Bradford points

[theboylard]

I work for a large company (I wonder if it's the same cal37?!) and it's part of my job as a supervisor to record attendance/absence and conduct interviews with those returning to work.

The points system was only introduced where I work this year, and it's a useful tool to remind people that we are trying to be fair, but we have to ensure people don't take the mickey.

It's not fair on the rest of the team if the same person always has Sunday off (bag lost, broken window, car broke down, overslept and missed alarm etc.) or if another has family problems and always blame them for their absence, but the word from other departments' staff who know this person is that there is nothing wrong with their family and it's a way of trying to beat the system.

On the other hand, we have someone who has a terminal illness and another who has confessed to being an alcoholic.

We help where we can and we do listen to genuine cases (no I'm not a doctor and if someone has a sicknote then it's usually a case of No Further Action), we offer referals to the company medical staff and can transfer staff between shifts/departments if it helps with transport issues or childcare problems or personal issues.

What we have to do though is treat people fairly, no more than we expect to be treated ourselves, so if people have genuine issues then of course it's not straight down the disciplinary path, but for people who constantly abuse their colleagues with the extra workload, then the Bradford points system is an easy way to show people how obvious they are being at taking the mickey!!!

Anyway, off to bed as early start

[Sidewinder]

Having implemented Bradford factor scoring to absences in our company a couple of years ago it has really made a difference to casual and persistent absenteeism, but it does have to be applied evenly and transparently.

The whole point is that it is triggered not by length of absence, but by the frequency of absence. A worker sick for one period of three weeks during a period will score 1 (for the number of absences) x 1 (multiplied by itself) x 15 (total number of working days absent over previous 52 weeks) = 15 points. A colleague taking the same number of days off but in 5 separate periods each of three days (not enough to need a sick note) would be 5 x 5 x 15 = 375 points.

By setting a reasonable threshold at which the Bradford factor will trigger an informal discussion as to why that employee's absences have increased in frequency this can have benefits on both sides. From the employer's point of view, it has the effect of the worker knowing that absence is monitored and after all it is only a slight sniffle and not worth taking a sickie. Alternatively, the employer might not know that for example Joe Smith is having problems at work (or indeed at home) and action can be taken to improve his working conditions, (or cut him a little slack while he sorts things out at home). It is therefore an opportunity to establish reasons for absence, and for a caring employer to use this information appropriately. It is, of course, also possible that Joe Smith likes a drink on a Sunday and has phoned in sick on several Monday mornings.

'Reasonable' in this situation can only be defined as the average absentee rate for the company concerned. In the first instance the employee should have an informal discussion to discuss the level of absence and to provide an opportunity to disclose any reason which may have led to the increased score. The employee should be set an improvement target, which could involve retraining if it is felt that lack of job satisfaction has led to all or part of the problem. If improvements are not made, with no explanation on the part of the employee then the process is escalated ultimately to the company's disciplinary procedure.

A caring employer will use such a scoring system sensibly - certainly not for bullying or harassing staff with genuine reasons for absence. At the end of the day however, there is a business to run and persistent absenteeism can cause a major problem. However caring the employer (and I know well that some are not at all so) there is no obligation to be sympathetic at all costs. Providing that it is done through correct procedure, even staff on long term sick can be dismissed.

In the OP's case, it may sound extremely harsh that the colleague with cancer has received a warning, and that the OP himself has been warned that even though the absence was genuine, there may be disciplinary action in the event of future days off work sick, but this sounds like fairly even handed treatment. Put another way, suppose that the the colleague who had a car crash, has a week off now, then another couple of odd days for hospital follow ups etc but escapes an attendance review for his time off work. Fair enough perhaps as it is in a relatively short period of time. The colleague who has cancer however is having longer and longer spells of absence, work has had to be covered on overtime, and the illness is now costing the company money so they instigate disciplinary proceedings and eventually dismiss the worker. Once again, harsh as it is everybody can understand the employer's position. Suppose that the colleague with cancer is female though, and knows that the car crash victim was never even spoken to about his absence? This opens the door to an allegation of discrimination.

It is the best way we have yet found to make sure that everybody is treated equally. There can be no argument for discretion as inevitably at some point one person's discretion becomes another person's discrimination, and sadly can be expensive in a tribunal!

[Ell-enn]

As the HR manager in a medium sized organisation (250 employees)I fought to have the Bradford Factor removed - we operate on a case by case basis for managing sickness absence. Any long spells of genuine sickness i.e. hospitalisation, substance dependency or mental health are treated individually and with sympathy. The persistent latecomers and "monday morning hangover's" are easily identifiable and dealt with appropriately. We also have an Occupational Health service nurse who screens all employees regularly and offers a confidential service to those who need it.

The Braford Factor is an easy way for HR departments to overlook the root cause of absence - they only look at the numbers and react accordingly!

Sickness absence should be managed on a case by case basis while still adhering to dicipilinary policies.

[Sidewinder]

Originally Posted by Ell-enn

As the HR manager in a medium sized organisation (250 employees)I fought to have the Bradford Factor removed - we operate on a case by case basis for managing sickness absence. Any long spells of genuine sickness i.e. hospitalisation, substance dependency or mental health are treated individually and with sympathy. The persistent latecomers and "monday morning hangover's" are easily identifiable and dealt with appropriately. We also have an Occupational Health service nurse who screens all employees regularly and offers a confidential service to those who need it.

The Braford Factor is an easy way for HR departments to overlook the root cause of absence - they only look at the numbers and react accordingly!

Sickness absence should be managed on a case by case basis while still adhering to dicipilinary policies.

I fully appreciate that it is possible to overlook root causes for absence, which is precisely why we brought in Bradford on the recommendation of ACAS following a training course held by them. It was made clear that any system which relies on management discretion was a fast track to a discrimination case. Staff are still treated with sympathy and consideration is given on a case by case basis whether esacalation is appropriate, but the benchmarking allows us to more easily identify areas of concern. Granted though it can be relied on in some organisations as the be all and end all and this could lead to problems. In our organisation however, it works far better than the old system whereby individual line managers held responsibility for measurement and management of absence. This was creating a problem whereby some staff were getting away with sickies where others with more genuine reasons for absence were not - possibly a side effect of being a multi-site operation with no centralised HR management at that time.