Are My Work Superiors Doing This Right?

[chelsea_girl]

A few weeks ago, myself and a few other colleagues were sent appointments for a formal interview because our absences had alerted them to an abnormal level of absence.

After the formal interview, we all received letters with copies of the interview. One of the colleagues thinks we should have received written warnings before we got to this stage.

I'm wondering if this is correct or have my employers going correct way about it

[woofgang]

There is no “correct way” provided that all employees are treated the same. There is also a concept of “natural justice” which should guide such procedures. Have you got a copy of your employer’s sickness absence policy? They don’t have to have a written policy but if they have got one, then they have to give access to it when asked.
Personally I would expect to see the kind of system that you say your company has followed, ie interview, then letter with copy of interview so that you can see what the employer thinks happened at the interview and have the opportunity to comment if you remember the meeting differently.

[fiction-factory]

Your company did it the right way in my opinion. Sending out a written warning before the meeting would have been wrong and pointless in my opinion. It is good practice to have an informal discussion, then proceed via oral warnings and written warnings then final written warning (unless the circumstances justify bypassing a stage). Having an investigatory meeting/interview seems perfectly right to me and gives the employer an opportunity to explore the case and gives the employee a chance to explain things from their point of view.