The People Bulletin

Rather than seeing flexible working as a hindrance, many employers are now embracing different ways of working and turning the threat into a benefit.

Not really sick

It is becoming more widely accepted that many sickness days are not in fact caused by the sickness of the employee themselves. Instead, people are taking time off work for things such as taking care of sick relatives, taking their children to the dentist, nursing a hangover that will be gone by lunchtime, waiting in for a delivery, or watching Andy Murray in the Wimbledon final.

If an employee is faced with an inflexible working system whereby their options for time off work are either categorised as ‘holiday’ or ‘sickness’, and they have used up their entitlement to the former, the ‘sickness’ category tends to get used. As an employer, this does not give you an accurate picture of sickness levels in your organisation.

Whilst tackling sickness absence is a year round problem for businesses, there tends to be sharp increases on certain days during big sporting events[1], on the first day of school term, or on a hot Friday before a bank holiday weekend. Businesses suffer from last minute staff shortages, and some feel that if staff were honest about the reasons for their absence, and flexibility could be offered, then perhaps the problem could be tackled positively.

By encouraging employees to be up front about the time they wish to take off, and the reason for it, employers could save a lot of headache and lost revenue. Some employees may only need an hour or two off work, to wait at home for a delivery for example, but if their employer is completely inflexible about them taking this time off, then the employee might decide to take the whole day off sick instead.

Examples of employer flexibility - Asda

Take the forthcoming sporting events as an example. Supermarket chain Asda have set up a scheme called the ‘shift swap’ scheme, whereby employees have the ability to re-arrange their shifts around different games provided they can find the appropriate cover for their shift.  This could work equally for other requests for time off, such as allowing an hour or two off for parents wishing to accompany their children on their first day at school. Employees would need to make up the time lost either by working through lunch or at the beginning or end of the working day.  Employees would also need to be mindful of not leaving the office completely unattended if everyone was to want time off at the same time.

Unpaid leave

Offering the opportunity for employees to take a limited period of unpaid leave as extra holiday is often seen as a benefit, and in actual fact it is not always taken up in droves as many employees simply can’t afford to not be paid, but it is a generous sentiment nonetheless.

There is no obligation on an employer to offer these types of work life balance schemes, however, some employers see the benefit in allowing staff to be more flexible as it encourages a happy workforce and avoids absences being recorded as sickness.  The leave can either be unpaid, or the employer can insist that the employee makes up the time taken off at another time.

Implementing the scheme – a proportionate approach

To implement such a scheme, the employer should write to all employees explaining whether the scheme is for a one off event or applicable all year round. Employers are advised to ensure that the schemes are non-contractual, and that it is made clear that the employer has ultimate discretion as to who can participate, and that it can be withdrawn if it becomes unworkable.

Problems with offering time off for work/life balance events, may occur when an employer takes an uneven approach as to which events it will support, and which employees it will allow to take time off.  For example, employees without children, or an employee who is not interested in a particular sporting event, may feel that they are being left to cover for their colleagues that wish to take time off, and that their preference would be to take time off for a different sort of event that isn’t covered by the employer’s scheme.  It would perhaps not be proportionate to offer similar treatment to a less popular event that only one or two employees would benefit from, and where, arguably, the odd ‘sickie’ here and there could be more easily absorbed.

A problem that an employer might face with offering a shift swap or time off scheme is that they may be overwhelmed with requests to take time off on a particular day, leaving them with no staff left to provide the service, or a difficult choice as to which employees should be selected.  The key to offering these schemes is to put the onus on the employees to agree within their team, who can take the time off.  If there is a dispute as to who can take time off if, for example, all members of the team want to assert their right to take time off on a particular day, then the employer can simply use its discretion to say that the scheme will not work in that particular instance and no employee is allowed time off.  If the employer decides to intervene and start selecting which employees can take time off, then they need to be mindful of claims of favouritism, discrimination, or general unfairness.  An employer would be well advised to stipulate in the scheme that it is for the employees to sort out the shifts between themselves, with an ultimate veto for the employer in case of any internal dispute, or risk that the service provided to clients and customers may be disrupted.

Key benefits

On balance, despite the potential discrimination issues, the overwhelming benefit that an employer can gain from offering such schemes are that they have a happy workforce, a workforce that are more dedicated to their job whilst they are on duty, less sickness absenteeism, and more control over staffing levels.  It is far better for employers to be proactive in asking staff about their reasons for needing time off, than burying it’s head in the sand and assuming that all sick days are genuinely needed.

[1] See ‘Plan now for World Cup Fever’ in The People Bulletin, 7 April 2010.