Operational managers should be able to review the overall patterns of their areas of responsibility in comparison with others and sliced by occupational group, work team or by day of the week. Individual patterns of attendance/absence must be accessible to line managers.

If such data is not available, managers should keep their own records, but must ensure that these are (a) comprehensive: they must cover all employees in the team, to avoid claims of victimisation; and (b) must be accurate.

‘Better information would help the Service manage sickness absence more effectively.
The information provided by Areas is not wholly accurate and, as a consequence, the reliability of overall data on sickness absence in the National Probation Service is undermined. Only 37 per cent of Chief Officers consider the national data to be ‘very accurate’, 54 per cent had ‘some doubts’ and 10 per cent thought data were only indicative. Internal Audit has also raised concerns about the reliability of sickness absence data.’
Source:  National Audit Office Report: Absence Management in the Probation Service, April 2006.

See ‘Cost’.

The Work Foundation suggests that designing jobs to make work interesting, build a sense of commitment and enhance employee engagement will achieve more than any other action to reduce absence.

Where work is fundamentally difficult to change then enhancing teamwork and involvement through ‘total quality’-type continuous improvement schemes can begin to encourage employees to feel greater interest in their work and hence to reduce absence. (See Project Plan)

Involving staff in working through the HSE Standard on stress avoidance, and/or reviewing the jobs in terms of musculo-skeletal strain can deliver the direct benefit of reducing causes of absence and the indirect benefit of true two-way communication to find constructive solutions.

UK-wide comparative data:

The Auditor General for Western Australia reports that the number of work days lost per year per full time equivalent in public services there = 6.6 (‘Absent Friends’, May 2001), and suggests a target of four days per head.

The Bradford Index Formula is:

S x S x D = (INDEX)

Where

S is the Number of occasions (Spells) of absence and

D is the Total number of Days absent.

For example:

Five absences of one or two days (2 +1+2 +2 +1) gives S = 5, and D = 8

Thus (5 x 5 x 8) = 200

A single long absence of six weeks (30 days) scores

1 x 1 x 30 = 30

But if that person had another absence of three days, the new calculation would show:

2 x 2 x 33 = 132

Note: the Index can be used at the level of hours worked/absent if that is more appropriate - see www.acas.co.uk/absence.

What the manager can do, is to review ‘capability’, in terms of demonstrated consistent attendance at work.

‘Capability’ is best set out in a procedure that is distinct from discipline, but with parallel stages and identical rights of hearings, representation and appeal.

The principle underlying a review of a person’s capability, on any grounds, should be that realistic and measurable standards have been set and the employees know what these are.

The consistency obligation in relation to attendance therefore suggests that the organisation’s policies should define threshold or trigger points for the review of any individual case.

Threshold levels should be defined within corporate policy documents which are readily accessible to staff.

Some organisations use simple triggers of a number of weeks’ absence, but these then miss the frequent short absences that cause considerable disruption and account for the bulk of time lost.

Use of the Bradford Index to define the ‘trigger’ points ensures that the disruptive effective of frequent short absences (which form the majority) is addressed within the overall attendance-management system.

Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development UK-national research shows that 60 per cent of time lost comes through absences of up to eight days.

www.CIPD.co.uk/surveys

Line manager
HR representative
Occupational health professional
A health and safety staff member may be involved if the case warrants it.

The volume of time lost by a relatively small proportion of staff is such that effective support and good management of those cases can have a significant impact on the overall performance of the organisation.

The purpose of a case conference is to review the known facts of the case to bring forward a return-to-work, by such means as:

• ensuring regular contact/visits are maintained;
• analysing the underlying cause of the absence and considering initiatives which might help the individual to return to work;
• making contact with the individual’s GP via a qualified health professional, such as an occupational health nurse, based on specific authorisation from the individual concerned;
• reviewing the individual’s Bradford Index score/patterns and history of absence; and
• agreeing on next steps, who will do what and when the situation will be reviewed.

