Agenda item

To consider the report (attached).

The Service Director (Business Support), P Maginnis, reported on the Council’s absence figures for quarters 1 and 2, 2018/2019. This included the total number of days lost since 2016/17, the number of employees who had met the trigger level, those who had taken more than 4 weeks absence and the absence reasons.

The Council no longer had a performance indicator for sickness absence, therefore, no target had been set for his year. During quarter 1, 5.4% of employees had met the trigger levels or above, 24.5% had sickness absence but had not met the triggers and 70.1% had no absence. During quarter 2, 5.2% of employees had met the trigger levels or above, 22.6% had sickness absence but had not met the trigger levels and 72.2% had no absence. Under the Council’s Managing Absence Policy there were trigger levels for initiating management action in cases of excessive sickness absence and managers were expected to deal with employees who met the triggers in accordance with the policy.

The last figures published by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) for 2016 showed that the average number of days taken as sickness absence in local government was an average of 9.9 days. This compared with 6.3 days across all sectors, 8.5 days in public services and 5.2 days in private sector services. The average number of days lost per employee could not be provided for quarters 1 and 2 owing to the on-going development of the HR payroll system. Average figures by directorate had also not been provided because of the difficulty of staff moving to their new service directorates as the Council’s restructure progressed. It was intended that these figures would be given in future reports. Comparison data detailed the actual number of days lost to sickness absence over the last two years.

Members were asked for their views on future sickness absence reports.

Councillor J H Whitehouse remarked that as this report was for noting it was purely information and not to be scrutinised. This could be published in the Council Bulletin instead. Councillor G Mohindra replied that sickness absence had originally been reviewed by this Committee because of the high scrutiny level of such absence, but if sickness absence had improved and the report was of no value, then members should determine of they still required this information.

Councillor D Dorrell commented that trends were important and what had happened over the last two or three years. Therefore, he would prefer the long term picture rather than the last few months. Councillor M Owen asked for a trend to show any increase of sickness. Councillor G Mohindra advised that sickness absence was also reported at the Joint Consultative Committee, which met on a quarterly basis. Councillor A Lion commented that there was more value in a trend only analysis and to set trigger points, which when reached, should be reported to the Committee, but otherwise he questioned the value of this report. The Chairman, Councillor A Patel said that a good summary would be sufficient, if this included mental health issues.

P Maginnis replied that members had wanted sickness absence reports reviewed every six months and broken down by service area, but she would change the report format to suit what members required. The previous two quarters had not been attributed to work related stress, e.g. those off with bereavement. The Council organised resilience courses and also offered access to Mind (mental health) charity resources. Managers had undertaken training and received ongoing support. This was also part of a resource package that was available for managers on the Intranet. She also explained that there was a reports development package on the new HR system, iTrent, which allowed managers to produce overnight information on their employees and teams.

The Chairman advised this was the first year of the Council’s People Strategy, did member want to keep the six-monthly sickness absence report in the current format and then review in six months time?

Councillor G Mohindra said that officers would track sickness absence anyway and the Executive also monitored this. Councillor A Lion supported a trend-only analysis but to set a trigger level for this to be reported back to the Committee. It was also important to see how thee People Strategy was affecting staff morale. Councillor M Owen asked if this could be adjusted for part time employees, to which P Maginnis replied that iTrent automatically calculated this.

The Select Committee agreed to receive a summarised version of this sickness absence report on a six monthly basis, which was to show a trend-only analysis with the use of relevant trigger levels, if this was appropriate.

RESOLVED:

That the report on sickness absence be noted.