Public and Commercial Services Union

First quarterly review

The first attendance management quarterly review meeting for 2008 with the departmental trade union side (DTUS), was held on 29 April 2008. This briefing provides branches with a report from this meeting.

The key policy changes which PCS is committed to achieve are on the agenda for meetings with the PCS pay team. The attendance management quarterly review (AMQR) meeting focused on the problems arising out of misapplication of the attendance management procedures and the need to clarify and strengthen procedural fairness.

Review meeting outcome

A report on the outcome of the AMQR held on 29 April 2008 is provided on the second page of this briefing for your information and use when raising concerns about the local application of policy or representing members.

The issues included on the AMQR agenda were:

• the application of the special circumstances
• the application of the irregular attendance consideration point & continuous absence
• supporting bereavement related sick leave
• the definition of the one off absence
• training for managers
• links to the decision maker’s guide
• injury leave delays

PCS advice for managers

PCS has responded to the need for clarification from PCS members who are managers in DWP.

A series of HR briefings will be issued as member’s bulletins to provide supplementary advice for managers following consultation with the DWP policy team. The first such bulletin, HR briefing 001 (DWP/MB/036/08), managing attendance for managers, includes supplementary advice on:

• the application of special circumstances
• the application of the irregular attendance consideration point & continuous absence
• bereavement related sick leave.

Evidence for review

Branches with evidence of bad practices under the attendance management procedures should provide details to PCS DWP group office. Evidence of problems with the operation of policy and procedures is essential to support the case for further improvements.

---

PCS report on AMQR agenda issues April 2008

Consultation and clarification

PCS consultation with DWP and any resulting clarification and advice does not infer any implicit or explicit support for the DWP attendance management policy.

PCS will always support members and seek to mitigate, amend or abolish unagreed policy and procedures. This report is issued following consultation with the DWP policy team.

The application of special circumstances

We discussed the application of the ‘special circumstances’ throughout the attendance management process. The procedures were amended in November 2007 to say that an absence can be treated as a one-off providing attendance is “satisfactory” at that point in the process; there was a further amendment in February this year to clarify that all the special circumstances must be considered at each stage up to and including dismissal. DWP does not believe that there is any need to add to the Q&A section. It would be contrary to the principle of having lean policy documents. DWP will, however, write to the businesses to remind them of this provision.

PCS wants the “must give a warning” policy to be abolished. However, the qualifications to the current policy that “warnings are not automatic but must be given unless one of the special circumstances applies” (policy para 4) are too often neglected. A reminder to businesses may help to redress the balance but amendment of DWP policy and procedures remains necessary to meet PCS policy objectives.

The irregular attendance management consideration point and continuous absence

We discussed concern about the irregular attendance consideration point being used to justify formal action when an employee returns from a long-term absence. We agreed that the principle underpinning the continuous absence process is for managers to adopt a supportive approach, and in most cases a return to work will not result in formal action. Where formal action is felt to be appropriate, it will be because the manager has reason to believe that the employee will not be able to meet the attendance standard in future. Formal action is not justified simply because the absence has exceeded the consideration point – if this were the case, all employees who took a long-term absence would face formal action. DWP will write to the businesses to make this clear.

Procedures para 4.2 confirms that “if the employee is back at work and there is no reason to doubt they will be able to meet the attendance standard in future the matter should be regarded as closed unless further absences occur”.

The irregular attendance consideration point should never be used as the only reason to justify a warning following return from continuous absence.

Definition of a “one off” absence

DWP has agreed to consider adopting the Ministry of Defence (MOD) criteria for what qualifies as a “one off”. MOD guidance on what qualifies as a special circumstance includes:

• A “one-off” illness or injury (e.g. measles, chicken pox, shingles, mumps and glandular fever) will qualify. An operation or medical procedure will qualify. One-off fractures and sprains will qualify. Colds, coughs, flu, sore throats, hay fever do not normally count as they can recur.
• A succession of misfortunes, which are unlikely to recur and have no underlying health condition (e.g. accidents) will qualify. But where your employee’s lifestyle, e.g. sporting activities, contributed to the number of minor injuries, or where they caused or aggravated a medical condition by neglect or failure to follow medical advice – confirmed by the opinion of occupational health advisers, you can warn the employee that no further absences will be discounted…. You could still decide, however, that certain absences may be discounted if this seems fair.
• Treatment for alcohol or substance abuse will qualify.

DTUS will be consulted about any actual amendment of the DWP procedures which is unlikely be an exact copy of the MOD criteria.

Injury leave delays

Absence due to injury leave is one of the special circumstances listed under the attendance management procedures (para 3.2) when a warning is not appropriate. PCS believes management delay in deciding an application should not be used as the only reason not to apply the exemption. The manager should also have a good reason (which is disclosed to the employee) to believe that the application is not likely to be successful.

We discussed concerns that because of the delay which can occur in deciding applications for injury benefit, some employees are given warnings which are later rescinded when an award is made. We agreed that where it is obvious that a claim for injury benefit is likely to be awarded, the manager should use their discretion and not give a warning.

Absence following bereavement

We also discussed a recent case where an employee was given an improvement warning on return from an absence following a bereavement. DWP explained its position on this special circumstance was to expect managers to be sensitive to the situation and to support employees who have suffered a bereavement. DWP believed it would be inappropriate to issue a blanket, cast iron exclusion for all absences related to bereavement but would expect such absences normally to be considered by managers under the “one off” provision, or under the provision for managers to exercise discretion where a warning would otherwise be inappropriate. Decisions must take account of individual circumstances, in line with the policy.

Training for managers

We discussed the importance of training for managers. DWP responded that businesses have put, and continue to put, a lot of effort into training managers on the attendance management policy and the skills needed to deal with health related problems effectively. The policy team are currently pulling together a summary of the available training products and will share this with DTUS.

Links to the decision maker’s guide

DWP will incorporate appropriate links during the next policy revision.