Debunking the Myths – No. 3A
(Sick Absence, Flexible Working Hours & Other Issues)
Sick Absences Issues
It has come to our attention that some inaccurate ‘procedures’ are doing the rounds. This no doubt follows a recent meeting of our old friend the ‘Make-it-up-as-we-go-along’ committee.
Material that has come our way begins by complaining that the sick absence average target of 8.2 days is not being met. As if somehow its authority derived from revolutionary doctors with a cure for influenza. Or for those much more serious illnesses, which unfortunately occur, and which in reality dominate the absence stats. Instead of recognizing this, the Employer tries to penalise staff for being ill, adding pressure with lurid stories of the cost of sick absence.
This material then contains the following misinformation:
Myth No. 1 You must ensure up to date contact details are on RM.
WRONG. ‘RM’ does not determine your conditions of service. It used to be the case that you were required to let the Employer know your address, but not your phone number.
The conditions of service have now been re-written by highly paid consultants, whose dumbed-down version is of limited value as most of what you need to know is now missing. The section on providing details is one of those that appears to be now missing.
So, either there is no requirement to advise the Employer of your personal details at all, or, more probably, in the absence of this section being re-written, the existing conditions apply.
Either way, you are not required to let the Employer know your phone number. Its worthwhile having a look on RM to see if your phone number is there, and if it is, to remove it! Its relatively easy to do.
Myth No. 2 If you are off sick you must ring in personally to your line manager.
WRONG. This is NOT what the procedures say. It is perfectly acceptable for someone else to ring in on your behalf, or for you to contact someone at work other than your manager. The reasons for this are so obvious they do not need setting down here. Members should ignore any such erroneous advice.
Unfortunately we received no consultation over it – and this is what then happens.
Myth No. 3 Agree Keep in Touch (KIT) arrangement with Manager. This is a contractual obligation
Not so much myth, as spin in this case.
It has come to our attention that some inaccurate ‘procedures’ are doing the rounds. This no doubt follows a recent meeting of our old friend the ‘Make-it-up-as-we-go-along’ committee.
Material that has come our way begins by complaining that the sick absence average target of 8.2 days is not being met. As if somehow its authority derived from revolutionary doctors with a cure for influenza. Or for those much more serious illnesses, which unfortunately occur, and which in reality dominate the absence stats. Instead of recognizing this, the Employer tries to penalise staff for being ill, adding pressure with lurid stories of the cost of sick absence.
This material then contains the following misinformation:
Myth No. 1 You must ensure up to date contact details are on RM.
WRONG. ‘RM’ does not determine your conditions of service. It used to be the case that you were required to let the Employer know your address, but not your phone number.
The conditions of service have now been re-written by highly paid consultants, whose dumbed-down version is of limited value as most of what you need to know is now missing. The section on providing details is one of those that appears to be now missing.
So, either there is no requirement to advise the Employer of your personal details at all, or, more probably, in the absence of this section being re-written, the existing conditions apply.
Either way, you are not required to let the Employer know your phone number. Its worthwhile having a look on RM to see if your phone number is there, and if it is, to remove it! Its relatively easy to do.
Myth No. 2 If you are off sick you must ring in personally to your line manager.
WRONG. This is NOT what the procedures say. It is perfectly acceptable for someone else to ring in on your behalf, or for you to contact someone at work other than your manager. The reasons for this are so obvious they do not need setting down here. Members should ignore any such erroneous advice.
Unfortunately we received no consultation over it – and this is what then happens.
Myth No. 3 Agree Keep in Touch (KIT) arrangement with Manager. This is a contractual obligation
Not so much myth, as spin in this case.
Whilst individual managers will see KIT as being supportive the system is there to get you back or get you sacked. We doubt that KIT arrangements are contractual, and will check on this, however, the point is, they have to be agreed i.e. you have to agree them. You should not agree any proposals that you find to be harassing.