Short-term phased return to work with some reduction in intensity may help. (see Rehabilitation)
Eventually, if the absence continues, and all other constructive options have failed, the discussion may turn to the potential termination of employment. This might be through retirement on the grounds of ill health if the condition is such that the individual is permanently unfit to work. (see Ill health)

Notes should be kept of the outcomes of all such case conferences, but remember that these will be discloseable to the individual (the ‘Data-subject’) under the Data Protection Act, or in the event of any legal challenge.
Given that any case which eventually moves into formal process through Capability or Disciplinary Procedure will have previously been discussed in case conferences, the case notes covering the earlier discussions are likely to form a key component of the paper trail which may be scrutinised in the course of subsequent proceedings

In order to qualify for payment, an employee must either complete the self-certification process (for absences of up to seven calendar days) or submit a medical certificate for absence of eight days or more.

Some organisations’ policies include the right for the employer to withdraw self-certification in the event that an individual has more absences than a defined level.

In communications about attendance it is best to convert ‘standard’ percentages or ‘days lost’ figures into meaningful briefings which staff can relate to.

In South Wales Fire and Rescue, in January 2006, there were 79 shifts lost through absence, but in January 2007, the figure was 43.

Gwent Police Force has undertaken a comprehensive revision of all policies and practices relating to attendance, with the result that the number of days lost per officer in 2005/2006 was better than in 2003/2004 by 5.22 days…with a strength of 1,510 officers, this is the equivalent of an additional 30 police officers working in Gwent throughout the year.

If the change is fundamental, going to the root of the employment, then caution is advised and specific legal advice should be sought.

There should be defined protocols to ensure that friendly and supporting contact is maintained by the Team Leader, Line Manager and senior managers concerned, at different times in a long absence, to check on their progress, chat about what is current at work, and check what could be done to help them back to work.  It is also important that this approach is adopted consistently across the board.

Thus the employer can define entitlements and obligations which are contractual in documents other than the main Statement.
However, if an original Statement contains, for example, a table setting out certain sickness benefits appropriate to various levels of service and if the employer seeks to revise that, then the employer must ensure that everyone who holds the original document is informed of the change. (See Consultation)

If such descriptions of benefits are contained in, for example, a handbook of national agreements or in internal sources (including intranet), then the main Statement should make specific reference to those and the employer must ensure that every employee is able to access the information.

The same is true of contractual obligations, where it is unusual for all the detail to be set out in the main Statement. An employer should not rely on hard-to-find regulations and should ensure that the attention of every employee is drawn to any change in obligations, such as the protocols to be followed in the event of absence. Subject to the above, failure to conform to properly defined and communicated procedures can be viewed as a possible breach of contract and can be dealt with through disciplinary procedures.

While many contractual policy matters in public services have been defined within national agreements, increasingly there is scope for local developments.

Like other workplace quality initiatives, it is a progressive programme and organisations are reassessed every three years.
Work to achieve the standard is consistent with the Business Excellence Model, which is being used to drive quality and organisational development in many organisations. Integrating action to improve the health of employees into business development and business practice has significant benefits both for the workforce and the organisation as a whole.

For more information, and a Corporate Health Standard pack, please see:
http://new.wales.gov.uk/topics/health/improvement/health-at-work/corporate-standard/?lang=en

Managers who are likely to be involved in decision-making in relation to appeals should not become involved in covert discussions about options at earlier stages as this compromises independence. Conversely, if a manager has been involved in the early stages of a case, then a suitable substitute senior colleague should take their place at the appeal.
It is likely that all such involvement will be discovered and made use of in any formal proceedings. It may be prudent to ensure any such exchanges use totally anonymous labels, such as ‘Case B’, which are not indexed and cannot be linked to an individual through any system. Discussion can then be about general principles rather than specific individuals. Advice obtained from the organisation’s solicitor, and internal discussion of that advice is protected and is not liable to be disclosed.

