Chapter 4.2 of the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:
The Management of Sick Leave in Prisons
Background
In my Report on the Appropriation Accounts for 2001 I drew attention to the high level of overtime payments in the Irish Prison Service (€55.4m in 2001). The Prison Service estimates that the cost of replacing officers on sick leave amounts to about 15% of total overtime payments per annum.
The sick leave rules governing Prison Officers are similar to those applying in the civil service generally. As with most occupations, there is an entitlement to a limited amount of uncertified sick leave. Civil service sick leave rules set this at a maximum of seven days in any twelve-month period. Sick leave in excess of this requires the officer to submit a medical certificate to the prison authorities on an ongoing basis while on such leave and on returning to work. Full pay is allowed to a prison officer (as it is to civil servants) up to a maximum of six months in any one-year period and half-pay thereafter, subject to a maximum of twelve months sick leave in any period of four years or less. On reaching this limit, the staff member may be taken off payroll and awarded unpaid sick leave17.
The Accounting Officer in responding to this report stressed that despite the levels of sick leave and the associated costs, the Prison Service cannot unilaterally introduce measures that are inconsistent with the terms of the Circulars applicable to all civil servants. He also noted that Prison Officers, notwithstanding the high level of absenteeism in the service, maintain they are being treated more harshly than other civil servants. In addition to raising this issue through the normal industrial relations mechanisms, the Prison Officers Association (POA) had sponsored a High Court challenge to management's right to withdraw the privilege of paid sick leave in a particular case. The Department successfully defended this claim and subsequently intensified its efforts to improve the situation as set out later in this report.
The prison authorities roster operational staff to provide continuous 24-hour cover at all prison locations. Any gaps in the provision of operational cover which arise from officers on sick leave must be covered by calling in officers who are not scheduled to work during the period in question. This results in additional payments at overtime rates to the officers deployed to cover the gaps.
In a report to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform in February 2001, the Prison Service Staffing and Operations Review Team (SORT) identified, inter alia, the management of sick leave as of considerable importance because of the substantial cost of replacing officers on sick leave. The team recommended that Prison Governors should have authority to support individual members of staff and, where warranted, to impose appropriate sanctions. It also recommended that managers should have the skills necessary to make a determination as to any likely root cause of absenteeism and that details should be recorded and placed on file.
The Accounting Officer in commenting generally on the SORT recommendations noted that some were vague and could not be implemented without legislative changes. For example, Prison Governors do not have the power to dismiss civil servants. He also said that many of the recommendations are presently the subject of intensive negotiations with the POA, and that while it would be inappropriate for him to preempt the outcome of such negotiations by responding in depth to some of the issues raised in this report, he was nonetheless hopeful that many of the principles underlying the SORT recommendations would be implemented in the near future.
Audit Objectives and Scope
The principal objective of my examination was to set out the extent and cost of sick leave in prisons and to determine the authorities' responses to the issue.
Prison Service records relating to the management and control of sick leave were examined. Audit visits were made to the Prison Service Headquarters in order to gain an understanding of the systems and procedures in place to manage sick leave. The National Audit Office in Great Britain (NAO) and the Audit Office of New South Wales (Australia) have produced recent reports on managing sick leave absences in prisons in their respective jurisdictions, and these were reviewed in the course of the examination.
Audit Findings
The staff complement of the Prison Service, working from sixteen prison establishments, at the end of each of the years 2002, 2001 and 2000 was 3,318, 3,235 and 3,200 respectively. These figures exclude those working in administration, management, a dedicated stores unit and a staff Training Centre.
The Incidence of Sick Leave
According to the database maintained by the Prison Service, the total sick leave taken over three years 2000-2002 was 178,679 days. Absences of not more than five days duration accounted for 30% of these, absences of between five and fifty days made up 34% and the balance 36% comprised absences of fifty days or longer.
Sick Leave over Time
Table 4.2 sets out the available statistics for 1997 to 2002. It should be noted that, in the same period, prison officer numbers increased from 2,495 at the end of 1997 to 3,318 at the end of 2002.