Myth No. 4 Failure to KIT could result in disciplinary action
Again more spin then Myth. Sending in a Doctor’s note is a form of KIT. Certainly if you didn’t do that when required, disciplinary action could follow. See 3, above.
Myth No. 5 There is a list of when members can be expected to be ‘busted’ or not, for being ill.
True there is such a list – but it isn’t the one in the paper. The correct list is set out in conditions of service.
Myth No. 6 ‘Long Term Absence’ - They mean 14 days. It’s no wonder everything is such a mess if our Employer regards a fortnight as ‘Long Term’. However, if you are not well enough to attend a 14 day sick absence review, then you are not well enough. The procedures simply do not cover this, but we believe the Department would be on very unsafe ground trying to enforce this, and in practice all good managers will seek to establish how you are before either dragging you into the office when you are not well enough to come in, or entering your home without agreement.
Myth No. 4 Failure to KIT could result in disciplinary action
Again more spin then Myth. Sending in a Doctor’s note is a form of KIT. Certainly if you didn’t do that when required, disciplinary action could follow. See 3, above.
Myth No. 5 There is a list of when members can be expected to be ‘busted’ or not, for being ill.
True there is such a list – but it isn’t the one in the paper. The correct list is set out in conditions of service.
Myth No. 6 ‘Long Term Absence’ - They mean 14 days. It’s no wonder everything is such a mess if our Employer regards a fortnight as ‘Long Term’. However, if you are not well enough to attend a 14 day sick absence review, then you are not well enough. The procedures simply do not cover this, but we believe the Department would be on very unsafe ground trying to enforce this, and in practice all good managers will seek to establish how you are before either dragging you into the office when you are not well enough to come in, or entering your home without agreement.
In this case, the Department has written a procedure that no manager would attempt to implement!
Myth No. 7 The above issues all come to us in a paper circulating in a part of the DCPU
Quite separately, we have been advised that members in part of DCPU have told to fill in a sheet/verbally indicate what times they will be in work and agree them with the line manager.
Other than in relation to the recent Agreement regarding the turrets pilot, Members should on no account supply managers with such details.
This is NOT a feature of the FWH Agreement. It did appear in an initial draft, but following negotiations which led to the current FWH Agreement, the proposals for this kind of individual control and monitoring of time to be worked were withdrawn.
In relation to the pressures being brought on staff who are ill, the truth is, 30,000 jobs have been cut from the DWP, with another 12,000 to go, whereas, in reality an extra 20,000 staff (at least) are needed. In smaller scale, the same applies to Warbreck.
There aren’t enough staff to do the job, so the Employer blames…..the staff!!
Finally we call on the Department to move forward with us into the 21st Century, and to have a modern approach to both Sick Absence Management and Flexible Working, rather than go backwards into conditions more analogous to those pertaining in the 19th century.
Myth No. 7 The above issues all come to us in a paper circulating in a part of the DCPU
Quite separately, we have been advised that members in part of DCPU have told to fill in a sheet/verbally indicate what times they will be in work and agree them with the line manager.
Other than in relation to the recent Agreement regarding the turrets pilot, Members should on no account supply managers with such details.
This is NOT a feature of the FWH Agreement. It did appear in an initial draft, but following negotiations which led to the current FWH Agreement, the proposals for this kind of individual control and monitoring of time to be worked were withdrawn.
In relation to the pressures being brought on staff who are ill, the truth is, 30,000 jobs have been cut from the DWP, with another 12,000 to go, whereas, in reality an extra 20,000 staff (at least) are needed. In smaller scale, the same applies to Warbreck.
There aren’t enough staff to do the job, so the Employer blames…..the staff!!
Finally we call on the Department to move forward with us into the 21st Century, and to have a modern approach to both Sick Absence Management and Flexible Working, rather than go backwards into conditions more analogous to those pertaining in the 19th century.
Will keep you informed as to developments.
