ESSEX FIRE AUTHORITY Essex County Fire & Rescue Service

Transcription

1 ESSEX FIRE AUTHORITY Essex County Fire & Rescue Service Agenda Item 8 Page 1 of 9 MEETING Audit, Governance & Review Committee AGENDA ITEM 8 MEETING DATE 11 December 2013 REPORT NUMBER SUBJECT REPORT BY Sickness Absence Analysis Report 2012/13 The Chief Fire Officer David Johnson PRESENTED BY The Director of HR and Organisational Development, Lindsey Stafford-Scott SUMMARY This paper provides Members with an analysis of sickness absence data for 2012 and This analysis sets out in more detail than provided in periodic performance reports; current sickness levels by employment group, short term and long term and by reason. The paper provides Benchmarking data for Members to assess Essex County Fire and Rescue Service (ECFRS) current absence levels against sector benchmarks. The paper also identified the work Service Managers are undertaking to manage rising sickness levels in order to minimise the potential impact on Service Delivery and performance. RECOMMENDATION Members of the Essex Fire Authority are asked to: 1. Note the contents of the report. BACKGROUND At the end of October 2013 the Fire Authority employed 1555 employees made up of 294 Support staff, 43 Control staff and 1218 Operational staff (including on call). The Service sets annual targets for acceptable Sickness absence levels as part of the Performance Management framework. These targets are set in accordance with previous year s performance, public sector average sickness levels and with consideration to local Service issues which may have an impact on sickness absence (e.g. industrial action, significant organisational change).

2 Page 2 of 9 Performance against these standards is reported monthly to Service Managers and quarterly to the Essex Fire Authority via the Audit, Governance and Review Committee. Figure 1 sets out cumulative sickness levels for 2012/2013 up to end October (days lost per person) against target: Figure Performance Target Performance Target Total Support Uniformed* *excludes on call fire fighters According to the CIPD Absence Management Annual Survey Report 2013, the Public Sector (with the highest level of absence) had the least stringent target to reduce absence (8 days per employee per year). It was also noted in the report that organisations with a target to reduce sickness absence set the target (on average) as 2.3 days lower than current absence levels. This would suggest ECFRS targets are roughly in line with national averages and favourable when compared with the Public Sector average. It is clear from the cumulative sickness level data for 2013 that sickness absence levels have increased for Support staff and are not meeting target for either staff group. If the Service is to reduce absence levels in future, positive action needs to be taken. Annual data suggests that on average Support staff appear to have higher levels of sickness absence than Uniformed colleagues. This data could be skewed based on working pattern (watch based staff work 4 shifts per week and most work a 2 days 2 nights 4 days off shift pattern) therefore they may not need to report sick for as many days/shifts as Support staff. To report absence in percentage working time lost could smooth this impact, however, complexities with shift patterns in the Service s HR information system is preventing such reporting at this time. The CIPD Absence Management Annual Survey Report 2013 reports that nationally, absence levels have increased in 2013, with absence levels being highest in the Public Sector at an average of 8.7 days per person per annum. Workforce size also impacts on levels of absence with larger organisations reporting higher levels regardless of sector. Employers with a workforce of employees (ECFRS comparative group) lost an average of 9 days per person per annum (across all sectors). This benchmarking data suggests that whilst ECFRS absence levels are high, they are comparable with similar sized and Public Sector organisations. Figure 2 over page shows total absence days lost for 2012 and 2013.

3 Page 3 of 9 This data demonstrates that the Service sees increased sickness absence levels in July and August which is the summer holiday period. There is no significant variation between Support and Uniform staff. It could be that staff with childcare difficulties are taking days off sick rather than utilising flexible working options. Service managers need to manage such absence robustly whilst ensuring staff are aware of the support available for them to manage family commitments. It is important that in deciding a course of action to address rising sickness absence that the Service understands what are the key reasons for sickness, which group of employees are most likely to be absent due to sickness and what proportion of absence is attributable to both short and long term absence reasons. Figure Sickness Absence by Role It can be seen from this analysis that the highest individual level of sickness is within Control staff. This is in part attributable to a small number of individuals absent on a long term basis which has an impact on the figures due to the size of the staff group. However, benchmarking with the National Fire and Rescue Service Occupational Health Performance report (April September 2013) shows us that ECFRS has the second highest level of absence within Control

