Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Happy to have a look at her contract - it will be pretty specific about the contractual arrangements around sick pay. In my experience it is unusual for nannies to be paid anything other than SSP, especially so soon after starting (often families as a gesture of goodwill will pay when they don't have to once the nanny has proven their reliability, but the contract itself is less than generous).


It may be that your nanny is just making use of what she sees as a 'benefit', and if that benefit can be legitimately removed, her sick record would dramatically improve! If you are otherwise happy with her and the children like her, perhaps it's worth looking into.

In our very standard nanny contract, we must pay 3 days sick pay (which is "statutory"). Your contract sounds nuts. Some nanny contracts only have one day paid sick pay, as far as I have heard. Our nanny has never been ill more than 3 consecutive days, but if she had a doctor?s notice I would pay more days accordingly.

We also have a clause saying that disciplinary measures can be taken for causing disruption to the household and unreliability in attendance and time keeping, which I think your nanny is doing (texting in the same day, excessive sick days and no doctor?s notice and you don?t even seem to be informed of what her illnesses are). It would be very unfair to dismiss someone by lying about your circumstances and without an honest confrontation and giving them a second chance. Maybe she can explain her health problems (she will need a doctor?s notice to do this though). If you lose your job due to the effect her absence has on your work, she will obviously loose her job too, so there are serious consequences for her here. I hope she is just going through a spell of bad health, which can sometimes happen if you are really run down (and nannying is an exhauting job where you are exposed to lots of bugs and vulnerable to illness), but only a doctor should be able to check if it is serious enough to skip work so much. Hopefully you can keep her and it was just a bad start.

Pathetic and gives other more principled nannies a bad name.

If she is like this at the start when she is presumably trying to impress the new employer, what on earth will she be like later on?


Oh and I'm afraid I don't buy the real illness thing. Conscientious people who were unlucky with their health in a new job would be falling over themselves to explain it/work instead/not take pay etc.


Fire her soonest.

  • 5 years later...
sack her and don't look back 4 weeks notice and be done with it take it from someone with experience she will just carry on taking the biscuit, i did the whole "sit down and talk" it doesn't make a difference. if you really want a turn around re-write the contract and remove the sick pay going forward and then see what happens however mine had no sick pay and still had 9 days off in 3 n hlf months. not worth it get rid!

id recommend you ring acas and get advice. look at number of absences over number of days, and is there a pattern, eg always on a monday etc.


if she is a good nanny, then it might be an recurring problem which is close to being sorted.


also, think about how you would expect to be treated by your employer if you were unwell, and behave accordingly.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Having enjoyed a day with Sayce HolmesLewis, I understand what you’re saying.  I appreciate your courage responding on here. 
    • Thank you to everyone who has already shared their thoughts on this. Dawson Heights Estate in the 1980s, while not as infamous as some other estates, did have its share of anti-social behaviour and petty crime. My brother often used the estate as a shortcut when coming home from his girlfriend’s house, despite my parents warning him many times to avoid it. Policing during that era had a distinctly “tough on crime” approach. Teenagers, particularly those from working-class areas or minority communities, were routinely stopped, questioned, and in some cases, physically handled for minor infractions like loitering, skateboarding, or underage drinking. Respect for authority wasn’t just expected—it was demanded. Talking back to a police officer could escalate a situation very quickly, often with harsh consequences. This was a very different time. There were no body cameras, dash cams, or social media to hold anyone accountable or to provide a record of encounters. Policing was far more physical and immediate, with few technological safeguards to check officer behaviour. My brother wasn’t known to the police. He held a full-time job at the Army and Navy store in Lewisham and had recently been accepted into the army. Yet, on that night, he ran—not because he was guilty of anything—but because he knew exactly what would happen if he were caught on an estate late at night with a group of other boys. He was scared, and rightfully so.
    • I'm sure many people would look to see if someone needed help, and if so would do something about it, and at least phone the police if necessary if they didn't feel confident helping directly. At least I hope so. I'm sorry you don't feel safe, but surely ED isn't any less safe than most places. It's hardly a hotbed of crime, it's just that people don't post on here if nothing has happened! And before that, there were no highwaymen,  or any murders at all .... In what way exactly have we become "a soft apologetic society", whatever that means?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...