« VOTE YES FOR ACTION | Main | VOTE YES FOR ACTION »
May 04, 2008
SICKNESS MANAGEMENT PRACTICES: THE FACTS.
Hygeia: Greek Goddess of Health.
Last week a meeting of all the operational managers was addressed by the HR director on the subject of sickness management. We understand that Napo's interpretation of the policy and procedures was contrasted with HPAs interpretation. It is regrettable that almost one year on there is not a single interpretation as this would be in everyone's interest. Napo would be pleased to receive an invitation to debate sickness management in front of operational managers so we can put across our views on how sickness management procedures should operate. For the benefit of our members we make the following observations.
Napo agrees with every part of the nationally agreed policy – every single letter of the policy; we also agree with the procedures as laid down in the policy. Our long-standing objection is that HPA does not adhere to the policy or procedures and it is these practices that go against the interests of our members. Industrial relations in HPA have been in a sorry state for a long time and one of the main elements in the breakdown of constructive relations has been disagreements over sickness management. The following sets out Napo’s position on the policy and procedures.
ABSENCES: HPA promulgate the view that all absences are unsatisfactory. We regard this type of statement as platitudinous. From the employer’s viewpoint we can understand that absences are unsatisfactory to the organisation, but in the context of an individual absentee there may be good reasons for the absence. Reasons for absences matter in law. Furthermore, reasons matter in the policy. This is why pregnancy-related absences do not count towards the triggers for short-term absences; it is why disability-related absences can be discounted from the trigger points and it is why triggers can actually be extended as a ‘reasonable adjustment’ under the policy. It is also why the policy stresses staff must be treated as individuals and have all relevant considerations taken into account. Nowhere in the policy does it say that on reaching the trigger point there must be an automatic referral to formal proceedings. The trigger should not be treated as a target. The national policy is strong on applying the principles of diversity.
LETTER TO ATTEND A FORMAL MEETING: The template letters that are sent to staff to inform that they are required to attend a formal meeting to address their unsatisfactory absence are inadequate. The letter undermines the legal right to be accompanied by a trade union official by the way it is worded. This has led to problems about setting up meetings. In addition, the template letter contradicts the policy. This is what the policy says the letter should say:
‘The line manager must: set out details of the unsatisfactory attendance, including a copy of all relevant documentation, e.g. copies of return to work interview notes and OHS advice’
Unfortunately this never happens: details of the unsatisfactory absence are never set out. All we see are the number of days - reaching the trigger. All relevant documentation must be provided, but the template letter has dropped the word ‘must’ and inserted ‘whenever possible’.
For Napo to effectively represent members we need to see all the evidence that is being drawn upon to allege unsatisfactory absence. Napo gets accused of being unreasonable, adding to delays, even being the cause of stress for members, for insisting that all the information is provided. Unfortunately it is rarely provided intact. When it is the quality can be poor, with no evidence of growing concerns, a chain of reasoning; evidence/documentation can be non-existent. We are told not to be too fussy because the formal meeting is not a disciplinary meeting. We strongly dispute that assertion. The reason why members have the right to be accompanied is because they are attending a formal meeting that is disciplinary-based. It is the start of a process that may lead to dismissal. In such circumstances it is no surprise that the policy says all evidence and documentation must be provided. It is unacceptable to take a less rigorous approach with ‘whenever possible’ It is probable that in due course there will be dismissals. Napo would look extremely foolish and incompetent for condoning practices that failed to provide their members’ with the actual evidence their dismissals were based upon. This is what paragraph 2, bullet point 2 of the policy says: ‘Ensure that clear reporting and recording procedures are in place’ Twelve months on they are not in place.
LINE MANAGER DISCRETION: This has been another area of contention. This is what the policy says and what we agreed last October with HPA because there was considerable confusion, caused by the way the policy had been unilaterally implemented by HPA. We hoped the Joint Statement would lead to clarity. In relation to the role of the line managers the Joint Statement said,
‘In respect of possible action under stage one, the policy contains trigger points for short-term absences of either 6 separate absences or 12 days in a twelve month rolling period (pro rata for part time staff). We agree that on reaching a trigger point it is the responsibility of the line manager, who may consult with HR, to make a judgement, based on the individual circumstances of each case, as to whether the sickness absence warrants referral to the formal unsatisfactory attendance procedure.’
Unfortunately, Napo has seen an email from an area manager, sent to SPOs last February, which quite clearly seeks to usurp discretion and presses for improvement notices to be issued to those who are subject to formal action. We have had numerous reports from line managers who are confused about their role. Napo’s frustration here is that we agree a Joint Statement in good faith and before the ink is dry there are other briefings going on.
REFERRAL TO FORMAL MEETINGS: Napo has no complaints about such referrals. If a line manager forms the view that an individual’s pattern of absence is unsatisfactory, then all we ask is that the details, in other words the reasons for the action, are set out. Likewise if there is a decision not to refer to formal proceedings, even though the trigger has been reached, then we say provide the reasons for the action. The probation service routinely provides reasons for its actions but when it comes to sickness absence there are persistent failures to provide reasons. The reasons are the evidence. This, if required, enables the individual to challenge the reasons or the conclusions drawn, but if the reasons are not set out clearly then members are at a distinct disadvantage in formal meetings. This breaches the principles of natural justice and is an unfair practice that HPA is using against members. A recent example illustrates this: a member is informed s/he will be subject to a Stage 1 because the trigger has been passed – no other reasons were provided. This is challenged by Napo on the grounds of the actual reasons for the sickness absence. A few weeks pass then the member is told there will be no Stage 1 – but, again, no reasons are given for this change of mind. This is arbitrary and unfair and there is no explanation of why decisions must be taken secretly.
