Companies cautioned over Royal Mail attendance bonus schemes

Companies thinking of following the example of Royal Mailís incentive scheme to reward staff for simply turning up to work could end up facing costly compensation claims, according to one of the UKís leading employment advisers.



Croner is highlighting the risk of claims from employees for detrimental treatment merely for exercising their statutory rights to time off sick. They also risk discrimination claims due to disability, sex and even religion, if rewards are given for full attendance without making allowances for legitimate reasons why employees may need to take time off.

The advice comes as Royal Mailís attendance incentive scheme has hit the headlines, with employees being rewarded with cars and holiday vouchers for attending work. While this appears to be reducing the number of staff pulling ísickiesí, businesses thinking of implementing a similar scheme should carefully consider how this may disadvantage employees who have no choice but to take time off.

Laura Fleming, HR expert from Croner says: While Royal Mailís scheme has proved successful for them, incentivising attendance should not be approached flippantly. Such a policy needs to be carefully written, and employers, especially those in smaller companies whose HR function may not be as sophisticated, need to make sure any policy is fair to all staff, and should also consider taking professional advice if necessary.

The bottom line is that employees should not miss out on rewards because they chose to exercise their legal rights to time off. We advise employers to think carefully about, and make allowances in the scheme rules for all the legitimate reasons why staff might need to take time off.

Such a scheme should make allowances for absence taken, for example due to reasons relating to a disability. It should address how to account for the number of statutory rights to time off that employees have, such as maternity, adoption, parental and paternity leave; and time off for dependants. Other factors such as jury service and time off for public duties, and the risk of a claim that could be created if a sabbatical is granted on religious grounds where the employee consequently suffers a detriment, should also be considered.

Fleming warns: Failure to implement a policy which considers the needs of all staff could result in the employer facing a claim at Tribunal. With no cap to the damages that could be awarded for discrimination, the financial risk to the business is high.

The fact that full attendance during an employeeís contracted hours is a minimum requirement of any job, an employer may be well advised to consider non-attendance as a disciplinary issue, rather than face the risks of claims through rewarding staff for the basic requirement of turning up.

In general, we advise responsible employers that each case of absence needs to be investigated independently and absence management should not penalise those who have genuine reasons for not coming to work.

Reducing ísickiesí is always going to be a difficult area for companies and Royal Mail may have found a solution that works for them. But our message to employers is not to be hasty in following suit and to consider alternative courses of action, such as rewarding performance instead.