Invitees:

Cllr Hywel Williams, Cabinet Member - Resources

Andrew Jolley, Corporate Director - Operational and Partnership Services

Sarah Kingsbury, Head of Human Resources and Organisational Development

Ian Vaughan, Workforce Planning Officer

The Chairperson welcomed to the meeting the Cabinet Member Resources, The Head of Human Resources and Organisational Development and the Workforce Planning Officer.

The Head of Human Resources and Organisational Development advised Members that there was a typographical error in paragraph 3.3 of the report, in that reference to the year should read ‘2015’. She further tabled for Members a replacement Appendix D, i.e. the latest quarterly Sickness Absence report for 2015/16 that was submitted to CMB, as the percentages included in Section 3.1 of Appendix D attached to the report had been incorrectly calculated.

The Head of Human Resources and Organisational Development then introduced the report, the purpose of which was to provide the Committee with a position statement with regards to levels of sickness in the Authority for the year 2015/16 and the work/actions undertaken since the WLGA project was conducted in 2015.

The Chair questioned whether or not, if it was apparent early on that an employee off on sick would not be fit to return to work at all, the Trade Unions would show flexibility and perhaps support cases of early retirement or redundancy for the member of staff in question.

The Head of Human Resources and Organisational Development confirmed that the majority of cases of continued sickness absence by an employee would involve them being represented by a Trade Union representative (on the basis that they were in a Trade Union).  All employees had a contractual entitlement, whereby they were paid in full for 6 months and receive half pay for the following 6 months, based on the fact that they had been in the Authority for sufficient time to receive this. The local authority were unable to disagree with this payment arrangement, as if it did, the employee would in all probability go to an Industrial Tribunal the result of which would be that as well as paying sickness entitlement to the employee, the Council would also have to pay added costs for going through this process.

A Member noted from the report that completion of Return to Work forms and interviews was particularly poor in schools, notwithstanding the fact that schools had been financially protected in the MTFS. He felt that Management should be making every attempt to ensure that steps are taken to improve this situation. He also questioned paragraph 4.10.4 of the report, where it stated that Line Managers had been instructed to have daily contact with employees who were absent from work due to short term sickness absence. He felt that this may not work in practice and could exacerbate a situation whereby the employee may be absent due to a stress related illness.

The Head of Human Resources and Organisational Development confirmed that when schools have been approached regarding Return to Work interviews, in the majority of cases, they confirmed that they were conducting these in accordance with sickness absence procedures and protocols. It was apparent however, that this was not always the case and she acknowledged that there was significant room for improvement in this area. The Corporate Director Education and Family Support however, routinely reminded schools that these interviews have to take place. Last autumn at a CPA meeting, Members and Officers were keen to ensure that Managers contact employees off work with short term sickness absence every other day, this had subsequently changed to every day. The employee in question was required to contact their Line Manager on their first day of sickness absence and similarly also on the fourth day. If they were absent for a period longer than 7 days, then they needed to submit a sickness absence note signed off by their GP after it was diagnosed what their illness was.

A Member added that contacting an employee every day to establish when they were going to return to work could be classed as harassment.

The Head of Human Resources and Organisational Development confirmed that part of the reasoning behind contacting the employee was in order for their Line Manager to find out what they were suffering from, and perhaps to tentatively ascertain the likely date of their return to work. Managers were trained in dealing with issues relating to staff sickness absence, as well as in observing signs when employees were becoming unwell in whatever capacity, and to take steps if and when appropriate, to afford them increased support due to this whilst in the workplace, or if they subsequently went absent with a particular health problem that may be work related. There were further mechanisms in place for employees she added, such as through Occupational Health support.

On a positive note, a Member referred to pages 19/20 of the report and noted that across the UK since 1993, there had been an overall downward trend in sickness absence rates. She further noted though, that sickness absence in the private sector was less than in the public sector and asked if Officers were aware of why this was the case.

The Head of Human Resources and Organisational Development  confirmed that the majority of private companies did not have a Health Scheme such as public sector organisations did, and therefore, rather than staff in the public sector having a generous salary entitlement while off with sickness absence, in private companies employees may only be entitled to state sickness benefit as opposed to continuing to receive their salary. She also added that tolerance levels were generally less relaxed in terms of sickness absence in the private sector than they were in the public sector. An example of this was that staff formerly employed by the Authority that had now transferred to Halo, had realised that the companies stance on sickness absence was tighter than it had been when they had been employed with the local authority. Due to this, staff there were more reluctant to go off with sickness absence for fear of accumulating too many days of being absent, resulting in the fear that they may lose their job.

A Member referred to page 30 and the last sentence of paragraph 16.2, where it identified that Social Services was a sickness absence “hotspot”, particularly for residential and domiciliary care services. It was also noted that the two best performing Councils for sickness absence had outsourced the latter. He asked if this service was outsourced, did it skew the absence figures (by way of them being improved) as they could not be collated in this area of work by the local authority, as the service area was no longer the responsibility of the local authority.

The Head of Human Resources and Organisational Development replied that sickness absence in residential and domiciliary care was also high in BCBC, however, even though the Council had outsourced its Refuse Collection service, sickness absence was still high with staff working there. Other areas of the Communities Directorate involved staff working outdoors ie manually, which would possibly give rise to higher sickness absence statistics than white collar staff, though overall the Communities Directorate had the best record of sickness absence statistics throughout the Authority. She added that if the Authority outsourced Homecare then current sickness absence statistics in the Council would probably reduce as sickness absence in areas such as this and Wellbeing as a whole, were high.

A Member referred to page 39 of the report, and asked for the Invitees to expand upon the policy adopted by the Authority, whereby staff if they so wished, could buy additional leave over and above to that which they were entitled to.

