Redundancy fears could force flu sufferers to go to work

SICK days taken by private sector workers are at their lowest for a decade, according to research by the Chartered Institute of Professional Development (CIPD).

The CIPD’s latest absence management survey of more than 600 employers found that absenteeism is now at its lowest level since the survey began in 2000 with the average workers taking 6.4 days off last year compared to 7.2 days in 2007.

According to Diarmuid Deeney, partner and employment law specialist at Halliwells’ Sheffield office, fear of redundancy is the most likely cause for the drop.

“It goes without saying that genuinley ill workers should stay at home to avoid infecting others, particularly amid the current fear of a global flu pandemic,” he said.

“It seems there are people who, though understandably nervous about job security, may be dragging themselves into work when perhaps they shouldn’t, which is ultimately bad for productivity and morale.”

Mr Deeney said that there needs to be understanding on both sides – firstly on the part of the employer to acknowledge that sometimes sickness is unavoidable and sympathy, empathy and support should be given to an ill employee.

“Likewise, employees must understand that in the current unprecedented economic downturn, employers will be less sympathetic to repeated short-term absence from work without good reason,” he continued.

The survey also highlights the colossal cost to the economy of sickness absence.
THe CIPD estimates that it costs manufacturing firms about £754 per person per day and service companies about £666 per day for staff absenteeism.

Over the course of a year, that adds up to a cost of £12.6bn in lost productivity to the UK economy.

Meanwhile, experts are warning that firms who fail to adequately protect staff from swine flu could face costly lawsuits of tens of thousands of pounds from claimants if they are found to have breached their duty of care as outlines in the Health & Safety Act.

Dickinson Dees employment law partner James Wilders said that firms who weren’t taking extra precautions during the flu outbreak could be found to be inadequately protecting employees.

“Employer liability in the event of a death requires proof that the employer has not fulfilled its duty of care. If you can show you have taken reasonable steps to provide a safe working environment, you will not be liable, either in criminal or civil proceedings,” he said.

“These do not need to be complex and would include ensuring rooms are properly ventilated, having soap and hygiene gel available, communicating company policy on illness and, above all, ensuring people with symptoms are sent home promptly.”

He added: “Clearly each case will be judged differently and potential payouts would vary considerably.

“Ultimately it will be up to the employee to establish whether an employer is responsible for their having contracted the virus. By taking the necessary precautions well in advance, employers will protect themselves and their businesses from workplace disruption and the worry of lawsuits which could occur as a result.”