Forgive me if I've asked this before but I cant recall if I have or not. One of our key group KPI's is lost time incidents and this performance can play a part in future site investment and development.

We (occasionally) have employees who are using relatively minor accidents to justify having time off work. For example, we had a chap last night who banged his head on a metal frame. The frame isn't an obvious hazard and its not really clear as to how it happened. He just says he was crouched down and as he stood up he caught his head. Nobody saw him do it and he carried on working normally.

This afternoon he should have arrived for work, but he telephoned in and said that he was unwell as a result of the accident and wouldn't be coming in. Now call me cynical but it just so happens that he got paid yesterday and today was his last shift. I know that it very well might be the case that he has developed some delayed symptoms but having investigated the accident and assuming it actually happened as described, the need to take seems totally disproportionate to the accident. And this isnt the first time such a thing has happened. People who are on their last night shift and have a relatively minor cut (for example) then say that they cannot come in to work because the cut is affecting their hand movements.

I have no doubt at all that he'll be back to work after his rest period and he and others are just exploiting the situation to avoid having to work their last night shift. It has even been suggested by a few of the other workers that some individuals are deliberately injuring themselves in order to avoid the last night shift!

I know the first response will be that its a 'cultural problem' but the culture isn't going to change overnight and even then I still feel that we are open to individuals who want to exploit the company who just dont care.

How do others deal with such situations? Its frustrating for me in that I feel powerless to prevent people exploiting the system which has potential negative consequences to everyone else who works on site

Your employer is OK with people not reporting for work because they 'can't move one of their hands properly'. Really?
I suggest there are weaknesses in management as well as culture issues within the workforce.
That shouldn't be dressed up as a LTI, rather it should be an unauthorised absence.

I agree Ron and no, we're not happy with people giving such justification but we've been advised by our HR Manager (I cant comment on the validity of their advice) that we cant take any action against them unless we can prove the accident never happened and we cant force them to attend work as they just self certify their absence.

Hmmm.........my understanding of employment law was that the employee is bound by contract to attend work when fit to do so. A wee sore hand doesn't stop me getting to work. It's for the employer to determine what useful work can be done by that employee. I think your HR Manager needs the boot.

I could go on a comparative rant about those with real disabilities who report for work everyday..........but I won't.

On the other hand....head injuries, even slight, can cause different problems to different people. None should be regarded as inconsequential.
You could always have told the employee that he/she would have to be examined by a medical practitioner before restarting work.
In a previous incarnation I sustained a deep cut to my head leading to considerable blood loss. I was taken to hospital to have it stitched. The treatment personnel were told by the management rep who took me that he considered it to be a "suspicious injury" and would like to be informed about the treatment and possible cause. He also asked for his request to be confidential. The hospital then gave me the treatment details for my GP with the request printed on it, also the response: that they did not divulge patient details.
But then, most managers consider any injury to be deliberate, and time-off to be malingering. Even if the employee is no longer breathing. It goes with the job: Paranoia.

Jason

In response to your statements: "but the culture isn't going to change overnight and even then I still feel that we are open to individuals who want to exploit the company who just dont care.

How do others deal with such situations? Its frustrating for me in that I feel powerless to prevent people exploiting the system which has potential negative consequences to everyone else who works on site"

As a constructive alternative to your professed acceptance of disempowerment of your role, may I recommend that you (and your HR colleague) use the Organisational Efficacy Scale to address the cultural challenge you've identified.

All the items of the scale and the ratings for scoring them are published in the Autumn ('Fall') 2010 issue of 'Human Resource Development Quarterly'. Even if you and your HR colleague need the help of a chartered psychologist to use it, it's much more cost-effective than allowing yourself to be as disempowered and frustrated as you say you are. It's also a relatively simple, incisive way of getting to the heart of the problem: not 'overnight' but over 10 - 15 days, which is relatively smart for any radical culture intervention.

An independent professional review of the Organisational Efficacy Scale is also published in the Organisational Efficacy Scale, which you're free to use without charge.

Absolutely spot on - well done.

