Ill Health at Work
| Pages | 2-3 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/eb057301 |
| Date | 01 March 1983 |
| Published date | 01 March 1983 |
| Author | John Muir |
| Subject Matter | Economics,Information & knowledge management,Management science & operations |
Ill Health at Work
by John Muir
Director, Muir Williams and Associates,
Industrial Relations Consultants
Amidst all the discussion on self certification and statutory
sick pay one point should be central — how does the
employer deal with ill health at work? Self certification is a
means by which the absence due to sickness is accounted
for; and, if it is accounted for, then payment may come
from two sources. One is statutorily based, i.e. DHSS
sickness benefit: and the other may be part of the contract
of employment between the employer and employee. The
fact that after April 1983 the employer becomes the paying
agent for the state component for the first eight weeks will
not of itself change any existing contractually based ar-
rangements. The basic questions remain whether the pay-
ment in total is made against genuine sickness and
whether the extent of the absence (continuous or an ac-
cumulation over a period) is such that it calls into question
the very contribution of employment.
In the great majority of cases people are ill when they say
they are. On the other hand, there is much experience to
suggest that giving "sickness" as the reason is not always
a proper reflection of the situation. At one end of the scale
some employees deliberately give sickness as a reason to
cover another reason for the absence, including malinger-
ing;
and at the other, sickness absence reflects a lack of
will to meet minor indispositions. Hitherto, when the
employer insisted on all absences being covered by a doc-
tor's certificate, it was then very difficult for the employer
to say that the absence was not genuine. There was a cer-
tificate to cover it, signed by a medical practitioner, but in
fact it was readily acknowledged that in the great majority
of cases the practitioner did little more than respond to the
employee, saying that he was unwell, by writing a sick
note accordingly. Thus, in practical terms, the value of a
medical certificate for short term absences was much
diminished.
The fact that a medical practitioner is no longer required to
issue a sick note if the absence lasts seven days or less has
put the onus on employers (and, until April 1983, the
DHSS) to accept self certification from the employee for
that first week. Thereafter, the doctor comes back into the
picture, but on far fewer occasions — simply because
most absences from work are of short duration. The claim-
ed advantage of a system of self certification is that
employees will think twice about absenting themselves,
unless they are genuinely ill, if on return they have to sit
down and across the table sign to say they have been ill,
what the complaint was and get the business witnessed by
the supervisor or manager. It is not suggested that the
supervisor or manager signs to agree the self diagnosis; it
is merely to witness the business.
Absences from work are usually disruptive in that either
the work has to be left to accumulate (and that is in all pro-
bability inefficient), or the rest of the workforce has to be
shuffled round to fill the gap in the line. When every
absence had to be backed up by a medical certificate many
employers took the view that there was nothing they could
do about it. They were wrong. A look at company records,
even if they were kept at all, would have shown a consis-
tent and unacceptable scale of absence on the part of
some employees. Yet many employers quite failed to
monitor the position; others were aware that it existed in
general and sought to offer attendance bonuses to induce
the workforce to be regular attenders. With self certifica-
tion the opportunity presents itself to start on a process of
proper record keeping and regular monitoring. It may
show uneven patterns of attendance in different parts of
the firm so the reasons why can be explored and put right.
A look at company records
would have shown an
unacceptable scale of
absence
What will be shown is individual records of absence which
may be wholly out of court compared to the experience of
similar employees or groups of employees. This is the start
point for the company to take action. Two matters should
be uppermost. One is that an exceptional level of absence
throws strains on the rest of the staff and leads to a loss of
efficiency in the
firm;
the other is that harassment or
unreasonableness should not be factors in the employer's
approach,
bearing in mind at least that a complaint of un-
fair dismissal may be brought against the employer.
One of the "reasons" for dismissal as set out in the
Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 is "in-
To continue reading
Request your trial