« BRANCH ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING - 20TH JUNE | Main | RESULT OF INDICATIVE BALLOT »
May 31, 2008
DISCIPLINE AND SICKNESS ABSENCE
Christine Straw, director of HR, who is responsible for the operation of the sickness management procedures, decries references to the formal procedures as being ‘disciplinary-based. Therefore if you view the procedures as punitive you are misinformed. It follows that if you end up being dismissed under the procedures that should not be seen as a disciplinary outcome. This is not a view shared by Napo and nor is this a matter of differing interpretations. The HR view is wrong and misleading – a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
Dismissals arising under the sickness management procedures are more likely to fall into the category of capability. Therefore: where attendance has fallen below the level of acceptability (triggers), then individual attention must be drawn to this fact. However, if the appropriate help and warnings do not achieve an improvement, then the final outcome may be dismissal
The legal basis for the sickness absence procedure is the Employment Rights Act 1996 which states that capability may be a fair reason for dismissal. The procedure observes the provisions of the Employment Act 2002 (Disputes Resolution) Regulations 2004 and the relevant sections of the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures.
The reason why you have the right to be accompanied by a trade union official to formal meetings and why appeals against sickness management decisions are dealt with under the disciplinary policy is because warnings – Improvement Notices – are disciplinary warnings. If your attendance does not improve you are increasingly at risk of dismissal.
Why HR persists in denying the disciplinary element in the sickness management procedures is for HR to explain. The 'what works' literature is clear: 'The most effective measures to tackle short term absence include return-to-work interviews, trigger mechanisms, disciplinary measures and training line managers. For longer term absence the most effective approaches are providing an occupational health service and rehabilitation programmes.'
(www.personneltoday.com)
From Napo’s perspective we see a set of procedures that were poorly implemented at the outset. Line managers were not provided with training, especially in managing disability-related absences. The picture was further clouded by ambiguities around line manager discretion as HR propagated an ‘expectation’ that all those reaching the trigger would go into formal procedures. This approach was criticised in the Equality Impact Assessment, which the Unions pressed for and finally got last November. We hoped that henceforward the procedures would improve, but that has not happened as we have since seen an operational manager making an Improvement Notice the assumed default outcome for passing a trigger and line managers continually telling Napo that their discretion is illusory.
It would be far better if HR would stop pretending that formal meetings are just about ‘helping and understanding’ That is to be welcomed, but they are also forums of accountability and forums where the outcome could be a warning or dismissal. What members most complain about in respect of the sickness management procedure is not the fact that it has a disciplinary element - that is widely perceived, if officially downplayed - the majority of complaints relate to the fairness of treatment and difficulties in reconciling their treatment with how the policy promises they will be treated. This gives rise to a sense of grievance.
Formal meetings are important – the process leading up to them, the quality of documentation detailing the history of return to work interviews and previous decision-making. Too often the information is of a poor quality and it’s not at all clear why decisions have been taken and who has taken them. The HR view is that no matter what the procedural shortcomings might have been we must press on and hold a formal meeting – after all it’s not a disciplinary meeting!
Formal meeting under the sickness management policy are disciplinary-based. The potential consequences are serious. A more serious-minded approach to sickness management would set a high standard in respect of adhering to procedure and making sure all documentation is detailed and clear. And when it’s clear that HPA are not following their own procedures they should not force staff into formal meetings. It seems there is little prospect of the procedures operating to a higher standard until HR starts to hold itself accountable, examine all the shortcomings in the procedures and devise an action plan to bring about some real improvements.
Posted by Hampshire at May 31, 2008 02:16 PM