The long and the short of it

Persistent short-term sickness absence is one of the most common problems in the workplace and one which many managers find difficult to address. CBI figures show that, on average, six days are lost per employee in the private sector each year and the figure is closer to 10 days in the public sector. The cost to businesses can run to millions of pounds. Central to achieving any degree of success in this area is to ensure that line managers understand the need to take action. Often managers can be reluctant to act, particularly in circumstances where the absence is due to genuine illness. However managers should understand that tackling absence is not about challenging the genuineness of the sickness but rather about addressing the impact that such absence is having on the employer's business. At the heart of any employer's ability to manage absence successfully is a system that records individual's absence, the amount of time they have off sick and the reasons for the absence. Most employers have some sort of system in place, some more sophisticated than others. Some systems include trigger points to alert managers of a potential absence problem (for example, the Bradford Factor, which is commonly used within the manufacturing industry). However, simply having a system in place is not enough. Successful absence management depends on employees and managers feeding accurate information into the system. It is possible that the employer will set out its procedures for dealing with long-term and short-term absences in a company handbook. If that is the case, the employer should ensure that it follows such procedures when tackling absence issues. The following procedure incorporates best practice for managing short-term absence:

• Early intervention and the return-to-work discussions: all the evidence suggests that an early face to face meeting between the line manager and the employee is likely to have the greatest impact on managing absence. The employee will understand that his/her absence is being managed. At the same time, the employer will be able to spot at an early stage if there is some underlying illness that the employee has, which will enable the employer to manage the ongoing risk.
• Informal action: if return-to-work discussions fail to resolve the absence problem, managers should consider informal action. This will involve closely monitoring the employee's attendance over a period of time and regularly discussing the need for improvement in attendance.
• Formal action: if return-to-work discussions and informal action fails to resolve the absence problem, the employer should proceed to formal action. Employers should follow the Acas code of practice in relation to formal meetings. This includes the right of the employee to be accompanied at a meeting by a colleague or union representative. At the meeting, the employee should also be given an opportunity to ask questions, present evidence and call relevant witnesses.

At the meeting, an employee should be made aware of the informal process that the company has followed to date; the expected attendance standards; and the extent to which the employee has breached, or is about to breach, those standards. The consequences of the breach for the individual, the team and the wider business should all be explained, as should any sanction which is to be imposed (this is normally a warning). The individual should be given a target for improvement; a plan for review of attendance over a specified period; and be told of the consequences of failure to improve attendance. This could be a further warning, depending on the company's procedure, followed by dismissal. Following the meeting, the employee must receive confirmation in writing of the above and notification of the right of appeal. Should there be no improvement in the situation, it is possible to dismiss an employee who is medically unfit – the dismissal can be fair if it relates to their ability to carry out the work they are employed to do. However, an employer must also be able to demonstrate that it has followed a fair procedure before dismissing the employee (such as that set out above). Additional factors that could affect the fairness of a procedure include medical information obtained by the employer and/or the involvement of an occupational health advisor. An employer will be able to successfully defend any claim of unfair dismissal providing that it has followed a fair procedure, has warned the employee of the consequences of a failure to improve and applies consistent standards across the organisation relating to absence management. Sara Sawicki is a partner in law firm Pinsent Masons: www.pinsentmasons.com