Table 4.2 Sick Leave taken in the Period 1997-2002
Year
|
Total Days
|
Days per Staff Member
|
Certified
|
Uncertified
|
1997
|
42,875
|
17.2
|
n.a
|
n.a
|
1998
|
42,104
|
15.4
|
n.a
|
n.a
|
1999
|
46,221
|
15.0
|
n.a
|
n.a
|
2000
|
56,952
|
17.1
|
86%
|
14%
|
2001
|
61,183
|
19.1
|
85%
|
15%
|
2002
|
60,544
|
19.0
|
83%
|
17%
|
Comparisons With Other Employments
In order to put prison officer sick leave in context, my examination included a request for annualised statistical information in respect of the entire Civil Service. The latest full year statistics available was for the period 1 July 1996 to 30 June 1997. From the data collated, 213,429 days were taken in that year by 22,869 civil servants, giving an average 9.3 days per person. An analysis of certified and uncertified leave was not available. The civil service statistic of 9.3 days is computed on the basis of total numbers serving. The comparable figures for prison officers were 17.8, 18.9 and 18.0 for each of the three years 2000, 2001 and 2002. The closeness of these averages to the averages per prison officer shown in Table 4.2 reflects the very high number of prison officers who avail of sick leave. The available statistics for Primary Teachers show that persons in this occupation take approximately nine days per teacher employed, or fourteen days per teacher who takes sick leave.
In the case of Secondary Teachers (including Community and Comprehensive), the equivalent number of sick days per teacher employed stands at an average of just over eight days. Due to the way in which the Department of Education and Science maintains records for this category of teachers, it is not practicable to determine the average days taken only by teachers on sick leave.
In its report, the NAO reported that, taking into account the level of underrecording of sickness absence, the average number of working days lost to sickness absences by prison officers in the UK Prison Service was between 14.6 and 16.7 days per officer in 1997-8. It also found that prison officers took more days than police officers nationally.
In the same report, the NAO showed manual workers generally in Britain to take just under ten days sick leave per annum. The UK average for all workers was just over eight days per annum. Non-manual staff lost about seven days per year due to sickness. It is important to bear in mind, when making comparisons between prison officer sick leave statistics, and those for other employments that much prison officer employment is based on rosters, which include twelve hour shift work. In broad terms, such comparisons should be reasonably valid. However, the Prison Service states that shift work gives entitlement to three or four off duty days over alternate weeks. In the civil service, and other comparable employments, off duty days may be generally considered to be Saturday and Sunday. The Accounting Officer is of the view that cross comparisons with other public service employments is inadvisable in view of the rostered nature of much prison employment.
Sick Leave by Prison
Certain prisons show a markedly higher incidence of sick leave taken per prison officer employed than others, as displayed in Table 4.3.
Table 4.3 Analysis of Average Days Sick Leave 2000-2001 by Prison
|
2000
|
2001
|
2002
|
Prison
|
Days
|
Average Days per Officer
|
Days
|
Average Days per Officer
|
Days
|
Average Days per Officer
|
Arbour Hill
|
1,681
|
14
|
1,468
|
13
|
1,330
|
12
|
Castlerea
|
2,715
|
19
|
3,075
|
23
|
2,748
|
19
|
Cloverhill
|
3,404
|
12
|
4,602
|
14
|
4,910
|
13
|
Cork
|
8,172
|
37
|
9,053
|
40
|
7,836
|
34
|
Curragh
|
1,199
|
18
|
1,350
|
19
|
1,750
|
25
|
Fort Mitchell
|
1,868
|
21
|
1,102
|
12
|
1,210
|
12
|
Limerick
|
6,268
|
32
|
5,783
|
31
|
5,162
|
25
|
Loughan House
|
1,048
|
27
|
597
|
14
|
345
|
9
|
Midlands
|
223
|
3
|
4,578
|
16
|
5,944
|
17
|
Mountjoy
|
11,657
|
16
|
10,457
|
16
|
10,543
|
18
|
Port Laoise
|
8,261
|
22
|
7,445
|
23
|
8,071
|
24
|
Saint Patrick's
|
3,458
|
18
|
3,273
|
18
|
2,676
|
14
|
Shanganagh
|
772
|
20
|
624
|
17
|
465
|
11
|
Shelton Abbey
|
454
|
14
|
595
|
18
|
489
|
16
|
Training Unit
|
907
|
11
|
1,235
|
16
|
830
|
13
|
Wheatfield
|
4,854
|
15
|
5,906
|
20
|
6,222
|
19
|
Total
|
56,941
|
19
|
61,143
|
20
|
60,531
|
19
|
Table 4.3 allows comparisons of prisons on the basis of total days lost or average days taken in sick leave. However, since sick absences are measured from first day of absence to date of return to work, in the case of a member of prison staff working on a rostered basis, a two week absence on sick leave would include seven days on which the officer was not due to attend, and seven days on which the officer was rostered to attend. In such a case replacement on overtime only arises when the officer on sick leave was due to attend.
