3 How the management of sickness absence
can be improved
11. The C&AG found a lack of reliable management
information in both Roads and Water Services. Roads Service in
particular could produce no meaningful analysis beyond basic absence
data and information systems operated by both Agencies included
data which was extremely inaccurate when compared with source
documents.[20] Both Agencies
have since reviewed their base data and improved its accuracy
and Roads Service has introduced a new industrial personnel management
system which allows action to be targeted at key problem areas
such as long term absence.[21]
12. Good information on the extent, causes and patterns
of sickness absence is essential to provide a basis for its effective
management. It is not surprising therefore that in the absence
of such information, management of absence has been so ineffectual.
Again, this is indicative of a broader systemic failure to recognise
that there was a serious problem. Both Agencies should make full
use of their improved management information capability to inform
future strategy, improve routine management and monitor the effectiveness
of policies and procedures.
13. The main recorded causes of absence in Water
Service in 2000-2001 were "injury, accident or assault"
and "musculoskeletal" disorders. These are categories
of illness which are consistent with poor health and safety protection
of a manual workforce.[22]
We recommend that both Agencies carry out further analysis of
these absences to determine if significant numbers are due to
workplace incidents and whether any change is required to the
implementation of health and safety procedures.
14. The most significant departure from best practice
in both Agencies was in the use of targets as a means of reducing
sickness absence levels. Water Service had set no targets while
Roads Service had set an "aspirational" target which
the C&AG considered to be unrealistic and therefore of limited
use in securing improvements in performance.[23]
Both Agencies have since set targets. Water Service aims to reduce
absence by 30% by 2006-2007 and Roads Service aims to achieve
a 40% reduction within five years.[24]
15. The lack of absence reduction targets is a very
telling omission, again indicating a basic failure at senior management
level in both the Agencies and the Department, to recognise that
there was a problem. The fact that the 1998 Cabinet Office good
practice report was not copied to the Agencies is not a legitimate
excuse for their failure to set targets but it is indicative of
a most disturbing failure at Departmental level, to recognise
the significance of the problem.[25]
16. Current targets are consistent with the indicative
levels suggested in the Cabinet Office report, however, levels
of absence in Roads and Water are very high compared with the
GB levels examined by the Cabinet Office and we consider that
more ambitious reductions may be achievable. We recommend that
targets are regularly reviewed in light of the improved management
information now available and to ensure that they are as testing
as possible while still being realistically achievable.
17. Given that good procedures were already in place,
but no one felt moved to put them into practice, it is of vital
importance that genuine motivation is introduced into any future
initiative to reduce absence. Targets have a role to play in this.[26]
We are encouraged to see that targets have been set within the
context of the Departmental Business Plan but more could be done
to encourage ownership and accountability. We recommend that individual
targets, consistent with existing global targets, should be set
and tied into personal objectives for appropriate levels of management.
18. A further systemic failure has been the absence
of effective links between human resource professionals and line
managers responsible for the management of individual staff. Both
Agencies have since established central personnel units with the
intention of providing improved communication and support for
individual managers and to ensure better consistency in the application
of procedures.[27]
19. The provision of more meaningful management information,
the setting of testing but realistic targets and the establishment
of more effective human resource functions to support line managers,
will provide a better framework for the implementation of absence
management procedures. The implementation of the procedures themselves
also needs to be improved in certain key areas.
20. Action should be taken in response to all
breaches of trigger points. The Cabinet Office report recommends
the use of trigger points to alert management when an individual's
absence requires some form of action. Both Agencies have systems
of this kind in place based on the number of spells and length
of absence, but these have been ignored in many cases, such as
the example of a Roads Service employee who had 64 days absence
in 17 spells between September 1998 and January 2002 without any
management intervention.[28]
Response to triggers has been improved recently, with Roads Service
issuing warnings in response to 66% of breaches in the past year.[29]
21. Procedures to dismiss staff on grounds of
inefficiency should be progressed with an appropriate sense of
determination and rigour. The C&AG found that procedures
to deal with persistent absence were taking in excess of 30 months
to progress from an initial trigger to dismissal due to the issue
of repeated warnings and failure to move on to the next stage
in the process. Endless streams of warning letters were issued,
but nothing was done to enforce them. The application of procedures
has since improved and warnings now stay in force for two years
so that a further breach of triggers within this period prompts
a move to the next stage in the process. This has shortened the
process to a little more than 12 months.[30]
22. Return to work interviews should be carried
out for every absence, the outcome should be formally recorded
and line managers should be trained in how to conduct them effectively.
