Spotted at the pub: the suspicious summer absence

The UK is in full summer mode, which means sticky commutes, packed beer gardens and the annual national debate over whether we’re actually enjoying the heatwave or simply surviving it.

Love it or hate it, this is the time of year when people are more likely to be out making the most of the weather. Add the World Cup into the mix, and suddenly the pub, the beer garden or that ‘quick one after work’ can feel a lot more tempting.

Which brings us to a familiar HR headache.

An employee has rung in sick or is signed off sick, and then someone spots them out and about either on social media or even in the flesh. However it comes to light, it’s bound to raise a few eyebrows.

But it’s also one of those situations where it’s very easy to jump to conclusions, and just as easy to get it wrong if you do.

Seeing isn’t the same as proving it

On the face of it, it doesn’t look great. But from an HR and risk perspective, this is exactly the type of scenario where a measured approach matters. And acting too quickly can create more problems than it solves. 

The important thing to remember is that being off sick doesn’t automatically mean someone has to stay at home.

Depending on the condition, getting out, socialising or doing something normal may actually be part of recovery. That’s particularly the case with stress or other mental health-related absences, but it can apply more widely too. 

So, someone being at the pub, even during a big World Cup game, isn’t, on its own, evidence of misconduct. 

The real question is whether what they’re doing is inconsistent with the reason they’re off. 

The World Cup factor 

Big sporting events like the World Cup tend to amplify these issues. 

You might see a spike in sickness absence, and at the same time, more visibility of people being out, posting online, or mentioned by colleagues. It can create a sense that things don’t quite add up, but it’s important not to let that drive the outcome. 

Watching a match in a pub: 

• Doesn’t automatically mean someone is fit for work
• Doesn’t prove dishonesty
• Doesn’t give you the full picture

That said, context still matters. If what’s being reported looks clearly at odds with the stated reason for absence, particularly if it’s sustained or more physically demanding, then it may justify looking into it further. 

Check the facts first

A common pitfall is acting on very limited information. 

“We’ve been told they were at the pub” isn’t evidence in itself. Before doing anything, check: 

• Where has this come from?
• How reliable is it?
• What was actually seen, and when?
• Is there anything to support it, or is it just hearsay?

Social media doesn’t necessarily solve this either, as it’s easy to misinterpret and rarely shows the full picture. And as mentioned, if you act too quickly, it could weaken your position later. 

Start with a conversation 

In most cases, the right first step is simply to check in. That should sit within your usual absence management process, rather than becoming an immediate disciplinary issue.

Keep it neutral. You’re not making an accusation; you’re trying to understand whether anything has changed.

Something along the lines of: 

“We just wanted to check in and see how you’re doing, and whether there’s been any change in your current situation or likely return to work.” 

Often, that conversation will give you the context you need. It also shows you’ve approached it reasonably, which matters if it goes any further. 

When you may need to investigate

If, after that initial conversation, there are still genuine concerns, particularly where there’s a clear inconsistency, then it may be appropriate to move to a more formal investigation. 

That might be where:

• The activity doesn’t align with the stated illness
• There are indications the person may not be unfit for work

At that point, treat it properly:

• Set out the concerns clearly
• Gather evidence in a structured way
• Give the employee a chance to respond
• Keep a clear audit trail

Not every case will go anywhere, but if it does you’ll need that process to stand up. 

When in doubt, get medical input

Where there’s any doubt about what someone can reasonably do, medical evidence is key. 

That might be: 

Or getting clarification on whether certain activities are consistent with the condition

• Reviewing the fit note more closely
• Referring to occupational health
• Asking for consent to contact GP

It takes the decision out of assumption and grounds it in something more objective. 

Getting the balance right 

There’s always a balance here. 

On the one hand, employers are entitled to address potential misuse of sick leave. On the other, acting on assumptions can create unnecessary risk. 

Get it wrong, and you’re into: 

• Unfair dismissal territory
• Possible discrimination issues
• And avoidable employee relations fallout
• Employee raising a grievance

If you stick to a simple approach, check the facts, have a conversation first, and only escalate where there’s a clear basis, you’re far more likely to land in the right place.