The Head of Human Resources and Organisational Development, confirmed that the Council adopted a policy, whereby staff could buy a maximum of 10 days extra annual leave a year, or 5 days, but nothing other than these two amounts. The extra scope here could be beneficial for employees with young families who require perhaps extra days to look after their children, so this was more of a plus for the employee possibly rather than the employer. She added that it had proved quite successful to date though.

A Member asked for further information regarding BCBC claiming back sickness payments from a 3^rd party if a Council employee has had to have a period of sickness absence, due to a sports injury or motor vehicle accident, etc, ie by getting involved in an activity with another party separate to the Council. Whilst he understood the rationale behind this, he asked how it could be applied in a consistent and fair manner across the board.

The Head of Human Resources and Organisational Development, confirmed that this was something that had always been in the Council’s Sickness Absence Policy, as it was in all probability in other local authorities policies too. The reason this provision of payment was included in the Policy, was due to the fact that the Council in the face of ever increasing shrinking budgets were not able to pay people who were absent from work due to injuries they had incurred whilst being involved in activities run by a

party or organisation that was independent of the Authority.

A Member referred to page 59 of the report, which reflected that the Communities and Resources Directorates were improving in terms of sickness absence rates, whilst other Directorates were getting worse. He was aware that the Communities Directorate had previously put considerable effort in taking steps through which to reduce sickness absence in that Directorate, including introducing their own Sickness Plan that included effective ways within which to manage illnesses, particularly those which were stress related.

The Head of Human Resources and Organisational Development confirmed that all Directorates were in regular contact with each other so as to achieve effective sickness absence management practices and policies, and this was a topic regularly reviewed at CMB and CPA meetings. There were higher cases of sickness absence in the Wellbeing Directorate, but this was understandable to a degree, given that there were a large number of care staff in the Directorate that were regularly involved in manual handling of service users, which often gave rise to lumber related injuries. Office based staff usually had less sickness absence than Care workers, however, due to  staff redundancies associated with budget cuts, employees were more at risk of experiencing stress due to work related pressures, and cases such as this sometimes led to a period of sickness absence, which at times turned into a period of long term. She was unaware of anything differently being carried out in the Communities Directorate compared with others with regard to the management of staff absent through a stress related illness. The Head of Human Resources and Organisational Development stated that it could be a case that Managers in this particular Directorate, be may managing sickness absence more effectively than Managers in certain other Directorates.

A Member referred to page 77 of the report and noted that last year, BCBC were the 17^th best Authority in Wales when it came to levels of sickness absence. She asked if the current picture showed any improvement upon this.

The Head of Human Resources and Organisational Development advised that so far this year, the levels of sickness throughout the Authority were slightly worse than last year, however, this could change by end of year.

A Member referred to the data shown on page 79 of the report, which again reflected that the Communities Directorate had a low percentage of Return to Work forms not returned, and that schools had a fairly deplorable record here. There needed to be a more consistent approach Authority wide he felt in respect of these forms being completed.

The Head of Human Resources and Organisational Development acknowledged this point. She added that the Authority were trying to adopt a more corporate approach, ensuring wherever possible overall that 90% of

Return to Work forms were completed and returned to the Human Resources Department following a period of sickness absence by an employee.

A Member referred to the BCBC Report on the Employee Assistance Programme quarterly report attached to the covering report, and asked what  was the purpose of this.

The Head of Human Resources and Organisational Development confirmed that this was a document provided by Care First Employee Assistance Solutions, who provided a confidential Counselling Scheme for the Council and its employees. This service supported a range of different and problematic health problems, such as severe stress &/or depression and alcohol or drug dependency, amongst others.

A Member asked the Invitees how much sickness absence cost each Directorate and the Authority as a whole over a given period, for example per annum. 

The Head of Human Resources and Organisational Development confirmed that she was unaware of this, as it was almost impossible to quantify and no data was held by the Authority in relation to this. There were different scenarios whereby a Section would usually absorb the work of an employee who was off work due to sickness absence, by splitting their duties amongst other staff who undertook similar duties, so this was an efficiency rather than a financial cost to the Authority. However, in order to eradicate risk etc, if, for example, a Home Care worker was absent, then a replacement member of staff needed to be recruited in their place to cover for them, which in effect resulted in the Authority paying two employees for the services of one. However, the Wellbeing Directorate would set aside a budget for this eventuality annually.

As this concluded debate on this item, the Chairperson thanked the Invitees for attending and contributing to the meeting.

 Committee Observations

1.    The Committee expressed concern at the ongoing issues with sickness absence across the Authority in general, with particular reference to the Wellbeing Directorate.  Members commented that Sickness absence management needed to be dealt with consistently across the Authority with increased efforts being made to share best practice.  The Committee proposed for example that good practice in Communities be further explored, as they have continued to reduce their sickness absence rates despite significant budget cuts to service areas. The Committee agreed that the lowest performing areas needed particular attention provided from the Corporate Centre.

2.    Whilst Members appreciated that costings for all sickness absence could

not be produced as not all positions were replaced, the Committee requested that they receive the costed payroll information for those services that were replaced in order to provide a snapshot of how much sickness is costing the Authority.

3.    The Committee requested that they receive the figures for sickness absence training by percentage instead of numbers in order that a better comparison between directorates can be made.

4.    The Committee expressed concern over the figures for the return to work interviews forms not being returned, particularly in the Wellbeing and Education Directorates.  The Committee recommended that this be a priority for sickness absence management for all managers within each Directorate.

5.    The Committee requested that the table displayed on P119 of the report detailing the Short Term and Long Term Absence in Schools be sent to all School Governor Groups in order to encourage them to monitor sickness absence more closely.

Recommendation

The Committee recommended that the Chief Executive’s appraisal contain a target to reduce sickness absence across the Authority by 10%.