{"id":9213,"date":"2017-08-10T23:05:00","date_gmt":"2017-08-10T23:05:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.brightmine.com\/uk\/?post_type=resources&p=9213"},"modified":"2026-03-20T09:22:05","modified_gmt":"2026-03-20T09:22:05","slug":"local-authority-sick-pay-entitlement","status":"publish","type":"resources","link":"https:\/\/www.brightmine.com\/uk\/resources\/hr-compliance\/absence-management\/local-authority-sick-pay-entitlement\/","title":{"rendered":"Local authority sick pay entitlement: Factors to consider"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n
\n
\n

by: Brightmine<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sick pay and the disability discrimination provisions of the Equality Act 2010<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The National Conditions of Service for staff employed in local government, including those covered by the National Joint Council for Local Government Services – National Agreement on Pay and Conditions of Service (the Green Book) and the Conditions of Service for School Teachers in England and Wales (the Burgundy Book), provide that, after a period of sickness absence on full pay, employees who remain off sick will reduce to half and eventually no pay. Authorities do, however, have discretion to amend these provisions in individual cases.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In considering whether or not to exercise such discretion authorities should be aware of the Court of Appeal’s decision in Nottinghamshire County Council v Meikle [2004] IRLR 703 CA<\/em><\/a>. Mrs Meikle was a teacher who, as her sight was deteriorating, asked for adjustments to be made to her working conditions. Many of these were not made. She went off sick and eventually went on to half pay in accordance with the National Conditions of Service. She claimed that she had been the subject of discrimination under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 on a number of counts, including that the act of reducing her to half pay was discriminatory. The Court of Appeal held that the change to half pay was an unjustified failure to comply<\/a> with the employer’s duty to make reasonable adjustments, as well as unjustified less favourable treatment for a reason related to disability. If the required adjustments had been made there was, on the evidence, no reason to believe that Mrs Meikle would have been absent for the length of time it took for half pay to cut in. While this case was decided under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, which was repealed and replaced by the Equality Act 2010 on 1 October 2010, the principles underpinning the judgment remain valid. A similar case would now be dealt with under the provisions of the Equality Act 2010 relating to reasonable adjustments and discrimination arising from disability.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

At the time, the former Employers’ Organisation for local government (EO) commented that the case means that an employer is under a duty to make reasonable adjustments to the sick pay schemes set out in the Green Book and the Burgundy Book, and any other national or local schemes, where they place an employee at substantial disadvantage due to their disability. In addition the employer must ensure that it has made all reasonable adjustments to the employee’s current job to allow them to return to work. Where, after all reasonable adjustments, the employee would still not be able to return to their original job, redeployment should be considered. If the employee’s sick pay reduces to half while these issues are being dealt with, the employer will have to consider whether in the circumstances it would be reasonable to make adjustments to the sick pay scheme.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

Want to make smarter, more-informed decisions?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Learn more<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

It may be possible to argue that, as a very generous sick pay scheme is already provided, it is not reasonable to expect a local authority to provide any more. However, the EO advised that each case should be considered on its merits. Some issues that may be relevant are:<\/p>\n\n\n\n