Tell them they must come in to 'complete the investigation' because 'this is obviously so serious we cannot allow it to happen to anyone else'.
If they insist they cannot come in, arrange a taxi, visit at home (as you already say).

The 'canteen talk' soon gets around that the firm don't suffer fools easily anymore.

Reap the rewards for getting off your bum and actually tackling it.

Its too easy to fall into the soft cuddly world of the 'what ifs' being suggested - there will always be a 'what if'

What if its a genuine injury and they can't work? - Then you have done your job, nothing more, nothing less, by gathering the facts as part of the investigation. You cannot be criticised for this - under any circumstances.

damelcfc
Firstly I do not wish to be disrespectful to your opinions, but I find your approach on the situation heavy handed.
Most of what we do as safety practitioners is based on "what if" - we are there to prevent the workforce injuring themselves or being made ill by their work, a proactive approach, not waiting around for the inevitable incident.
Accident investigation is important, not acting as judge and jury when someone takes time off because of an injury.

From what I have seen of companies operating similar shift patterns, attendance is usually pretty good. In fact, 'presenteeism' if often more of a problem, where people attend work when not actually fit due to illness/injury. The main reason for this is that someone phoning in at short notice has to be covered by someone who is supposed to be on a night off (or if cover is not arranged the rest of the team have to work much harder). Peer pressure usually works in the company's favour, because most employees don't want to upset their colleagues in this way.

The fact that this is not happening here leads me to think there may be other issues with some or all the employees.

Jason, firstly a word of caution. Whilst it's commendable to be candid in your appraisal of the situation I'd bear in mind that, if Jason McQueen is your real name, then you need to consider this is a public forum. Just some food for thought.

In terms of the issue? Well, I'd agree with everyone who's mentioned cultural elements need to be considered. We do live in a litigious age but if the workforce feel the success of the company is their success they'll feel less inclined to 'swing the lead'. There'll always be those who will take the opportunity to have a few days off after an accident/incident but there's a lot to be said for positive peer pressure amongst colleagues. The other side of this would also be in relation to accident reduction, so less reports of accidents that may or may not have happened.

I'd also say that the picture you've painted shows HR are dropping the ball on this one and failing in their duty of care to the employees and the company. There needs to be a robust accident follow up and there should be consideration that any LT accident automatically triggers a home visit, both to ensure the wellbeing of the IP as well as to determine if there are duties that they could undertake with sustained injuries. Remember, RIDDOR will still be triggered if they can't return to their normal duties within 7 days, but that's not to say they cannot undertake any task in the workplace.
To my mind SafetyBob and DamelFC have got the balance right, it's not heavy handed but rather firm but fair. Where an accident has occurred that results in absence then there is an issue that needs resolution, where that be prevention of recurrence or absence management. I've been involved in a number of post accident home visits most of which were genuine. That said I still remember an event where the 'IP' forgot which body part (and there was only one) was injured when I asked if they would mind showing me the injury.

I'd also add that I'm wary of any accident prevention method that directly aligns KPI's with success. There's always an opportunity to try and explain away why something isn't a lost time accident/RIDDOR. That in itself can promote a culture of under reporting and is counterproductive to a genuine reduction in accidents. Far better to demonstrate an increase in 'near accident/near miss' reporting that then goes to show a genuine reduction in total lost time associated with accidents.

Dont get me wrong, this isnt a huge problem, it probably only happens two or three times a year but two or three lost time accidents represents about 60% of the total LTI for the site.

In a thread headed 'Employees exploiting accidents', it is remarkable how contributions express recommendations proposed in 'The Critical Incident Technique' by John Flanagan in 'Psychological Bulletin', published by the American Psychological Association. Vol 51(4). July 1954.

A twenty-first century style of approach to a problem of this kind is offered in 'Models of Cognition, the Contextualisation of Knowledge and Organisational Theory', by Edward Lorenz in the Journal of Management and Governance, published by Kluwer Academic Publishers. Vol 5 pp. 307-330. 2001

Sorry Paul, Lost Time Incident. We class anything the loss of a full shift or greater as a lost time incident/accident as a measure of performance below that of RIDDOR reportable accidents.