« PROBATION PAY: DISPUTE REGISTERED | Main | JNCC REPORT »
March 08, 2008
SICKNESS ABSENCE: UPDATE
We are going to hold some further meetings with HR to see if we build on the joint statement last October, because there is still confusion about how the procedures should operate. A recent audit showed that about 93% of Stage 1 formal meetings are resulting in No Further Action outcomes. Napo says there is something seriously amiss if staff are bring put through the demands and stress of formal proceedings only for No further Action to be the outcome in such a high percentage of cases.
We also know that many are being told in advance of formal meetings that no further action will be the outcome. This, in Napo’s submission, shows the procedure is being misapplied. It is important that all staff realise that ‘no further action’ does not mean your absence has been judged as reasonable in the circumstances. More likely it means your absence has been judged as unsatisfactory but no further action is required. This makes staff extremely vulnerable in the event of a further absence, even if just one day, of facing another Stage 1 and the probability of an improvement notice.
Despite the joint statement that the decision to refer to Stage 1 is the decision of the line manager, we are aware that there seems to be, in one division, an area manager expectation to issue an improvement notice if an individual reaches the trigger of 12 days. This seems at odds with the policy and procedure. In our view the decision to refer to formal procedures is the professional responsibility of the line manager who is then accountable for that decision. We see the ability of line mangers to use discretion and make judgements as critical. We entirely accept the value of consultation with HR, including area managers, but the decision belongs to, and is owned by, the line manager who would then present the case in the event of formal action.
We hope we can reach an agreed understanding with HR.
In the meantime, it is important to remind members to let Napo know as soon as possible should you be told you are going to be referred to a Stage 1. The letter advising of this must set out the details of your unsatisfactory absence and include all relevant return to work documentation. There is a clear protocol for Stage 1 meetings and we must ensure it is followed. The line manager has the task of making the case that the absence has been unsatisfactory. It is also essential there is a clear audit trail of the decision-making.
There is a persisting view in HPA that an absence that reaches the trigger is de facto unsatisfactory. But that is not what the policy says. The policy says all absences should be followed up in return to work interviews and the reasons for the absences must be explored. There may be an underlying disability that warrants reasonable adjustments; there may be underlying personal issues, such as domestic violence that can be considered under the special leave policy; and in Napo’s view the absence being considered as possibly contributing to reaching a trigger must be a short-term absence (a short-term absence is less than 21 working days); the return to work interview is crucial and they are not optional. Their nature and complexity will be shaped by any concerns growing around absences; if need be the RTW can be used to take pro-active action in relation to occupational health. As a rule of thumb if a referral to a Stage 1 appears to come out of the blue, then it possibly points to weaknesses in the RTW.
To say that absence form work is unsatisfactory is to state the obvious. It is unsatisfactory if you go to catch a train but the train driver has phoned in sick. From a purist business reasons perspective any absence is unsatisfactory because it may impair service delivery and increase workloads for others.
But in the real world individuals fall ill, are born with, or acquire disabilities, some get pregnant (pregnancy-related absence is excluded from counting towards triggers). Experiencing sickness and ill health is part of the human condition. Absences from work may be unsatisfactory but they, in the main, according to all the research, are bona fide. Napo supports the sickness management policy because it seeks to balance the interests of employer and employee through setting out a process that if followed would be fair, but if not followed may result in unfairness to the individual.
Finally the sickness management policy must not be looked at in isolation. The return to work interview is also the forum for finding solutions and minimising the likelihood of further absences. This is where consideration of flexible working and work-life balance issue can be useful. The approach to managing sickness is not about being reactive to triggers, it’s more about, wherever possible, taking all possible steps to avoid triggers being reached in the first place.
Posted by Hampshire at March 8, 2008 03:01 PM