Absenteeism (Hansard, 13 March 1995)

§ Mr. David Hunt

Management of sickness absence at next steps agencies is the responsibility of chief executives. I have therefore referred the hon. Member's question to the chief executives of the four agencies concerned, who will be writing to him separately.

Letter from Thea Harvey to Mr. David Chidgey, dated 9 March 1995:

Michael Geddes has asked me to reply to your PQ on sickness absence.The Recruitment and Assessment Services Agency formally monitors the sickness absence level of its staff on a monthly basis.However, the initial responsibility lies with line managers who are required to meet informally with staff when the attendance level is unsatisfactory.If there is no improvement, formal procedures begin which, ultimately, would end with dismissal as a result of irregular attendance.

Letter from E. C. McCloy to Mr. David Chidgey, dated 8 March 1995:

Your question to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on measures taken to combat sickness absence in the Civil Service Occupational Health Service has been referred to me to reply directly.Hitherto, line managers initiated investigations on receipt of sickness absence records triggered from central records at Chessington at 14 days in 1 year for those under 45 years and 21 days in 1 year for those over 45 years.Over the last year a small number of staff developed serious medical conditions which resulted in unavoidable long periods of absence. In a small agency, 120 full time staff, the effect of a few 384W individuals with long term absence on the overall percentage sickness absence can be misleading. In 1993, 75 staff had no recorded sickness absence. The corresponding figure for 1994 was 92.The apparent rise in percentage absence has led us to review our management procedures. Line managers will, in future, initiate informal review of absence after 7 days of self certificated absence or 14 days of certificated or combined certificated/self certificated absence in any one year.Where such action fails to resolve the situation, discussion with senior managers will result, where appropriate, in a request for an assessment by an occupational physician independent of line managers. Where absence continues thereafter at and unacceptable rate formal procedures for inefficiency will be instigated in accordance with OHSA policy.

Letter from R. N. Edwards to Mr. David Chidgey, dated 2 March 1995:

I refer to your enquiry of 1 March to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster regarding the measures being taken to combat sickness absenteeism at Chessington Computer Centre.The Centre's procedures for the monitoring and control of sick absence were reviewed during 1994. As a result, new guidance notes for line managers were issued in September 1994 formally introducing new procedures. The changes in procedure introduced were intended to emphasise the line manager's role in the control of absence. Return to work interviews have been formally introduced, and warning letters to staff, whose absence levels exceed that normally expected, are to be issued by line managers rather than by personnel managers.These steps have been taken in addition to the measures already in place which include the provision of a welfare service for staff, and the use of the Occupational Health Service for advice on medical and health care issues.Absence levels across the centre are monitored on a monthly basis and measured against set targets. Over the last year there has been a downward trend in overall absence rates. Progress towards targets will continue to be observed closely and procedures reviewed and revised as necessary.

Letter from Mike Devereau to Mr. David Chidgey, dated 6 March 1995:

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has asked me to respond to your PQ about managing sickness absenteeism.You are already aware, from my 26 January letter to you, of our figures over recent years. When compared against other organisations, our absence record might be regarded as not being a case of especially serious concern. However, I am by no means complacent and I do, of course, fully recognise that any reduction in sickness levels can contribute directly to our successful year-on-year achievement of efficiency gains.We have recently carried out an internal pilot study, which has been a valuable overall indicator, but now recognise that more analytical work needs to be carried out if we are to achieve meaningful benchmark comparisons. We believe that we need to build up a more complete picture of absences analysed by grade; by age range; by sex; staff with no absences; distribution of illness by length of absence; types of illness, and comparison across various work areas. This further analysis is in hand.We are also awaiting report of a Health Screening exercise, in which—on a voluntary basis—a high percentage of staff recently underwent physical and lifestyle checks. This screening was carried out for us by an independent external organisation, and we have asked that they report back to us on their overall findings—including details of health profiles, smoking and drinking patterns, and any observations they can provide on matters such as stress levels.Health screening is one of a number of initiatives taken by COI in recent years to improve health standards. Other initiatives have 385W been the introduction of 'no smoking' policies; provision of a small fitness centre; eyesight testing for VDU users; and training in safe manual handling procedures.Depending on the further analysis work referred to above, it is likely that our action plan will encompass:

(i) setting up better monitoring systems;
(ii) carrying out regular benchmarking against 'best practice' organisations;
(iii) providing more detailed guidance to line managers, so as to encourage them to take even greater personal responsibility for controlling absences;
(iv) if appropriate, provide training for line managers in the management of sickness absence;
(v) providing more counselling to staff with comparatively poor sickness records, and developing our system so that—even after a single day's absence—staff are formally interviewed by the manager to welcome them back and discuss the nature of the illness.