It is clear from the analysis that Cork Prison's average number of days taken per officer is consistently about double the overall average of prisons. Limerick Prison's average is one and a half times the overall average. While not significantly above, Portlaoise Prison remains consistently over the average with 23 or 24 days per officer.
Some prisons showed quite low levels of sick leave, compared to the average for the service as a whole. Excluding the Midlands Prison, which is a new institution, Arbour Hill stands out as being significantly below the average. This raises the question as to whether there are specific institutional or management factors at work in this prison which contribute to the relatively low rate of sick leave. If so there may be useful lessons to be learned by the Prisons Service from studying any such factors with a view to bringing about a climate in other prisons conducive to lower levels of sick leave.
Further analysis of the available statistics shows that, in a number of prisons, a large number of days are taken by a relatively small number of officers. For example, Cork Prison had the highest number of individual officers (sixteen) with a continuous period of sick absence in excess of one hundred and eighty three days. Limerick Prison had thirteen such officers. Seventy-five officers, throughout the Prison Service, who had been continuously absent on sick leave for hundred and eighty three or more days accounted for 27,600 of the total days (179,000) lost in the three-year period.
Table 4.4 gives an analysis of the data, which shows that a relatively small number of officers in Cork and Limerick, but also in some other prisons, who commenced sick leave in the period examined, contributed disproportionately to the total recorded for those prisons, when viewed over the three years.
Table 4.4 Prison Officer Sick Leave in excess of 183 days during 2000-2002
Prison
|
No. of Officers taking over 183 days in the period
|
Total Sick Leave Involved
|
Total Sick Leave by Prison
|
As a % of Prison Total
|
|
|
|
|
%
|
Cork
|
41
|
13,679
|
25,061
|
55
|
Limerick
|
22
|
8,208
|
17,213
|
48
|
Loughan House
|
2
|
752
|
1,990
|
38
|
Curragh
|
5
|
1,540
|
4,299
|
36
|
Castlerea
|
10
|
2,997
|
8,538
|
35
|
Training Unit
|
4
|
1,000
|
2,973
|
34
|
Portlaoise
|
22
|
7,624
|
23,777
|
32
|
Fort Mitchell
|
3
|
1,231
|
4,180
|
29
|
Cloverhill
|
13
|
3,584
|
12,916
|
28
|
St. Patricks
|
7
|
2,350
|
9,407
|
25
|
Mountjoy
|
21
|
7,332
|
32,657
|
22
|
Shanganagh
|
1
|
306
|
1,861
|
16
|
Arbour Hill
|
3
|
613
|
4,479
|
14
|
Shelton Abbey
|
1
|
209
|
1,538
|
14
|
Wheatfield
|
7
|
2,160
|
16,982
|
13
|
Totals
|
162
|
53,585
|
167,870
|
|
In commenting on these findings, the Accounting Officer noted that a small number of officers in Cork, Limerick and Portlaoise prisons have made a disproportionate contribution to the total sick leave recorded for the institutions concerned for the period in question. There are specific reasons why a small number of officers in each of the three institutions might be absent on sick leave for a prolonged period of time.
In Limerick, he stated that officers' homes were attacked and their families intimidated by criminal elements leading to some officers being absent from duty for prolonged periods because of the stress and trauma associated with such attacks. There was also an incident in Limerick Prison which gave rise to very substantial levels of sick leave during the period covered by this Report. This subsequently resulted in some officers retiring on ill-health grounds.
