Liberal Democrat Leader “exceptionally concerned” at Oldham Council Staff Sickness Absences

The Leader of the Opposition and of the Liberal Democrat Group, Councillor Howard Sykes, has written to the newly-appointed Chief Executive of Oldham Council, Dr Carolyn Wilkins, to inform her that he is “exceptionally concerned” at the level of sickness absences amongst Council staff.

Information recently made publicly available shows that in the last year 19,059 days of absences were recorded amongst 3,560 Council staff; an average of almost 5.5 days each. This is higher than the UK national average; in February, the Office of National Statistics reported that overall absences across the UK have dropped from 7.3 days per annum to 4.4 days per annum over the last decade.

In his letter, Cllr Sykes says that the cost of sickness absences represent “big figures at a time when the authority must look to squeeze best value out of every penny of its expenditure”.

Cllr Sykes states that not only do staff absences put more pressure on “conscientious and hard-working staff that remain at their posts,” but they cost the authority – and ultimately Oldham’s Council Tax payers – £3.85million per annum extra in employing agency staff to provide cover.

Cllr Sykes says that he is “as one” with Council Leader Cllr Jim McMahon in seeking to “clamp down” on sickness absence, but cannot understand why – when the Labour Administration has agreed with trades unions that sickness would be more pro-actively and routinely managed – “almost 58% of employees were not obliged to attend a Back to Work interview – a measure designed specifically to identify the underlying reasons for absence and to address unacceptably persistent absenteeism?”

In closing, Cllr Sykes states in his letter that he seeks early comments and an in-depth discussion with the Chief Executive on this issue “as to what further immediate measures are now to be put in place to reduce sickness absences in the current financial year”.

Text of email (06/06/14) below.

Dear Dr Wilkins,

Now the dust has settled after the elections.

I was exceptionally concerned to read a report on recent sickness absences.

I understand from information made available in the public domain that in the last year 19,059 days of absences were recorded amongst 3,560 staff; an average of almost 5.5 days each.

Not only does this in turn mean lost productivity, a reduction in service, and further undue pressure on those conscientious and hard-working staff who remain at their posts, but this situation costs the authority a double financial whammy – paying these staff to stay at home whilst employing agency staff to provide cover at a cost of £3.85 million per annum.

I know that there will be no need to tell you that these are big figures at a time when the authority must look to squeeze best value out of every penny of its expenditure.

Last year, Cllr Jim McMahon made great play of his desire to clamp down on sickness absence – an aspiration with which I am with him as one. This message featured prominently in the staff conference via a specially commissioned video of the Leader.

The Administration subsequently agreed a way forward with trades unions where sickness absence would be more pro-actively managed and management intervention more routine.

Why is it then that we see in the released statistics that almost 58% of employees were not obliged to attend a Back to Work interview – a measure designed specifically to identify the underlying reasons for absence and to address unacceptably persistent absenteeism?

In February, the Office of National Statistics reported that overall absences across the UK have dropped from 7.3 days per annum to 4.4 days per annum over the last decade.

I know that Oldham’s figures have also dropped, but we are still higher than average. Worryingly ONS reported that public sector workers have an average sickness rate of 2.9 % compared to 1.8 % in the private sector, so this is an issue on which we simply have to do more.

I would welcome an in-depth discussion upon this issue at our next scheduled meeting, but in the interim I would ask for your comments as to what further immediate measures are now to be put in place to reduce sickness absences in the current financial year.

I look forward to your comments with interest.