4 Page 4 of 9 across all the 27 contributing Fire and Rescue Services. Control managers are working with the HR Team to address absence levels with a clear focus on resolving on-going long term cases. The data also suggests that absence levels decrease with seniority of role. This can be due to a number of factors including the ability to work more flexibly and therefore not take time off as sick and the high visibility of managers and associated expectation to act as a role model and not be absent unless unavoidable. There is also the potential that Managers are more aligned to the organisation, understand the vision and purpose of the Service and their role in achieving that and feel more engaged and committed as a result. Research by the University of Bath, School of Management (Employee Engagement, Nailing the Evidence Task Force 2012), has shown that employees in high engagement companies take half the days absence than those in organisations with low engagement levels. This is an important point which needs to be considered in the Service s approach to reducing absence levels across all staff groups. Figure Sickness Absence Uniform staff by Rank This data again suggests that within the uniformed employee group, absence levels decrease with seniority of rank, with fire fighters taking an average of 8.12 days per person per annum in comparison with Station Managers at 2.3 days.

5 Page 5 of 9 Figure 3.2 Absence by Area Command East and West This data demonstrates that sickness absence levels are higher in the West Area Command (8.4 days per person) than in the East (5 days per person). These Area Commands are directly comparable in terms of the roles within them and the workloads/tasks required of employees. It is therefore interesting to find such a variation between two groups. Whilst it could be unfortunate circumstances that the West Area Command has experienced high levels of sickness it is more likely to be organisational factors which impact, such as management practice, employee engagement and the application of attendance management procedures. East and West HR Business Partners are working closely with Command Teams to identify reasons for the difference and make progress to reduce absence in the West Area Command. Figure Sickness Absence by Reason (days lost)

6 Page 6 of 9 The CIPD Absence Management Annual Survey Report 2013 reports that nationally, minor illness is the primary cause for short term absence (colds, flu, stomach upsets, headaches and migraines). The most common causes of long term absence are reported as being acute medical conditions (stroke, cancer, heart attack), stress, mental ill health and musculoskeletal injuries. Musculoskeletal injuries are particularly common for manual workers while stress is more common for non-manual workers. Public sector organisations are more likely to report stress as a common cause of absence and musculoskeletal injuries are also more common in the Public Sector. Issues with reporting mean that there is limited information available within ECFRS to accurately assess absence by reason. However, the data available supported by Occupational Health data, suggests that the primary cause of absence for all staff within ECFRS is musculoskeletal conditions. This again is reflective of the national position, particularly across the Public Sector. Figure All staff Sickness Absence by duration Long term/short Term ECFRS Short term absence is defined as any period of absence up to 28 calendar days. ECFRS Long term absence is defined as any period of absence of 28 calendar days or more Overall long term absence equates for 53% of all absence within ECFRS. Support staff have marginally higher short term absence levels at 53% in comparison with uniformed staff at 45%. The average length of a long term absence within ECFRS is 70 calendar days. It is often suggested internally that organisations should discount long term absence as it can be seen to skew figures. It should however, be recognised that long term absence whilst at times unavoidable, is still absence and has the same impacts and costs. Steps to actively reduce the duration of long term absences via early intervention, occupational health and management support and innovative return to work plans using modified duties, can all significantly impact on long term absence levels. CIPD absence data is broken down even further into three groups, up to seven days (short term), seven days to four weeks (medium) and over four weeks (long term). For ease of benchmarking we have analysed ECFRS sickness absence data against these groups by total absence and occasions of absence.

7 Page 7 of 9 Figure 5.1 All staff sickness by CIPD Groups The CIPD 2013 Absence Management Annual Survey found that a third of absence in the Public Sector is due to long term absence of four weeks or longer, nearly three times that of the Private Sector. ECFRS therefore compares unfavourably to the average Public Sector organisation with over half of all absence of a period in excess of four weeks. This would suggest that, as outlined above, more steps need to be taken to actively manage long term absence to align ECFRS with the Public Sector average. Just under half of absence in the Public Sector is short term (up to 7 days) and 18% medium term (eight days to four weeks). Within ECFRS 28% of all absence is of up to 7 days duration and 19% medium, which would again suggest that our focus should be on reducing long term absence In considering why ECFRS has such high long term absence levels, it is recognised that Public sector organisations tend to be larger and have more generous sick pay entitlements which may act as a disincentive to return to work (ECFRS average Occupational Sick pay is six months full pay followed by 6 months half pay half pay is not an automatic reduction for Uniformed staff but a consideration and once actioned is often appealed). In addition there has been a lack of robust long term absence management arrangements within the Service due to restrictions caused by the use of Disciplinary procedures to manage absence, as prescribed by the NJC for Local Authority Fire and Rescue Services Scheme of Conditions of Service (Grey Book). The second bar on Figure 5.1 shows the breakdown of periods of sickness absence by what is termed occasions (an occasion is a continuous period of absence regardless of duration). Further analysis into sickness data shows us that 5% of staff (60 people) account for 41% of all sickness absence days. As would be expected, that figure includes a lot of long term absence so if we consider the 5% of staff with the most occasions we find that 5% of staff account for 26% of all occasions of sickness absence and those absences account for 28% of all sickness absence days. Further analysis of this data tells us that single day absences account for 29% of these occasions and 2 7 day absences account for 41%. This data demonstrates that whilst ECFRS short term absence levels may compare favourably to other public sector organisations, by effectively addressing the absenteeism of a relatively small number of individuals we could potentially significantly reduce overall absence.

