In our company, we have a policy of deducting the salary if leave is taken without any leave balance or if leave is taken without any prior intimation, at the discretion of the manager. But what if an employee takes leave even when aware that their salary will be deducted? This implies that the employee does not mind the deduction. I need assistance in creating new rules that can address such situations and resolve these issues.
From Japan,
From Japan,
Time theft draining productivity? Track attendance in real time! See It In Action - Book Your Demo
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 authorized 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 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 a break in service of the employee concerned. Also, he can instruct the Leave Sanctioning Authorities to exercise reasonable restraint in the matter of sanctioning such leave.
Apart from such restrictive endeavors, I think that it would also be pertinent to analyze 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 a 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 organizational culture.
From India, Salem
6108Apart from such restrictive endeavors, I think that it would also be pertinent to analyze 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 a 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 organizational culture.
From India, Salem
Sirs,
Taking further the subject, in our manufacturing plant, there is a tendency or casual attitude among the workers to proceed on leave during the harvesting period of April to June every year on the pretext of some family marriage. Additionally, some workers overstay their sanctioned leave with or without a request for an extension and then return to their duties.
Now, my questions are:
(i) In what circumstances can the company penalize such workers?
(ii) Can the annual increment be postponed proportionately to the absence (number of days) of the worker(s) with loss of pay?
Thank you.
From India, Khargone
Taking further the subject, in our manufacturing plant, there is a tendency or casual attitude among the workers to proceed on leave during the harvesting period of April to June every year on the pretext of some family marriage. Additionally, some workers overstay their sanctioned leave with or without a request for an extension and then return to their duties.
Now, my questions are:
(i) In what circumstances can the company penalize such workers?
(ii) Can the annual increment be postponed proportionately to the absence (number of days) of the worker(s) with loss of pay?
Thank you.
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 a common experience in any industrial establishment that there will always be some employees who, after availing the 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 to make some observations 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 emphasizes that an employee can only apply for leave, but it is up to the management to grant it or not. The implication of this is that leave is not 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 the management a handle to control the grant of leave based on the exigencies of work.
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 an inquiry. No doubt, it is a 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 a legal challenge as the Standing Orders do not contain it.
Any unauthorized absence from work is considered misconduct, and its repetition for 3 or more times is considered habitual, which merits disciplinary action.
The leave rules should clearly spell out the above aspects of disciplinary actions in case of habitual unauthorized absence.
Regards,
Vinayak Nagarkar
HR Consultant
From India, Mumbai
It is a common experience in any industrial establishment that there will always be some employees who, after availing the 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 to make some observations 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 emphasizes that an employee can only apply for leave, but it is up to the management to grant it or not. The implication of this is that leave is not 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 the management a handle to control the grant of leave based on the exigencies of work.
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 an inquiry. No doubt, it is a 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 a legal challenge as the Standing Orders do not contain it.
Any unauthorized absence from work is considered misconduct, and its repetition for 3 or more times is considered habitual, which merits disciplinary action.
The leave rules should clearly spell out the above aspects of disciplinary actions in case of habitual unauthorized absence.
Regards,
Vinayak Nagarkar
HR Consultant
From India, Mumbai
Looking for something specific? - Join & Be Part Of Our Community and get connected with the right people who can help. Our AI-powered platform provides real-time fact-checking, peer-reviewed insights, and a vast historical knowledge base to support your search.
