Agenda item

Report attached.

The report before members provided the Committee with an update on sickness levels following the previous Overview and Scrutiny data provided on levels of absence and reiterated the work being undertaken to reduce the number of days off work. It also highlighted the wellbeing measures that the Council were putting in place to help prevent ill health and encourage a healthier workforce.

Sickness absence was calculated using the formula Total number of working days lost (FTE) / total number of employees (FTE).  The methodology had changed in 2013/14 to include former Homes in Havering (ALMO) staff and this had had an adverse impact on performance.

The three most common causes of absence for all staff were stress, other and musculoskeletal problems. This was in line with the Absence Management Annual Survey Report 2013 by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD). Members noted that although average figures were quoted, there were over 40% of staff who had had no absence in the last year.  The figures were often skewed by long term cases, with those off with potential life threatening illnesses, including cancer and Parkinson’s disease.

The graphs shown in the appendix showed that significant numbers of councils across London had shown an increase in sickness since last year. This was highly likely to be due to the restructures which have been carried out both in Havering and across other councils and the amount of redundancies, including compulsory redundancies, which had resulted. Members acknowledged that employees were under significant pressure to deliver the same services (or more) with less capacity, whilst also going through periods of uncertainty themselves of not knowing if they would have a job. 

Whilst acknowledging that sickness, both nationally and within comparative London Councils, had gone up, a concerted effort had started to ensure that sickness was managed.

A new corporate sickness absence procedure was implemented in 2012 and as a consequence all line managers were expected to attend mandatory training to ensure the changes and expectations were known. Each manager had access to a dashboard of information on their employees to ensure they had the data to manage their own areas. Members were advised that managers who did not attend the mandatory training in dealing with sickness absence were penalised financially within their cost budgets.

As absence levels had increased from the previous year, the Council were currently in the process of implementing improvements looking at how it could further reduce absence levels. There was obviously an adverse impact on service delivery should sickness levels not continue to fall to a satisfactory level.

A management development programme had commenced which would outline expectations and support to managers.  Return to work interviews were expected for each absence to ensure that the reasons for absence were known and that correct action under the procedure was taken. This had been well researched as one of the most effective ways of managing absence from work. Managers needed to ensure that they were aware of why their staff were absent in order to look at preventative measures and individuals needed to know the impact of them being off as well.

Members noted the appendices showing instances of short and long term and comparative data for the current and previous rolling year. It was important to note that some figures would change each month as data was inputted and long term absences closed off. The data shown on the pie chart for long and short term split was also data from April 2012 to March 2013, as this breakdown was not available in the current dashboard reporting.  Changes in departmental breakdown of data provided to senior managers had also been influenced by the corporate restructure last year where staff have moved departments and directorates and the return of the ALMO, as those staff have now been incorporated into other service areas. 

Members were advised that long term absentees were still referred to Occupational Health for further assistance in allowing the employee to return to work at the earliest opportunity. Absentees were encouraged to speak with their managers throughout the process but could also speak directly with Human Resources if they needed to.