Public and Commercial Services Union

DWP/BB/144/07

Policy, procedure and advice

DWP introduced changes to the attendance management policy, procedures and advice from 22 November 2007. Most, but not all, changes were discussed with PCS. Some changes provide welcome clarification others introduce unwelcome confusion. DWP rejected many clarifications proposed by PCS which would have improved procedural fairness and helped to safeguard against unfair warnings and dismissals. This circular outlines the best and worst changes which have been introduced.

Improved “one off” definition

PCS issued guidance to branches in circular DWP/BB/024/07, on 5 March 2007, about attendance management and “one off” absences. The definition of the one off provision, under procedures 3.2(a) has now been clarified by the removal of the word “good” and its replacement by “satisfactory”.

A “satisfactory attendance record” is one that is within the individuals consideration point at each stage of the procedures. Further PCS guidance will be provided on this aspect of the changes. This is a long overdue but welcome change which removes one cause of unfair warnings and dismissal.

Return to work improvement

The requirement that “the employee’s previous attendance record was satisfactory” under procedures para 4.2 has been removed. This means that when an employee returns from continuous absence and the manager is reasonably confident that the attendance standard will be met in future, they will not be given a warning. This falls short of the minimum standards which PCS believes should be introduced, to support employees on return to work from continuous absence, but is a step in the right direction.

Reviewing reasonable adjustments

The purpose of any review of reasonable adjustments is defined in the procedures (paras 3.8 and 4.6) as “to ensure that they continue to be effective or necessary, and consider whether more can be done to support the employee”. Any outcome of a review which concludes that an adjustment was “unnecessary” should be soundly based on the facts of an individual case. When the “ability of the business “ is in question a business case should demonstrate the operational problems.

DWP guidance is provided under attendance advice Q&A 7. Disputed cases should be reported to PCS DWP group office.

Consideration point increases

DWP attendance procedures have always supported increasing the “consideration point” when the employee has an underlying health problem or disability. Procedures para 2.2 confirms that “the consideration point may be increased to take account of additional absences linked directly to a disability or underlying medical condition”. attendance advice Q&A 5 now provides improved guidance to help managers decide how to increase the consideration point.

Disability and Warnings Confusion

Attendance advice Q&A 12 has been introduced without any consultation with the departmental trade union side. This advice helps to confuse the delivery of DWP policy and procedures and in certain circumstances would result in less favourable treatment, and therefore unlawful discrimination, in disability cases.

It is not helpful to regard an employee with a disability or underlying health problem as having “two separate consideration points”.

It is more appropriate to support such an employee on the basis that they have an increased consideration point which covers all absences directly linked to a disability/underlying health problem but their usual consideration point, within the increased level, applies to both non disability and disability/medical condition related absences.

Branches will be provided with further advice on this issue. PCS is also seeking an early meeting with DWP to avoid cases of serious maladministration and unlawful discrimination.

Emphasis on warnings

DWP rejected PCS proposals to clarify that a record of improved attendance can make a warning inappropriate and rejected minimum standards to protect employees from inappropriate warnings upon return from continuous absence. Instead DWP has reinforced the emphasis on formal action with the addition of “this must be done as soon as possible” in procedures para 3.1 and the extension of warnings to employees returning to work part time on medical grounds under advice Q&A 24.

A PCS proposal to reform the backsliding period so it begins at the end of the warning review period, not the start, was rejected. Instead DWP has made an unwelcome change to the application of the warning review period under para 3.24 but with clarification in Advice Q&A 14.

Abolish warning policy

The “must give a warning” policy imposed in the DWP attendance policy (para 4) and procedures (para 3.2) must be abolished. Recent research published by the Chartered Management Institute has found that there was a “higher average absence duration” when sickness absence was not treated sympathetically”. The current attendance management emphasis on warnings and dismissals is at its worst in Jobcentre Plus, but this is a symptom of the warning culture promoted by DWP and opposed by PCS.

PCS believes that the emphasis for the delivery of attendance management must be refocused to:

• Support not threaten people when sick;
• Attack the causes of sickness in the workplace not the victims of sickness;
• Strictly limit the circumstances when a warning may be appropriate so that warnings are an exception, not the rule, and are not simply triggered by the absence record alone.

PCS advice for members and branches is being revised and will be published first on the PCS DWP group website.