HERTFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL
EMPLOYEE SICKNESS ABSENCE TOPIC GROUP
MONDAY 14 DECEMBER 2009 AT 9.30 AM
WORKFORCE ISSUES - SICKNESS ABSENCE
Report of: Director of Resources & Performance
Author: Louise Tibbert, Assistant Director HR. Tel: 01992 556653.
Executive Member: - David Lloyd
1.0 Purpose of report
1.1 To consider employee sickness absence issues, which are an average of 7.3 days per employee for 2008/9 (including schools) and an average of 9.9 days per employee (without schools) for 2008/9.
The focus is on HCC departments. Teachers and other staff directly employed by schools, are excluded from the scope of this scrutiny process.
1.2 The scope of Scrutiny is to focus on the following areas as agreed in September 2009:
1. What are the emerging issues on addressing employee sickness absence levels? (see section 2.0)
2. How well do HCC policies and practices enable good management of absence levels? (see section 3.0)
3. What are the priorities for HCC in continuing to reduce absence due to sickness? (see section 4.0)
4. What lessons can be learned from practice elsewhere? (see section 5.0)
1.3 This report provides a broad base of management information relating to the questions above and seeks to assist scrutiny to address the agreed outcomes:
1. That the causes of sickness absence in the workforce are better understood.
2. That clear strategies are identified to drive down absence levels and associated costs as far as possible.
3. That related policies and practices are fit for purpose and enable line managers to manage absence levels effectively within their teams.
CONTENTS & APPENDICES
Section / Contents / Page2.0 / Background / 3-4
3.0 / What are the emerging issues on addressing employee sickness absence levels? / 4-7
4.0 / How well do HCC policies and practices enable good management of absence levels? / 7-14
5.0 / What are the priorities for HCC in continuing to reduce sickness absence? / 15-16
6.0 / What lessons can be learned from elsewhere? / 16-18
7.0 / Overall conclusion / 18-19
Appendix 1 / HCC Non Schools Key Data / 20
Appendix 2 / Average working days lost per employee by department / 20
Appendix 3 / Length of absence and working days lost by department / 21
Appendix 4 / Sickness absence by age / 22
Appendix 5 / Occupational health referrals / 23
Appendix 6 / Accident rates / 23
Appendix 7 / Costs of sickness absence / 24
Appendix 8 / Health and Attendance Policy / 25-33
2.0 Background
2.1 The county council’s absence levels for the year 2008/9 were an average of 9.9 days per employee (if schools staff are included the average reduces to 7.3 days per employee). This is an increase from 7.1 days for 2007/8.
2.2 Overall figures are increasing slightly on the previous year. This may be due to a considerable level of change across the council, which creates uncertainty for employees. This has included the TWWW move programme that concluded in January 2009, as well as range of local service, system and structure changes. As the SAP self-service system is being rolled out to managers and employees (due to complete in 2010), sickness absence reporting and the role of line managers is being highlighted and the logging of absence should improve over time – this will increase the recorded absence levels.
2.3 There are some aspects of sickness absence which are relevant to the age of the workforce. CIPD Absence Management Annual Survey Report 2007 quoted “A report by the Health and Safety Executive (Survey on Workplace Absence, Sickness and Ill Health 2005) published in 2006 found that public sector organisations had on average a higher proportion of women and older workers compared with the private sector, which was a factor in high public sector absence levels.”
2.4 Key absence data for 2008/9:
· 9.9 days average per employee for non schools (if schools staff are included the average reduces to 7.3 days per employee).
· 7,801 is the FTE/ 10,924 headcount
· 107,722.5 days is the total lost for non schools staff (and 258,890.5 in total with schools)
· 50.2% (53,410 days) is attributable to long term absence of 20 days or more
· 18.8% (19,953 days) is attributable to medium term absence of 6-20 days
· 31% (32,946 days) is attributable to short term absence (1-5 days)
· 10.6 days was the average number of days taken for females and 8.0 days for males
· Full time staff took 9.4 days whilst part time staff took 10.3 days
· 3.6% (388) of employees have a declared disability in non schools
· 13.5% (14,531 days) of absence is attributable to ‘stress’, 11.6% (12,524.5 days) for muscular skeletal and 21.4% (23,082 days) for other reasons
· 87 formal cases for sickness absence were ‘open’ in October 2009 with a further 80 cases of more then 20 days duration being identified in October and November 2009.
· 116 people returned to work as result of case management intervention
· 1 person was redeployed for absence reasons
· In the year to March 2009 £96,629 of non-care temporary staff costs were attributable to sickness absence cover. This compares to £71,988 in the year to March 08.
Data can be found in Appendices 1 – 4.
2.5 Absence patterns
2.5.1 Absence rates and patterns are linked to a range of factors and more then one factor may be in play at any one time, e.g. changes to services and jobs, management style, culture at unit or departmental level, type of role, mental and physical demands, personal circumstances and personal health history.
2.5.2 The highest averages levels of absence are in ACS (15.6 days), HBS (13.4 days) and Environment (12.4 days) – these are often higher is parts of each department, e.g. Care in ACS, Warehouse staff in HBS and Drivers and Schools Crossing Patrols in Environment. Different factors exist in each area.
2.5.3 Different patterns of absence can be linked to age, e.g. older workers over 45 are more likely to take longer term absence and short to medium term absence is more prevalent amongst those under age 45.
