Public and Commercial Services Union

DWP/BB/028/08

DWP imposes changes

Changes were introduced to attendance management policy, procedures and advice from 4 February 2008. These changes were not agreed by PCS as the changes to the continuous absence procedure, advice on consideration points and OHS report timescales reinforce a detrimental and dysfunctional system for warnings and dismissals.

Continuous absence procedures

The DWP executive team has decided to require monthly reviews under the continuous absence procedures. DWP claims that the purpose of this change is to “improve the support available to employees who are on long term sickness absence.” However there is no additional support provided by the change which simply requires more frequent meetings under stage 3 of a process which is the penultimate stage to dismissal/demotion. If the only reason for this change was supportive it would have been made under sickness absence, keeping in touch, procedures, rather than the dismissal process under attendance management. However, the proper purpose of attendance management is to support those employees unable to work due to serious illness with a likely prospect of return. The aim should be to welcome people back not to dismiss them. The top three reasons for long term absence in the civil service are neoplasms (cancer), mental disorders (including stress) and the circulatory system (including heart attacks). The DWP should be proud to support employees suffering from such causes of absence and continuously improve support available rather than focus on the dismissal process.

Application of special circumstances

PCS have been arguing for improved clarity about the application of the special circumstances which provide exceptions from warnings and should also be applied as reasons against dismissal or demotion.

The amendment of attendance procedures paragraphs 6.2 and 6.6 reinforce the intention that the special circumstances must be considered at each stage of the formal attendance management process. However, the necessary clarity remains to be achieved. Further PCS advice will be provided for branches on this problem.

Consideration of ill health retirement

The amendment of paragraphs 4.14, 4.19, 6.4 and 6.6 to instruct managers that they must consider ill health retirement before dismissal reflects a recent employment tribunal (EAT) decision. The judgment was made in the case of First Leeds v Haigh at the EAT on 20 November 2007 that “where an employee is on long term absence on grounds of ill health and his pension scheme contains provisions entitling him to an ill health pension on grounds of permanent incapacity, an employer will generally be expected to give consideration to ill health retirement before dismissing for incapacity.”

Consideration points confusion

DWP has made some amendments to Q12 of the attendance advice which PCS believes are inconsistent with the long established application of DWP policy and common sense.

The attendance management policy team is continuing to advise that an increased consideration point to support a disability or underlying health condition should be considered as separate from the usual consideration point. DWP has reaffirmed that a warning is not appropriate unless the absence level reaches or exceeds the usual consideration point. However, this may result in a lack of common sense under a separate consideration point system when a warning is given when one consideration point has been reached and the other, for non disability/underlying health related absences has not. Further PCS guidance will be issued on this aspect of the attendance management procedures.

Medical certificate retention period

The retention period for both medical certificates and self certificates has been amended from 6 months to 3 years. This was done due to legal advice.

OHS referrals and reports

The amendment of paragraphs 6.4 and 6.6 of the attendance management procedures and advice Q17 so that OHS advice should be “usually within the last 6 months” may result in grounds arising for unfair dismissal where a medical condition has changed or improved since the last report. The CSAB has considered a dismissal unfair when an employee had provided new information to the decision maker and had shown improvement in attendance. In the absence of an OHS referral the impact of these factors had not been tested or taken into account when the decision to dismiss was made. (CSAB report 2006/07 Appendix 4/32). Managers tend to rely on OHS advice but the decisive issue is whether or not the necessary reasonable adjustments have in fact been made. It is always good practice to carry out an assessment of a disabled person’s situation whether by consultation or obtaining a medical report. The failure to consult may have a consequence of rendering an otherwise potentially fair dismissal unfair.

Timescales for grievance

The timescales for grievance in the appendix 2 and appendix 7 letter are clarified as “within 15 working days of the date of this letter.”

PCS demands changes

PCS is demanding more significant and substantial changes to the attendance management policy, procedures and advice to meet PCS policy objectives. Abolition of the “must give a warning” policy was included as a demand in the membership ballot held in November 2007 and is a current campaign and negotiations objective. Branches will be provided with further campaign material.

Further PCS update will be available first on the PCS DWP group website.