Employee Absenteeism Problem - Essay Example

People Resourcing Introduction Managing personnel is the most important and often the most challenging aspect of an employer’s responsibility. When to encourage and when to dismiss an employee can be a troubling dilemma but the judgment can be made more sound by using a performance appraisal scheme and understanding under what conditions it is appropriate to terminate employment. This discussion examines both topics and speaks to one of the most costly detriments for employers, employee absences. Employee absences Employee absenteeism is consistently one of the more costly peripheral expenses absorbed by employers, at a rate of £600 per employee each year in payouts for lost time alone. This does not measure the decrease in the level of morale or the increase in resentment that results when other employees must habitually compensate for a specific employee’s absence. This loss of team cohesiveness is incalculable. It is logical to assume that the eight sick days an average employee takes costs the employer more than £600 in productivity. An employee must ultimately earn the company more than they are paid or they won’t be employed very long. Therefore, it costs £600 in pay, at least £600 in productivity and a loss of moral which translates to an even greater loss in productivity. The total could be conservatively estimated at £1500 per employer/year (Absence Management, 2006). A nationwide study revealed that approximately half of Britain’s employers do not calculate absence costs. The other half have “set targets for reducing absence and benchmark themselves against other employers” (Absence and Labour Turnover, 2005). A strategy to lessen the frequency of absence is an inexpensive investment that would save employers great sums every year, create a more congenial, cooperative working environment and help identify the needs of the habitually absent employee. A strategy that effectively manages employee absence consists of three main components: there must be an unambiguous understanding of individual duties, employers must have ready access to accurate and up-to-date attendance records data and must have procedures in place for effectively managing both short and long-term absenteeism. These elements work in concert to reduce instances of absence but are not intended to be a panacea for the problem. People do become ill therefore all approaches should adhere to the principle of fair and equitable treatment. Of course there are those that abuse the privilege of sick time and without hesitation, any excuse will do. These are the employees the management strategy is intended to expose. Any method should show genuine compassion yet be resolute in systematically solving the problem. “The overriding goal of any absence management process is ultimately to return the employee to work as quickly and safely as possible” (HR Study 842, 2007). Continual absenteeism is usually discovered by utilising well-organised documentation and managed by formal interviews upon return to work which should include the establishing of improvement goals. Employers should promptly investigate unanticipated absences and ask the employee to explain the absence during the return to work meeting. If the employee can not provide sufficient reason for the absence, the matter should then be considered a conduct concern and the appropriate disciplinary procedure should be enacted. However, prior to disciplinary actions being taken, up to and including the dismissal of an employee, a comprehensive investigation should be conducted so as to correctly determine the cause of the absence. The employee should be given ample latitude when presenting their version of the cause. Warnings and probationary actions should be implemented and alternative duty assignments considered before considering termination for reason of continued absence (Dealing with Absence, 2007). Performance appraisal schemes Performance appraisal schemes are usually created as either a system to monitor employee’s productivity level or to provide information about employees so as to equitably allocate benefits such as promotions and pay increases. A performance appraisal system serves several purposes. It provides performance feedback to individuals and presents a foundation for self-assessment, institutes and tracks set objectives, evaluates working conditions, salaries and services. In addition, an appraisal system sets benchmarks for disciplinary actions, assuring an improved level of impartiality when dealing with employees, monitors current policies for degree of effectiveness, assesses training needs and discovers personal and divisional capabilities. Possibly the most financially beneficial aspect of a performance appraisal scheme is that it provides uniform policies designed to avoid legal predicaments (Schofield, 1995). When exploring the type of appraisal system to implement, it is suggested that an employer scrutinize the schemes of similar businesses to use as a pattern by which to create one that fits their particular needs. The scheme should be relatively simple, straightforward and transparent. Any ambiguities will contribute to unfair practices, real or perceived, which serve to counteract