2.5.4 The council’s employment policies relating to retirement age are likely to be contributing to a generally aging workforce (since 2006 there has been no compulsory retirement age) and flexible provisions now support people to work longer.
2.5.5 Absence levels often increase in March when the leave year comes to an end – this may indicate that people use sick leave inappropriately. There are also specific dates in the year when we see absence increase, e.g. Mondays in December.
2.5.6 Many HCC front line service posts do require agency staffing cover for sickness to maintain minimum staffing levels and to deliver services to often vulnerable people. Whilst we believe there is a correlation between agency costs and sickness absence, no information to support this is currently available.
3.0 What are the emerging issues on addressing employee sickness absence level?
3.1 The county council is a large and complex organisation. It delivers a very diverse range of services across 5 main departments and with10,924 staff (excluding those based in schools). There are 1,598 managers (grade M1 and above) and many different cultures across all the service areas. Historically this has meant that sickness absence has been managed differently in each area, although a single policy framework has been in place. The council uses a standard framework of good practice policies and targeted interventions to manage sickness absence levels but this is not always used consistently in parts of the council.
3.2 The reasons for sickness absence are captured and monitored via the reporting regimes in place. This shows an increasing prevalence of stress as a cause of sickness absence. It is the highest reason given for absence, i.e. 13.5% or 14,531 days lost in 2008/9. National and public sector data also shows that stress is the top reason for absence. All sectors cites 43% of short term absence is due to stress. For public services this rises to 69%.(CIPD Annual Absence Management Survey 2009). Staff and their General Practitioners (GPs) use ‘stress’ as a term that can cover a wide range of symptoms. It is difficult to determine whether the stress is related to personal or work issues, of both. The council uses the HSE Stress Standards to identify and manage stress.
3.3 Some staff groups are more prone than others to high levels of absence. Within HCC this includes care workers in ACS who are on shift patterns and working direct with clients so experience some emotional pressure, Herts Business Services and County Transport services where the work is often physical (collating orders for schools or loading wheel chairs onto transport) and schools crossing patrols where employees are usually older and working outside in all weathers.
3.4 The 2008 Staff Survey highlighted that highlighted that 32% of staff in HBS strongly agreed that work place stress had a negative impact on their sickness and absence, followed by 28% in ACS and 12% in Corporate Services.
3.5 There is an increasing emphasis on delivering good value and good performance of council services. Managers are now under more pressure than ever to reduce the costs of running services and reducing sickness absence is part of this.
3.6 The pace and volume of organisational change is another key factor. Where change programmes are handled well and staff feel engaged and buy into in the process and respond well to change, then absence levels are less likely to rise. It is difficult to track absence data and link it to changes in services as so many factors are often in play.
3.7 Line managers are key to managing sickness absence levels. They establish the ‘culture’ of their immediate team and evidence shows that where line managers are on top of absence and are clear about expectations as well as offering support to people when they are genuinely sick, then absence levels are likely to not be excessive. Line managers are now becoming clearer about the requirements on them to manage absence, as well as other staffing issues. Some managers are not always confident to talk to staff about health issues or unacceptable absence, or to take ownership of absence within their team. Training is provided on handling absence to help address some of the above issues.
3.8 The council’s policy and procedures for managing health and attendance are outlined in section 4.0. These are reviewed frequently (the last review was in 2008) to take account of feedback from line managers, learning from individual cases, best practice and changes legislation, including case law. The emphasis is on monitoring and taking early action flagged by triggers. In addition Herts HR are working with Departmental Boards and line managers to progress known absence cases more quickly, with a view of getting people back to work, dismissed for excessive absence or re-deployed to a more suitable role. A key element of the policy is the use of return to work interviews (used by 74% of organisations in the 2009 CIPD annual survey).
3.9 The average time off for a case of long term absence is currently 232 days, skewed by some long running and complex cases – this has reduced from 260 days due to increased focus on long term cases. These timescales remain far too long so a fundamental review is starting to look at how timescales can be reduced. These long timescales are not unusual in the public sector, and talking to colleagues in the private sector can often feature there also.
3.10 Delays are caused by a number of factors. Many illnesses need a reasonable time for recovery, e.g. after a major operation. Where a medical condition is ongoing, assessments are made by occupational health and may involve reports from GPs and consultants. These take time and require permission from the employee to release information. Medical advice is important to the decision making process, for example to help managers consider support, light duties or other adaptations. Line managers make decisions supported by HR – this includes a view about whether the council can reasonably be expected to keep employing someone with extended or repeated absence. This decision making process is now under review, particularly in relation to the council being seen as a ‘business’ and for all concerned (HR, OH and line managers) to understand the costs and impacts of absence for HCC as well as the employee.
3.11 A further cultural factor in the length of absence cases is likely to be the council’s sick pay scheme, which is determined by national negotiations. This provides up to 6 months full pay and six months half pay for people employed for 5 years or more. Coincidentally, a few staff will return to work from extended sick leave at the point where their sick pay reduces or is coming to an end. Local Government and the public sector generally have more generous sick pay schemes that do the private sector, particularly smaller private sector companies. CIPD research from 2009 found that the public sector are more likely to have a range of good policies, generous sick pay and support mechanisms and good practice, but less likely to use them as robustly as the private sector to dismiss people for excessive absence levels. Some of this culture is probably linked to the front line services provided by the public sector which are often enabling and supportive.