Managing Absence - part 1

This is the first in a series of articles by Antonia McAlindin, CCIPD, BA, LLM Barrister:

It is naïve to believe that absences will not occur – individuals will be absent for a number of reasons from time to time. The contract provides for that fact usually by providing for a period of pay. In addition, the law expects individuals to be paid when absent for a wide number of reasons including sickness, public duties, holidays, maternity leave etc. The organisation must therefore deal with genuine absence issues in a reasonable and sympathetic way.

The opportunity to control absence lies with the immediate manager/supervisor. There can be no optimum level of acceptable absence. The target level of sickness absence is zero. Clearly this will rarely happen but although many organisations have a certain “tolerance� level eg 10 days per annum, in some organisations this has become seen as an entitlement.

Absence Control

Many managers are reluctant to tackle absence problems partly because of the medical connotations. However all of the recent surveys on absence conclude that the key is good monitoring and control. Some of the medical connotations can be avoided if we talk about managing poor attendance.

Many trade union agreements and employee handbooks outline notification and payment procedures. These should therefore be known to all employees. Failure to follow notification procedures renders absence unauthorised and therefore unpaid.

The rudiments of a fair procedure are outlined below:

Regardless of the detail of an absence procedure, absence will usually fall into one of three categories, namely:

1. Long Term - either one long period or the likelihood of several prolonged periods;
2. Short intermittent absences where an underlying cause is identified;
3. Short intermittent absences where there appears to be no connection between reasons for absence

The category will determine how the absence is ultimately handled. For example, warnings are inappropriate for long term illnesses. You cannot “warn” someone to get well. Equally in these cases some sort of termination package may be awarded whereas this would be inappropriate in a warning case.

Tribunals regard long term absence as dismissal on the grounds of capability and expect the relevant procedures to be followed. There is less emphasis on discipline and more on information and counselling. The medical dimension is particularly important here particularly since the introduction of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 as many long term absences result in the individual being disabled under this act. Although this should not affect how such cases are managed, the obligation to make a “reasonable adjustment� is probably more rigid than the normal test for unfair dismissal.

Failure to follow procedures or abuse of the sick pay scheme can be classed as misconduct with all the normal rules of a fair procedure.

However dismissal for short frequent absences are generally regarded as dismissal on the grounds of “some other substantial reason� and not misconduct as some may think. Misconduct implies some deliberation and where absence is certified as genuine absence then the employer has to assume that it is genuine and not deliberate absence. Where the employer is prepared to pay for sickness absence it can often appear unreasonable to dismiss for genuine absence. The dismissal is therefore for a business reason which helps clarify why the test depends so much on what is reasonable for the particular employer.

It is impossible to lay down exact amounts of absence which could trigger dismissal. Each case must be decided on its own facts. What is important is that the procedure is consistent not the outcome. What may be unacceptable to one department may be tolerated in another.

Next: Short Frequent Absences.