The Bradford formula!

kittiej

My OH had been off sick from work for about 4 months and now he's returned he's had to fill out a report because his absenteeism has been flagged up by personnel.

In the last year he has had 3 periods of sickness covering 142 days. It would have only been 2 periods of sickness but OH's doctor advised him to try to return to work to see how he got on, he lasted 1,5 hours, and now this is the rumour behind why personnel wanted him counselled. He also has to have a review in 3 months.

I'm really annoyed tbh as all the absences are due to chest problems ie he had an accident in work which left him with a popped muscle in his ribs, then he caught flu and couldn't cough properly because his ribs hurt which then turned into an infection, which turned into pneumonia and he is still having further tests at the hospital under a chest specialis because he still continues to get out of breath easily.

He saw the company doctor shortly before returning to work who advised he be put on light duties which he is doing now.

My point is I suppose I feel as though he is being blamed for being genuinely ill, the company could have had him seen by the company doctor earlier as well and recommended light duties.

Does anyone know if there is a drawback to the Bradford formula that could be argued if needs be?

exil

The Bradford formula looks nonsensical in my opinion - it targets people who have minor but chronic complaints such as arthritis, migraine, period problems, mild depression, which might lead to taking a single day off multiple times in a year. The basis is that short term absences are very disruptive - well I guess that depends on the job. In my own job a single day off has little impact as there are few issues that can't wait a single day to deal with, and yet many problems if they are left for a week or more can turn into disasters (organisational or financial, not REAL disasters, I'm not a doctor!).

I suppose it could be used to target people taking "sickies" but it really is quite possible to have a genuine illness that only keeps you off work for one or two days. The frequency of absence is no guide to the genuine-ness of the illness.

If it is used to HELP people - ie identify people who have mild but chronic conditions and encourage them to seek medical help - that's fine, but I suspect it is actually used in many cases to hound people.

Be that as it may, 142 days off in 2 years is a lot of days off and would be cause for concern whatever system is used.

From what you say I don't think the employer is suspecting your OH of malingering. However even a genuine illness can give the employer cause to dismiss you if it prevents you from doing your job. For instance, if I had a heart attack tomorrow and after recovery wasn't considered fit to work, I'd be out on my ear, regardless of how much my employer might sympathise with my situation and even if the heart attack was due to work.

iamana1ias

exil wrote:

Be that as it may, 142 days off in 2 years is a lot of days off and would be cause for concern whatever system is used.

It's 142 days in 1 year!!

kittiej wrote: »

In the last year he has had 3 periods of sickness covering 142 days.

Can't see any business wanting to let this continue.

DVardysShadow

Bradford formula

Looking at your husband's case and using the variables from the link above, his 1.5 hours attendance gives him S = 3 absences rather than 2. Now with S squared, his score is more than doubled. If the score is mentioned, he should ask for the actual score and the workings. If his math is hot and he is confident, then he should challenge it on the spot. If they have taken 3 absences rather than 2, you could bring the figures here and get the support to argue it.

iamana1ias

Can't see how ^ would make a difference though. Assuming a 5 day week the OP's husband has had more than 6 months off. Not many companies can afford to have staff on their books that are off for that long!

kittiej

In the bigger scheme of things he has been employed by the same employer for the last 12 years and the 3 periods off sick are the only time he has ever been absent. He hasn't even had a day off with so much as a cold prior to this.

It's because the BF only takes into account the last 12 months and not the full employment history which is why I think it's a sham.

No he hasn't had 6 months off he had 3 weeks in the summer and then about 4 months, maybe he should just put in a claim against the company eh seeing as though it was their fault he injured himself in the first place *rolls eyes*

caeler

I'm really surprised his company wants to use the bradford factor for what is cleary long term absence. Bradford factor is great for monitoring and managing short term persistent absence. Anything longer term, maternity, accident or DDA related is best taken out of Bradford Factor and managed with other methods, usually understanding goes along way! I also think penalising him with 3 occasions after 'trying' to return to work is plain mean.

What if any formal action have they taken with your husband? Have they at this stage just pre-warned his 'score' is quite high? Do you have sight of how they use the Bradford Factor, are there set out trigger points? If so what are they (ie 300 for formal action equal to verbal warning, 500 for formal action equal to written warning, etc).

If none of this exists, the Bradford Factor is quite useless as a management tool.

I hope your OH company start to focus on supporting his return to work, ESPECIALLY as it appear to be as a result of an accident at his workplace.

PS. This report - is it simply a 'return to work' interview? These are quite common now, often for a manager to check an employee is fit to return, keep a record of the absence. Also another way to make sure the manager actually engages!!

iamana1ias

kittiej wrote: »

In the bigger scheme of things he has been employed by the same employer for the last 12 years and the 3 periods off sick are the only time he has ever been absent. He hasn't even had a day off with so much as a cold prior to this.

It's because the BF only takes into account the last 12 months and not the full employment history which is why I think it's a sham.

No he hasn't had 6 months off he had 3 weeks in the summer and then about 4 months, maybe he should just put in a claim against the company eh seeing as though it was their fault he injured himself in the first place *rolls eyes*

As I said, if he works a 5 day week, then 142/5 = 28.4 weeks! That's more than 6 months.

Even if it was a 7 day week it would come in at 20.3 weeks.

The past history doesn't matter. He is costing the company money, and I doubt they can afford to carry him in this climate.

kittiej

Yes whatever iams. I also said he is back in work which they could have offered him 2 months ago, but hey you know everything haha.

Yes I think it's mean as well, it wasn't a return to work interview form as he had one of those as soon as he returned. This form he filled out was supposed to have been completed as a counselling session with his manager, instead he was told to fill it in and get another team leader to sign the form. Very shoddy. This isn't a two bit company but it's becoming more like Mr T's every day.

He's a team leader and was fully able to work in the office just as he does now. I'll do some digging and see what I can find.

I work it out to be 112 days in total, sorry but I'm sure he mentioned it was written down somewhere that he'd had 142 days so that's wrong for a start

iamana1ias

kittiej wrote: »

Yes whatever iams. I also said he is back in work which they could have offered him 2 months ago, but hey you know everything haha.

Hey, it's basic maths from the info you posted!

kittiej wrote: »

I work it out to be 112 days in total, sorry but I'm sure he mentioned it was written down somewhere that he'd had 142 days so that's wrong for a start

Well that's the first thing to get sorted. Could be the company counts it based on a 7 day week

kittiej

Now that's an idea to check out thank you.