Agenda item

Members of the Committee had requested that a report be brought to the Committee regarding wellbeing and absence management.

Contributors:

Councillor John Chilver, Cabinet Member for Accessible Housing & Resources

Councillor Tim Butcher, Deputy Cabinet Member for Resources

Sarah Murphy-Brookman, Corporate Director for Resources

Sarah Keyes, Service Director for HR & OD

Papers:

Update Report

Appendix 1: Local Authority Benchmarking Data

Appendix 2: Historical Sickness Absence

Appendix 3: Further detail on sickness absence costings

Appendix 4: Together Survey Results for Wellbeing and Resilience Index and Engagement Index (April 2020 and November 2022)

Appendix 5: Absence Management Process Workflow

The Chairman invited the Deputy Cabinet Member for Resources, Councillor T Butcher, to introduce the report. In the Cabinet Member’s presentation, the following points were highlighted:

·       Most organisations saw a sharp fall in reported sickness absence during the pandemic, followed by increased absence thereafter. There had also been an increase across all sectors in reported absence related to mental health.

·       The Council’s highest sickness rate was 9.78 days of absence per full-time employee in August 2022. By January 2023, this was reduced to 9.12 days against the target of 9 days. The overall cost of absence was estimated to be around £4.54m, or 3.02% of the wage bill.

·       Best practice since the pandemic was to consider employee health and wellbeing as an integral part of absence management. This included greater awareness of mental health, which was the most prevalent cause of absence at the Council, at 25.44%. There was considerable variation in the sickness patterns across the directorates and types of roles carried out. A new occupational health contract with TP Health was launched in April 2023, which was more cost-effective and provided direct service to managers to manage sickness absence.

·       Sickness absence rates in the public sector were higher than in the private sector. This was attributed to the higher number of women, older workers and those with long-term health conditions, as well as care and leisure staff being part of the workforce. The Council’s aim was to recognise that ill health was part of life but reduce sickness absence overall to reach target.

·       A key component of reducing sickness was early intervention and keeping in touch with staff on sick leave, which has been shown to result in faster return to the workplace. A robust sickness absence policy with clear triggers was in place and automated through the IT system. As part of the Council’s Coaching for Performance review, wellness action plans were put in place to gain a holistic understanding of staff as individuals.

The following points were noted during the Committee’s discussion:

·       A number of Members commended the officers on their work on the report and the detail it contained.

·       A Member suggested reducing the target rate to 8 days from the current target of 9 days. The key aim was to reduce overall long-term sickness, which would reduce overall sickness significantly, so it was expected that the target could be reduced in future as a result. Furthermore, comparisons with other councils were not clear-cut; for example county councils did not include waste collection which is an area where sickness was higher.

·       It was noted that sickness varied greatly between historical legacy councils and directorates, with some already performing above the target. Work was currently undertaken to reduce sickness rates in specific directorates, such as Communities. Morale and engagement in the Adult Social Care Directorate was high according to the latest staff survey, indicating no connection between morale and sickness. Sickness rates were higher among junior staff. This was attributed to lower levels of engagement in terms of ensuring a positive employment experience, as well as being managed by more junior managers, though further analysis was needed to fully understand the issue in more depth. Roles involving higher levels of physical work also saw higher levels of absence due to increased risk of illness and injury. Members requested that the enhanced reporting of data at a Directorate level be circulated to the Committee for ongoing monitoring. 

·       Some Members queried the sick pay policy, particularly in comparison with private sector policies. The Council’s sickness policy had been developed as part of the move to a Unitary authority, though existing employees retained the conditions of their contract in line with TUPE. The new policy had been benchmarked against both the legacy councils and other local authorities. It was crucial to ensure that the terms and conditions, including sick pay, were in line with neighbouring authorities to remain competitive as an employer in terms of recruitment and retention, particularly in roles that were difficult to fill, e.g. social work. Comparisons needed to be done within the public sector context, though some directorates, such as the Deputy Chief Executive’s Directorate, had similar average sickness levels to the private sector. Additionally, it was noted that ONS analysis could not conclude the sickness rate variance between the private and public sector.

·       Agency staff sickness was not reflected in the report.

·       Absence monitoring had several trigger points. Individuals were expected to speak to their managers on the first day of absence. After seven days, an individual was no longer able to self-certify their sickness, resulting in the first formal trigger.

·       A Member raised concerns around the high number of staff reporting that they did not feel their employer cared about their health and wellbeing. It was anticipated that these rates would improve through the new occupational health provider. Furthermore, the survey was undertaken in November 2022, at a time where the cost of living impacted overall wellbeing and before the cost-of-living award of £500 was issued.

·       A Member noted that absence excluding Covid was 5.95 in March 2021 and increased to 8.26 in June 2022. It was explained that during this time, Covid absence had increased due to the Omicron variant, as well as colds and flus re-emerging as a result of increased social interaction. Surgery related absence had also increased due to surgeries being on hold during the pandemic, resulting in a backlog.

·       It was suggested that the Council could follow a different approach to managing mental health, as practiced in other countries, e.g. France. The Council managed Mental Health in a way that followed best practice in the UK. Educational psychologists and public health professionals ensured that the Council’s policies followed an evidence-based approach. Preventative measures, such as regular wellbeing meetings and upskilling managers on mental health issues, were also in place, particularly in directorates with high levels of absence due to mental health issues, such as Children’s Services.

The Chairman thanked the Cabinet Member for the report.