the benefits attained by implementing the scheme. Performance appraisal systems have evolved in scope and in rationale for its implementation. Today, schemes emphasize greater degrees of employer encouragement and lesser degrees of employer criticism. By setting realistic and measurable goals during the appraisal, the employer exhibits a positive undertone to the working relationship. As mentioned previously, employers are discovering that a satisfied employee adds to their bottom line. Employee appraisals should occur no less than annually. It is considered imperative that employees feel confident with the scheme. “Employees will feel less wary of appraisal if they feel that the process will help their career progress rather than being a negative experience with little perceived value” (Fletcher, 2004). Employers should make certain that the employee understands the reasons for setting particular objectives and be encouraged to provide feedback. Dismissal Misconduct describes an egregious workplace violation(s) by an employee that is deemed so serious that it damages the working relationship with their employer. The consequences could include heavy penalties up to and including immediate dismissal. Examples of misconduct are many but the preponderance of employers would recognize many similar actions as misconduct such as alcohol or drug intoxication while at work, unwelcome physical contact with another employee whether it is fighting or indecent behaviours, stealing, insubordination, accepting bribes or other deceitful actions, non-compliance with safety regulations or no compete clauses in the contract and using company computers to download pornography (Gross Misconduct, 2005). It would be considered a fair dismissal citing misconduct if an employee went on sick leave and worked at another location. They would be collecting sick pay from the first employer while earning a wage from the second, clearly a deceitful action. A deaf employee worked on an assembly line and his co-workers were told not to speak to him because he had to watch their lips which slowed his productivity. An employee was observed conversing with the deaf employee and was terminated for insubordination. This is an unjustified use of misconduct. Redundancy in the workplace occurs when a business is closing, reorganizing, relocating or finds it needs fewer workers of a particular type (Croner, 2005). A reasonable scenario for being dismissed because of redundancy would be if a machinery plant lost a contract to build widgets and could not find alternative employment for the widget engineers and assemblers. However, if an employer claimed to be reducing the staff due to redundancy because the company had more Jews or women than needed would be considered unfair labour practices and, incidentally, in violation of civil rights laws and the rules of common decency in a civilised society. Incapability is defined as when “the employee is unable satisfactorily to do or does not have the qualifications for the job or doesn’t have the right skills/aptitude to do the job or is frequently absent through ill-health” (Royden, 2005). If an employee were hired on the basis of a resume that documented extensive previous experience in a given field but, after being placed in the position, confirmed the reason they were unemployed in the first place by demonstrating no aptitude in the given field, this would constitute a fair dismissal. However, if the employee was frequently absent due to chemotherapy treatments for stomach cancer and was dismissed, this would be unfair. Conclusion Performance appraisal schemes allow employers to better monitor their employees and serves to enhance the overall efficiency and productivity of the business. For example, the crippling effect of chronic absenteeism can be greatly curbed by such a scheme if properly conceived and implemented. For employees, the scheme provides consistent and fair guidelines of employment and periodic evaluations of their performance which, if delivered in a constructive, professional manner can provide the motivation that comes from job satisfaction, a benefit for both employee and employer. Works Cited Absence and Labour Turnover. Advisory booklet. (2005). Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service. May 9, 2007 Absence Management. Survey report. (2006). Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. May 9, 2007 Croner Consulting. “Redundancy.” Wolters Kluwer (UK) Limited. (March 2005). May 9, 2007 Dealing with Absence. London: Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service, 2007. May 9, 2007 Fletcher, Clive. Appraisal and feedback: Making performance appraisal work. Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, (3rd Ed.)., 2004. “Gross Misconduct.” Business Hotline Publications. (2005). May 9, 2007 HR Study 842: Absence Management. (March 22, 2007). Incomes Data Services. May 9, 2007 < http://www.incomesdata.co.uk/studies/absence.htm> Schofield, Allan. “Developments in Performance Appraisal in Commonwealth Universities.” This paper originally appeared in ABCD. The Bulletin of the Association of Commonwealth Universities. N. 117, (February 1995). May 9, 2007 Royden, David. “Unfair Dismissal.” (2005). May 9, 2007 Read More