From April 6 doctors will have a choice as to whether a sick note comment is limited to “unfit for work” or now states “may be fit for work”.
Providing another option means doctors will be able to advise employers that the employee would be able to return to work if temporary arrangements such as reduced hours, changes to duties and responsibilities or moving office can be provided to take account of the fact that the individual is not fully fit to resume a normal working life.
“The changes are not about trying to get people back to work before they are ready but about removing the challenges to them returning,” says guidance notes produced for employers by the Work and Pensions department. See:
http://www.dwp.gov.uk/newsroom/press-releases/2010/february-2010/dwp030-10-190210.shtml
In response, the TUC has issued guidance to unions, http://www.tuc.org.uk/extras/fitnote.pdf pointing out that because many employers do not have sufficient occupational health advice to implement recommendations from GPs, union representatives in the workplace will have a “key role in supporting people where the doctor recomends an early return to work may be possible”.
In cases where employees disagree with their GP, workers are advised to seek a second opinion or talk to their union representative. If employers fail to make changes to accommodate a phased return to work the TUC says the employee should stay at home.
The TUC also suggests employees should seek union advice if they find themselves in a situation where they agree with their GP about a return to work but do not think their employer has gone far enough to cope with their limitations.
The TUC says any attempts by employers to match reduced duties with reduced pay should be resisted. Employees should be employed under the same conditions they enjoyed before going on the sick list with modifications to help the transition back to work.
Roger Kline of Aspect said:
“The key purpose of this government policy is to reduce sickness absence, not improve staff health. It is most unfortunate that staff sickness has become an election issue in health and local government not least because of the wildly inflated savings claimed for the policy.
Although the new policy gives GPs (and therefore employers) more flexibility, for example around a phased return to work, the real risk is that staff will be forced back to work when they are still ill. This is particularly dangerous in occupations where staff mistakes can have serious consequences for other people.
What employers in highly stressed workplaces where absenteeism may be relatively high should do is to look at the workplace causes of absenteeism – excessive workloads, stress, concerns about job security, bullying – and tackle those. That is why the Social Work Task Force health check is such a good start.
If this policy forces staff back to work when their long term future (and their long term contribution in the workplace) means they should stay off sick , it will be completely counter productive. We would also be concerned that the new policy could give too much influence to occupational health staff, some of whom are excellent but some of whom are not regarded by staff as being sufficiently independent”