Paragraph 5 of the policy says, ‘Accurate record keeping of all sickness absences helps to develop a fair and consistent approach to managing attendance. It is also a way of raising staff awareness of management’s interest in this area whilst highlighting to each individual their own level of sickness absence.’
TRADE UNION REPRESENTATION: Napo has a duty to provide the most effective representation for members. We believe the best way of doing so is by working within the framework of the nationally agreed policy. When we see HPA not following the policy we have a choice. We can say this is unacceptable and that if you cannot provide us with your reasoning, or you cannot provide the evidence, then you should come back to us when you can. We can say, and do, that you should not be seeking to use a disciplinary-based procedure against our members in circumstances where you cannot, or refuse to, provide reasons and when you cannot provide all the documentation. When you have your reasons and your evidence then by all means use the procedures and then we can hold properly convened formal meetings. Our other option is to say, yes, we understand there are no reasons being given and that you don’t have all the evidence and there are missing records, but that’s OK, we can still proceed without delay to a formal meeting.
We know which the right course is and we have sought advice from national representatives. We know these procedures are unpleasant and stressful for members and the line managers involved and also those who witness what goes on, but the representation we provide will be based on what is in the best interests of our members – it will not be representation based on expediency. We do not want to hear any member in a situation in the future saying, why did you allow that to happen or waive that right of mine? Napo does not exist to condone the erosion of members’ employment rights. The assurance here is that Napo will respect the policy and procedures; we believe that in following the procedures faithfully we are safeguarding the rights and interests of our members as best we can. Can you imagine the rightful indignation that HPA would express towards Napo if we said we will follow this but not follow that part of the procedure? Why HPA believe they can pick and choose from the policy is a matter for them to explain to staff.
DUTY OF CARE: HPA has a duty to adhere to a nationally agreed policy. We submit that failing to do so puts HPA in breach of its duty of care.
The template letters are not compliant with the policy. The notion itself of a template letter is questionable when staff are meant to be treated as individuals. The reasons for unsatisfactory absence are not being communicated.
Line managers are being hampered in the exercise of their professional discretion. There is evidence strongly suggesting that the triggers are being treated as the sole determinant for referrals to formal meetings. The Equality Impact Assessment completed in November last year, that Napo had pressed for since May of last year, specifically criticised the way HPA had been operating the procedures during that earlier six months period. The EIA asserted the importance of line manager discretion and clear reporting. Unfortunately, there have been no improvements since that assessment. Current practices are still not compliant with the policy and the risks of potentially discriminating against members have not been reduced.
Line managers complain of a lack of training in understanding the policy and operating the procedures. This has not been helped by mixed messages from HPA about the role of discretion. Disability – related absence and an understanding of what may constitute ‘reasonable adjustments’ under the DDA is a specific area where training is needed. Paragraph 2, bullet point 8, says, ‘Will ensure that disability awareness is included in attendance management training’. The policy is strong on advice in relation to life-work balance issues, especially in relation to managing disabilities and making creative reasonable adjustments.
PERFORMANCE AND STAFF CARE: These two concerns are not mutually exclusive. Napo, as much as HPA, wishes to see reduced sickness absence. There will never be zero sickness absence, but quality management of sickness absence can help to keep levels of absence to a minimum, by managing it firmly and fairly. The national sickness management policy seeks to strike a balance between the need for improved performance – fewer absences and faster returns to work; and staff care – treating staff as individuals, being sensitive and mindful of the nature and reasons for absences.
Napo does not advocate being indifferent to absences or tolerating high levels, or apparent abuses, not least as this impact on staff in work. But abuses are small and we know the overwhelming majority of staff who require sickness absence require it for genuine reasons. There may come a point where it becomes unsustainable to continue in employment, whether through incapacity or misconduct. However, if that point is reached it must be on the basis of having followed procedures correctly and faithfully.
A focus just on performance, on outcomes, can result in less attention being paid to processes, staff care, and employment law. The ends cannot be used to justify the means. If it was solely about performance there would be no allowances made for pregnancy – related absences, or allowances made for those with disabilities or allowances made for staff who suffer setbacks with their health - setbacks that can arise through a variety of circumstances, which can also be influenced by age, sex and working practices. This is why all employees deserve to be managed as individuals and be treated on the merits of their particular circumstances. And that is exactly what the nationally agreed sickness management policy instructs – be firm, but be fair. This is entirely in line with the first paragraph of the guide to managing sickness absence:
‘Chief Officers and Heads of Human Resources should make clear to line managers that sickness absence needs to be managed sympathetically, but actively and firmly and fairly. This guide is intended to provide a framework for managers and employees to assist managers in managing sickness absence confidently and effectively and to ensure that appropriate levels of support are provided to every member of staff.’ (SMP 2007)
To return to the beginning: Napo would be pleased to be given an opportunity to debate the sickness management policy in front of operational managers who can then hear both sides of the argument and question senior management and the Trade Union side.
END
Posted by Hampshire at May 4, 2008 04:27 PM