Bradford factor

Xbigman

allyminimum wrote: »

Hi
My company has introduced the bradford factor in the last 2 months without any letters or communication with the staff. I work part time 4 days a week and after a 3 week absence due to a hernia operation I was called in for a back to work interview. I was told then that the bradford factor had been introduced and my company said they were basing their points on the last 18 months. I understood it was based on a 12 month period. Anyway I was told in the last 18 months I'd had 6 days off one day at a time and 15 days off after my operation making a total of 21 days and 7 absences.
Can anyone please advise me if my company can do this over an 18 month period or should they have done it over a 12 month period? Also if I work 4 days part time a week are my days off after my operation 12 days or 15 days ?
Thanks for any help
Ally

The Bradford factor includes in its calculation how many days a week you work. The correct answer to your question is that it is 12 days off work but the points will be increased by 25% to allow for you doing a four day pattern. If your management are working it out as 15 days they are incorrect.
You need to get a copy of their full policy in writing because you are on 1102.5 points. As an example my companies disciplinary procedure starts at 8 points. Banned from the sick pay scheme at 100. Written warnings for each 250. You need to find out where your trigger points are.
Its worth pointing out that with the Bradford factor/system it is instances that kill you. Those 6 odd days off are the problem.



Darren

jobbingmusician

Surely even the Bradford factor has to have an investigation built in? If those 6 absences were caused by your untreated hernia, now resolved, you should be fine, surely? I'm by no means a Bradford expert but it would seem odd if the operation to solve a long standing problem was the issue that pushed someone into the disciplinary process. (Yes, of course I understand that some of this issue is because the employer has changed their processes, but still.....)

chubsta

I almost fell foul of this system a couple of years back when I was suffering with a kidney stone, which as anyone will tell you can be pretty much the worst pain imaginable, and in in pretty much the worst place (I seriously considered cutting my 'old man' off because I figured it would hurt less to do this and have it sewn back on than what I was going through at the time!). But part of the way the stone works is that it cuts you to shreds when it is moving but when it gets stuck, which it does quite a few times as it moves towards the bladder, the pain subsides and it can be any period of time before it hurts again, ranging from a few hours to a few days. Because of this, I was off work sick, but would go back in when it wasn't hurting, only to have to take another day off again a few days later.

Naturally, I had a number of occurrences of sickness of a day at a time, which triggered the warning, even though my number of actual days off didn't. It was suggested by my manager that I would have been better off staying off sick from the onset of the problem until I had passed the stone, which would have been over two weeks - as he said, I may as well have got a warning for that and sat on my !!!! comfortably at home instead of getting one because I tried to come to work whenever I could.

Fortunately, my manager was willing to fight my corner and refused to actually issue a warning, which from the email chain he showed me wasn't an easy thing to do as there seems to be an assumption higher up in our organisation that everyone below a certain grade who goes sick is trying it on.

Going back to the OP though, I wish I knew in advance when I was going to be sick and when I would feel better, would help when planning my shopping for my packing up, hopefully they will let us know their secret!

allyminimum

Hi
Thank you to everyone who has replied. Please could anyone tell me if my company are allowed to Base the points over 18 months instead of the normal 12 months.
Thanks
Ally

Masomnia

allyminimum wrote: »

Hi
Thank you to everyone who has replied. Please could anyone tell me if my company are allowed to Base the points over 18 months instead of the normal 12 months.
Thanks
Ally

I'd say it's unusual but not illegal.

Carrot007

allyminimum wrote: »

Hi
Thank you to everyone who has replied. Please could anyone tell me if my company are allowed to Base the points over 18 months instead of the normal 12 months.
Thanks
Ally

As stated they can do whatever they want to do.

As an aside, I think when the bradford factor is applied without though it encourages more absense. Come in because you feel better but can't manage it? Multiple absences in the calculation. I know people in the company I work for do that. I don;t have to as I have a sane manager that can accept that non censecutive days can be a single absence for caculation purposes when they are for the same thing.

TELLIT01

Surely using the Bradford factor as the basis for absence management isn't a problem. The problem can occur if it is used blindly without considering the individual circumstances behind the absence. Where I worked there were a couple of instances where I was off sick but the period was ignored for the purpose of any action regarding attendance management.

Manxman_in_exile

Xbigman wrote: »

The Bradford factor includes in its calculation how many days a week you work. The correct answer to your question is that it is 12 days off work but the points will be increased by 25% to allow for you doing a four day pattern. If your management are working it out as 15 days they are incorrect.
You need to get a copy of their full policy in writing because you are on 1102.5 points. As an example my companies disciplinary procedure starts at 8 points. Banned from the sick pay scheme at 100. Written warnings for each 250. You need to find out where your trigger points are.
Its worth pointing out that with the Bradford factor/system it is instances that kill you. Those 6 odd days off are the problem.