8 Page 8 of 9 Costs of sickness absence The CIPD report that the median annual absence costs per employee per year was 595 in However, this cost remains higher in larger and Public Sector organisations, with the Public Sector median at 726 (in part due to the inclusion of Occupational sick pay in costs). If we extrapolate that cost across a workforce the size of ECFRS this could equate to costs in excess of 1m per annum. There are other non-financial costs associated with sickness absence such as increased workloads for colleagues, impacts on business continuity and service delivery, negative impacts on performance and peer resentment. High levels of sickness absence impact on the Service s ability to effectively train operational personnel and increasingly, has the potential to impact on appliance availability. Actual costs for each absence are hard to calculate accurately. Longer term absences for Support Staff are likely to be costly as the post is likely to be back-filled perhaps using Agency staff. For Uniformed posts, there may be a chain of acting up to cover the vacancy and the cost of this may be offset by the saving of the cost of a firefighters post. However, if the firefighter post is covered by overtime or pre-arranged out duties additional costs can be incurred. Actions to reduce sickness absence The most common methods used by Organisations to manage sickness absence are; providing sickness absence information to line managers, return to work interviews, trigger mechanisms to review attendance and the use of Occupational Health. The CIPD reports that in 2013 nearly half of those organisations surveyed have introduced some changes to their approach in managing sickness absence. The most common changes have been the introduction of new or revised absence management procedures and monitoring mechanisms. As explained above ECFRS still relies on the use of Disciplinary Procedures to manage sickness absence as prescribed by the Grey Book. It was recognised that this was no longer appropriate in 2012/13 and the Service started consultation with recognised Trade Unions in March 2013 on a revised stand-alone attendance management policy and procedure which includes revised monitoring and trigger levels. Unfortunately despite eight months of negotiation the Fire Brigades Union lodged a failure to agree at corporate level as they perceive the revised procedure to be outside of the Grey Book. Service Managers continue to negotiate and aim to have a revised procedure implemented in the New Year. Actions planned to reduce absence include: Development of regular detailed sickness absence data for line managers to support proactive management of attendance; Data produced to focus on triggers, patterns and occasions to allow a targeted approach with maximum impact; Implementation of a revised Attendance Management Policy for all staff including triggers for short term absence monitoring, with an emphasis on pro-active management and a defined course of action for managing short and long term sickness cases; An emphasis on management of absence within the Control staff group; Training for all line managers in managing attendance with an emphasis on reducing the duration of long term sickness absence; Training and awareness raising for all staff on Mental Health issues; Development of a wellbeing strategy and action plan;

9 Page 9 of 9 Review and improvement to sickness recording module of SAP; Development and implementation of an Employee Engagement Strategy; and Pro-active wellbeing initiatives focussed on health and safety at work and minimising the risk of musculoskeletal injury, e.g. DSE workstation assessments and manual handling training RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS Failure to reduce sickness absence levels may impact on service delivery and the ability to meet key performance targets such as fire appliance availability. The impact on other colleagues of providing cover for absence staff can result in increased workloads, stress and resentment. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The Service has generous Occupational Sick Pay (OSP) entitlements which bring significant costs to the Service should sickness levels not be managed effectively. The costs of backfilling the roles of staff either on a regular or ad-hoc basis (e.g. rota day working, out-duties) who are absent due to sickness and in receipt of OSP can be significant. LEGAL IMPLICATIONS The Service must ensure that attendance management procedures are fair and in accordance with Employment Legislation. EQUALITY IMPLICATIONS Significant consideration must be given to the management of disability related sickness absence and sickness absence as a result of pregnancy. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS There are no environmental implications associated with the content of this paper. LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ACCESS TO INFORMATION) ACT 1985 List of appendices attached to this paper: List of background documents (not attached): Proper Officer: Contact Officer: The Director of HR & OD Lindsey Stafford-Scott, Director of HR and OD Essex County Fire & Rescue Service, Kelvedon Park, London Road, Rivenhall, Witham CM8 3HB Tel: l.stafford-scott@essex-fire.gov.uk