SICK workers face the sack for taking time away from their jobs under new rules by Bolton Council, according to professional workers union, Unison.

It claims council employees face being disciplined and could even lose their jobs just for being ill after two new procedures were set up by the council to deal with staff.

Unison's Bolton branch secretary Bernie Gallagher has slammed the rules, claiming they will victimise sick people and those whose "face doesn't fit," and they have sent a letter to the Chief Personnel Officer criticising the "punitive measures."

But today the council said it was simply implementing measures to meet Government targets. Sickness at the council was costing tax payers around £5m a year and many workers were taking a month's sick leave every year.

Unison says it has the backing of four other unions - the AEEU, T&G, G&B and UCATT.

The row centres over two changes to the procedures for dealing with ill people and those whose work performance is unacceptable.

Although the council, which employs 12,000 people, has said it will be used as a last resort, the Medical Incapacity procedure aims to reduce its level of sickness absence and it includes a 'stress policy', an employee health plan and an ill heath redeployment policy to try and get people back into work.

A further procedure, Managing Capability, will deal with employees whose work performance is deemed unacceptable. Both procedures are being brought in because of Government legislation to try and reduce sickness levels.

But in both, the option to sack ill employees and those deemed to be falling below a "performance level" is available.

And both rules have angered the unions. They believe that genuinely ill people should not also suffer the devastation of losing their jobs and they have questioned the term "performance", believing its definition is open to debate and could lead to victimisation.

Mrs Gallagher fears it could lead to a breakdown in industrial relations. She said: "We, along with the other main unions that deal with workers in the council, are seeing this as a way of speeding up the process of dismissing people who are ill. That is certainly the case with the new 'incapacity procedure'.

"We are not saying that people who cannot do a job should be treated softly but as far as we are concerned there were already more than adequate disciplinary procedures to deal with staff in such a case.

"At the end of the day if people are genuinely ill, then they are genuinely ill and they should not be penalised for it.

"And as for performance, that could so easily come down to personalities. If someone's face doesn't fit, we fear he or she may be out of job."

In the letter to the council, Unison says the authority's current sickness absence procedure is fair and firm but they claim it is not consistently adhered to with examples of "over zealous" managers applying the policy without sensitivity.

In 1998, sickness cost the council £5m a year. Manual workers were taking up to 20 days a year off sick and white collar workers, 14 days. But the level of sickness had started to fall.

Bolton Council denied it was fast-tracking sackings and said it was acting on Government requirements to cut the levels of absence.

In a statement to the BEN, the Council said: "Unfortunately, despite every positive effort being made, there may be occasions when an employee's sickness record is such that the effective delivery of service is compromised and it is then necessary to consider what is in the employee's and the authority's interest."

It claimed it has a duty to Council Tax payers to "do everything possible to ensure effective service delivery" adding: "The Trade Unions were given the opportunity to comment and influence the development and implementation of these policies but have chosen simply to oppose their introduction."

Converted for the new archive on 14 July 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.