Darren

Is that correct? Before I left the NHS I was responsible for monitoring sickness absence in the NHS trust I worked for. If we used the Bradford Score we did not take account of "working" days, only calendar days. As other posters have pointed out on other threads, you don't suddenly cease to be ill on days that you do not work.


I think you are right that only 12 "working" days rather than 15 have been lost to the employer, but as I say above, that should be irrelevant.


Employers can measure sickness how they like (so long as it's consistent) but I would argue that a "Bradford Score" calculated over 18 months is no longer a Bradford Score, but some unusual variant of it. One of the advantages of using the Bradford Score is it facilitates comparisons across sites, organisations, employment sectors etc. Once it starts being calculated differently it becomes a bit pointless (except for comparisons within an organisation that calculates it consistently).


It all comes down to the employer's policy and Bradford Scores are not the be all and end all. I've known staff with appallingly high scores continue to be employed, and I've known others with OK scores be dismissed for other "sickness" related reasons. As ever, it depends on context.

sangie595

hyubh wrote: »

A slightly curious anecdote, one might think, for an individual currently one third on the way to being off sick for over 9 weeks (post #5). Perhaps the advice to the OP is therefore, become a union official...?

Or not. A hip replacement is slightly noticeable, not least when the bone in the hip has crumbled away and one has actually been working for several weeks whilst on high doses of morphine instead of signing off sick! And who continued to provide email support for the whole time off sick on a daily basis despite being signed off sick, including the morning after the surgery (at 7pm the day before). So perhaps the lesson is that everyone should be so committed to their job that they continue to work through periods that should be sick leave!? Instead of signing off sick in the first week of June, as advised by my GP, for the broken ankle, followed by the "broken" hip (osteonecrosis of the hip) and hip replacement surgery, I continue to work until the end of the first week in November (one day off sick in June having my ankle set; and four days in hospital in August when I continued to work from my hospital bed); and then signed off from the second week in November when I went in for surgery; was signed off until 9th January, and continued to work.


Yes, please feel free to become a union official. But I doubt that you have the commitment nor the stamina to take the pace.


BTW - no sick leave prior to that for 14 years, none since although I now need ankle surgery next year to rebuild the ankle and have a serious disability including spinal stenosis (I can walk a couple of hundred yards at best), and oh yes - I get a years occupational sick pay so I really don't have to work to sustain my income. And I am past my full pension retirement date, and could have retired last year but was asked not to because they couldn't replace me at the time.


If you want to have a go at me again, then find a better subject. This one is a loser.

Xbigman

Manxman_in_exile wrote: »

Is that correct? Before I left the NHS I was responsible for monitoring sickness absence in the NHS trust I worked for. If we used the Bradford Score we did not take account of "working" days, only calendar days. As other posters have pointed out on other threads, you don't suddenly cease to be ill on days that you do not work.


I think you are right that only 12 "working" days rather than 15 have been lost to the employer, but as I say above, that should be irrelevant.


Employers can measure sickness how they like (so long as it's consistent) but I would argue that a "Bradford Score" calculated over 18 months is no longer a Bradford Score, but some unusual variant of it. One of the advantages of using the Bradford Score is it facilitates comparisons across sites, organisations, employment sectors etc. Once it starts being calculated differently it becomes a bit pointless (except for comparisons within an organisation that calculates it consistently).


It all comes down to the employer's policy and Bradford Scores are not the be all and end all. I've known staff with appallingly high scores continue to be employed, and I've known others with OK scores be dismissed for other "sickness" related reasons. As ever, it depends on context.

This highlights the biggest issue with this system. The whole Bradford Factor is an integrated absence management system but individual employers are picking out the bits they want to use and not looking at the consequences.
In the instance quoted above the NHS has done away with the part time worker calculation in favour of using calendar days rather than working days. Thats OK as it is but if I have the last day of my three day week off sick and return the following week I would be put down as having 5 days off and not 1. That could have a pretty dramatic effect after a second instance.
The OP's company is looking at the record over 18 months (which is perfectly legal) and bringing it in retrospectively. As long as they adjust the number of points needed to trigger disciplinary action upwards it is not nescesarily unfair. What is an issue is that people like the OP with a lot of odd days can find that on a percentage based absense system 6 days is only 2% or 3%, on the Bradford factor its far more serious. That of course might be why they have done it. Too many staff having odd days off has resulted in a system being introduced that excessively penalises that behaviour.



Darren