This section is no longer in use, please click on the links below to view news and sport from:
Council staff off sick 'for a month'
Dec 30 2002
By Paul Dale
Each of Birmingham City Council's 50,000 employees was, on average, off sick for almost four weeks last year.
The figure, described as unacceptable by council leader Sir Albert Bore, is well above the norm for public authorities.
It is almost three times greater than the private sector where staff are ill for an average 6.7 days a year, according to the CBI.
The scale of the problem was a contributory factor behind the Audit Commission's decision to rank Birmingham as a "poor" council in its Comprehensive Performance Assessment.
High-profile attempts to tackle sickness absence are under way, but the success of the policy is the subject of bitter conflict among senior Labour councillors.
A scrutiny committee inquiry earlier this month concluded that Sir Albert's crackdown was having only a marginal impact - with absenteeism down from 18.5 days to 17.9 days over the course of a year.
The cost to the local authority of absenteeism on such a scale, the committee said, is about £61 million a year.
The scrutiny report infuriated Muhammad Afzal, cabinet spokesman for human resources, who accused the committee of publishing inaccurate figures.
Absenteeism is down to an average 16.3 days per employee and falling fast, according to Coun Afzal (Lab Aston).
If all council staff were assessed, including teachers, sickness levels are an average 12.6 days, he said.
Coun Afzal says he is on track to reach the council's agreed target of 11.4 days sickness absence per employee by March, 2005.
But the scrutiny committee's findings show the size of the challenge. Four departments - Education, Housing, Social Services and Transportation - account for almost three-quarters of total absences.
Long-term sickness is on the increase, not coming down as Coun Afzal insisted, according to the scrutiny inquiry.
Employees absent for more than four months rose from 234 to 244 in the 12 months up to May, 2002. There are signs, though, that the figure is beginning to fall.
Coun Bore's crackdown, eagerly supported by Coun Afzal, involves closer monitoring of long-term sickness. Managers are instructed to maintain close contact with employees and to ask questions about absences.
Staff off work on more than three occasions during a year are issued with a Notification of Concern by their managers. A further three periods off work within a year after receiving an NOC will result in the issue of a Final Notification of Concern.
After two further periods of absence within six months, a final case hearing will decide on ill health retirement or termination of contract.
Just how well the new system is working remains a matter of debate.
Unison, the largest public services union, believes the assault on absenteeism is being used by managers as a fast-track means of dismissing people.
In evidence to the scrutiny committee Unison accused the council of trying to "bully" staff into being healthy.
The accuracy of council data-collection was questioned by the committee, which noted: "It is not possible from the information available to tell whether the contribution of long-term sickness to the overall absence figure has changed.
"One of the core questions this raises is whether the introduction of the revised attendance management policy has actually had a positive effect upon absence."
Council managers were not properly complying with new regulations to monitor sickness levels, the committee found. Formal interviews about absenteeism, compulsory on returning to work, were often not being carried out.
Opposition Conservatives are sceptical about the Labour-led council's ability to tackle absenteeism.
Coun Peter Howard (Con Sutton Four Oaks) said sickness levels amounted to "three weeks extra paid holiday" for staff.
"There is no indication of intent or will to deal with what is causing the problem," he said...SUPL:
