The leave rules should clearly spell out above aspects of disciplinary actions in case of habitual unauthorized absence.
Regards,
Vinayak. Nagarkar
HR- Consultant.
From India, Mumbai
It is common experience in any industrial establishment that there will always be some employees who, after availing full quantum of leaves will habitually go on loss of pay or habitually abstain from work without permission or intimation and loss of pay does not deter them from repeating it frequently.
I just want make some observation on the usage of terms in the post. Leave is not taken but applied for by the employee and it is granted or refused by the management as per rules. This way it emphasises that an employee can only apply for leave but it is up to management to grant it or not. The implication of this is that leave is not as a matter of right of an employee and management can refuse in fit cases even if leave is there in the credit of an employee. It also gives handle to management to control grant of leave based on exigencies of work .
But despite such controls, it is the habitual employees who don't get affected by the loss of pay after leave is refused or are willing to lose wages after exhausting all leaves and proceeding on leave without pay.
To check such truant employees, the only option available is to follow disciplinary action and progressively build the record of punishment starting with warnings, suspension without wages up to 4 days and finally termination after holding enquiry. No doubt , it is long drawn out process but it is legally mandatory.
The suggestion of Mr Umakanthan sir of giving breaks in service by way of punishment, may pose legal challenge as the Standing orders do not contain it.
Any unauthorized absence from work is considered as misconduct and its repetition for 3 or more times is considered habitual which merits disciplinary action.
The leave rules should clearly spell out above aspects of disciplinary actions in case of habitual unauthorized absence.
Regards,
Vinayak. Nagarkar
HR- Consultant.
From India, Mumbai
If You Are Knowledgeable About Any Fact, Resource or Experience Related to This Topic and Want to Be Part of our support system - Please Register and Log In to CiteHR.
LEAVE RULES.doc