Data concerning an individual’s record of attendance which originates, say, from the payroll office, may reasonably be used by management elsewhere in the organisation to support discussions about that person’s capability in the job, or the effect of job-specific risks, as these are all part of the same concern, namely the administration and management of that person’s employment.
As the pattern of attendance at work is generated from within the organisation by its own machinery, and is not reliant upon any kind of declaration from the person concerned, then it is reasonable for line managers to have access to and to make use of  attendance records as long as the data is accurate.

Absence records that contain personal medical information relating to an employee are regarded as sensitive data within the Data Protection Act 1998 and are covered by specific obligation to ensure that data provided is ‘adequate, relevant and not excessive to the purpose.’ (see ‘Medical Confidentiality’)
Authoritative guidance on all aspects of the Data Protection Act 1998 is freely available on the website of the Information Commissioner’s Office, at:
http://www.ico.gov.uk/

The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 requires that any person with a disability has a constructive discussion with their employer to explore the need for ‘reasonable adjustments’ to their work, and for the employer to undertake such adjustments as are ‘reasonably practicable’. It is the organisation’s obligation (and not the employee’s) to ensure that any such agreement is made known to any manager who has any overlap of responsibilities.
If those adjustments include a reduction in contracted hours to allow for late arrival/early leaving, or a reduction in the number of days worked per week, then these will be defined in a formal agreement whose parameters are known to all parties.
Once those adjustments are agreed and implemented, then that employee is under the same obligations for consistent performance as any other employee, within the framework agreed, and the employee is not ‘exempt’ from appropriately applied capability criteria.

Before moving any case which involves frequent short absences into any formal procedure, it is worth asking the employee whether or not there is any single underlying cause, even if the reasons given are varied, as there is a possibility that an underlying cause could constitute disability.
A careful note should be kept of any such conversation, and that should be included in the case papers.

An employee who develops a disability in the course of their employment and who might become unable to carry out the specific job for which they were employed, has rights which the employer must respect, in relation to constructive attempts to make reasonable adjustments. In a key landmark case, a road sweeper who became unfit for that work won her case against the Council because they had, unreasonably in the view of the Employment Appeal Tribunal, and ultimately upheld in the House of Lords, insisted that she could only be appointed to a higher paid clerical post if she won the internal selection process.
The learning point from this case is that the employer is obliged to explore possibilities for retraining to enable redeployment of any employee who becomes disabled, and that the employer’s obligations to that disabled person take precedence over normal internal procedures about competitive selection.
(Archibald vs. Fife County Council, 2004)

Disciplinary procedures may be relevant if, for example, the individual fails to ring in, so that the absence is ‘unauthorised’, or if she/he refuses to participate in return-to-work discussions, or unreasonably refuses to co-operate with constructive invitations to attend occupational health reviews.

Disciplinary procedures aim to be constructive. The process is designed to draw attention to a particular issue and clarify the expected standards.

A frequently-asked-question relates to the circumstance where an employee submits a medical certificate, often for stress, just before a scheduled disciplinary hearing, and may even cite the imminent hearing as the cause of the stress.

Public Service employers are especially expected to act reasonably, and therefore the reaction to this certificate should be to postpone the hearing to a new date. Employers should inform the employee that the hearing will go ahead in their absence if they are still too unwell to attend, inviting them to send their representative and/or to provide written submissions in response to the issues that will be explored. Continued or long-term postponement might exacerbate the stress and would not be consistent with the obligations of duty-of-care.

Dismissal related to long-term absence (rather than frequent short absences) should be considered in the context of the prognosis for the future. Emplyers should consider how long it will be before this person can be helped back to work. There should be constructive mutual engagement in exploring possibilities for retraining, redeployment, etc., which should begin as early as possible, not merely on the expiry of sick pay.
If it is clear, even at an early stage, that no return to work is likely, then many employers will initiate discussions leading to termination even before the sick pay period has run out, but it is prudent to take specific legal advice in such cases.

Note that a conditio