Return to work interviews are widely recognised as the single
most effective measure in managing sickness absence and their
use has been strongly endorsed by the Cabinet Office report. Both
Agencies had a policy of undertaking return to work interviews
but no records were kept and it was not possible to determine
the extent of their use in practice. We were told that they are
now mandatory in Roads Service, with a compliance rate of 94%
and all line managers in both Roads and Water Services have been
trained in their use.[31]
23. More effective use should be made of Occupational
Health Service to shorten the time taken to resolve cases involving
long term illness. OHS provides a medical advisory service
and both Agencies have trigger points of 20 days absence for referral.
In practice there have been delays in referrals well beyond 20
days and further delays, sometimes lasting years, before definitive
outcomes were achieved in terms of return to work, dismissal or
medical retirement. It may not be appropriate to refer all cases
after 20 days but this is a reasonable indicative timescale and
the three to six months referred to by the Water Service Chief
Executive is far too long to delay action. It is generally recognised
that the longer a person is absent, the less likely they are to
make a successful return to work. If there is a genuine long-term
health concern therefore, it should be addressed at the earliest
opportunity.
24. Both Agencies should review their policies for
dealing with absences where there is no foreseeable possibility
of a return to work and in doing so, should bear in mind that
the responsibility for the management of these cases rests firmly
with them, not with OHS whose role is primarily to advise. A more
proactive approach needs to be taken to reduce the length of time
taken to resolve these cases. The practice of simply referring
cases to OHS and allowing absences to run on for several years
with no intervention and no firm prospect of resolution is not
acceptable.[32]
25. Better use should be made of pre-employment
checks and probationary periods to reduce the risk of recruiting
people who are likely to be poor attendees. In both Agencies
new recruits are subject to a probationary period of one year
during which time various aspects of performance, including attendance,
are assessed. As in other areas, this valuable control has been
ignored and employees with unacceptable attendance have been confirmed
in post and have continued to take excessive sick leave. Since
the C&AG's Report, revised triggers have been set requiring
a management response to every absence, and of 80 staff employed
by Roads Service last year two have had their contracts terminated.[33]
General conclusion
26. We find it totally unacceptable that taxpayers
should be expected to fund the disgraceful level of absence which
has been allowed to build up in the Roads and Water Services.
We are also very critical of management who failed to implement
their own procedures and did little or nothing to address the
problem until it became the subject of a report to Parliament.
We commend the prompt and comprehensive action taken to implement
the C&AG's recommendations but we will expect the Memorandum
of Response to demonstrate a continuing commitment to improvement
and the basis for the delivery of a step change in the management
of this area. We would like the Northern Ireland Audit Office
to monitor progress towards this goal and report back to us.
20 C&AG's Report, paras 2.4, 2.16 Back
21
Qq 102-110 Back
22
C&AG's Report, para 2.14; Qq 122-123 Back
23
C&AG's Report, paras 3.10-3.12; Qq 93-94 Back
24
Qq 12-13, 147; Ev 17 Back
25
Qq 44-46 Back
26
Qq 137, 146-147 Back
27
Qq 119-121 Back
28
C&AG's Report, paras 4.2-4.3, 4.6 Back
29
ibid, paras 4.2-4.3; Qq 15-16 Back
30
C&AG's Report, paras 4.7-4.8; Qq 85, 92, 97-99, 153-155 Back
31
C&AG's Report, 4.9-4.12; Qq 130-131 Back
32
C&AG's Report, paras 4.17-4.20; Qq 73-74, 111-118 Back
33
C&AG's Report, paras 4.25-4.29; Qq 61, 72 Back
| 