As regards Portlaoise the Accounting Officer stated that a high security prison presents particular problems and risks for the officers employed there. Furthermore, the age profile of prison officers in this prison (and Cork) is considered to be a factor in the level of sick leave in both institutions.
The Accounting Officer pointed to encouraging signs that the Prison Service's efforts to control sick leave more effectively may be paying off. In the first five months of 2003, there has been a 20% reduction in total sick leave in Limerick, Cork and Portlaoise prisons when compared with the same period in 2002.
In relation to the relatively low levels of sick leave pertaining to Arbour Hill Prison, the Accounting Officer said that the main reason for the lower levels of sick leave in this prison is the type of prisoner housed there. There are approximately one hundred and forty prisoners in Arbour Hill, one hundred sex offenders and the remainder "ordinary" criminals who have been convicted of crimes other than sex offences. Sex offenders are generally less problematic and easier to manage. The majority of prisoners in Arbour Hill are older and more mature, serving longer sentences and, therefore, there is a more relaxed regime operating there. The incidence of assaults by prisoners on staff is extremely low. There were no injury-on-duty related absences recorded for Arbour Hill in 2001 and 2002. This contrasts with Cork and Portlaoise prisons combined, which had seventy-five injury-on-duty absences in the same two-year period. The Accounting Officer accepts that specific institutional factors may contribute to lower rates of sick leave but he is not convinced that it is possible to replicate such factors throughout all sixteen institutions.
When considering institutional factors acting on levels of sick leave, the SORT team had noted that the system employed to record sick leave was deficient in that, in the case of any one institution, it did not exclude sick leave of staff which had accrued in another institution, from which the staff member had been transferred. The SORT team considered that this made it difficult to accurately determine the record of individual institutions, which is of particular relevance in examining environmental or cultural factors leading to the taking of sick leave. The team recommended that this system be reviewed. However, the Prison Service states that the SORT Examinations were carried out between 1998 and 2000 and practices in this area may have changed since then.
As part of their general review of sick leave, the Prison Service has noted certain demographic patterns emerging. For example, older prison officers show much higher levels of sick leave than their younger counterparts. The Prison Service states that newer recruits who are on probation do not avail of as much sick leave as older officers. In addition it believes that older officers appear to make themselves more available for longer overtime and unsociable working assignments.
Medical Factors Giving Rise to Sick Leave
The nature of illnesses giving rise to sick leave is recorded in most cases in the Prison Service sick leave database. However, the examination found that in a considerable number of cases the stated cause was not entered. The Accounting Officer suggests that this may be due to an officer availing of uncertified sick leave simply stating that he was "sick" on the day in question. Local prison management have confirmed this. There was also some variability in the way illnesses could be described and entered. Staff entering the details frequently used different descriptions to describe the same basic complaints.
The Prison Service could not supply a definitive breakdown of the causes of sick leave over the three-year period. Audit analysis, allowing for some uncertainty in the way in which descriptions of illnesses could be entered, showed that the most common causes of sick leave were injuries and respiratory problems. A significant number (78%) of the days lost to sick leave could be readily identified and classified under general headings as shown in Table 4.5. These do not purport to be formal medical descriptions. They are merely used as a convenient method of grouping and illustrating the records on the Prison Service database.
Table 4.5 The Causes of Sick Leave 2000-2002
Sickness Cause
|
%
|
Injury
|
24
|
Respiratory Problems
|
22
|
Musculo-skeletal Disorders
|
18
|
Psychological
|
12
|
Heart and blood Disorders
|
2
|
Other (Dental, Headaches, Fatigue, Pregnancy, Surgical Operations, Hospital Visits etc.)
|
14
|
No Cause Stated
|
8
|
Research into Underlying Factors Giving Rise to Sick Leave in Prison Staff
When reviewing the experience of other jurisdictions in relation to management of sick leave, it was noted that in New South Wales Australia, the authorities had modified rostered activities, duties and shifts which were historically prone to higher levels of sick leave.
To date the Prison Service has not carried out research in this area. However the Accounting Officer informed me that the Prison Service is at present drawing up terms of reference for research to be undertaken in this area. Such research is expected to identify whether certain rostered activities, duties and shifts are prone to higher levels of sick leave and why there is recourse to a greater level of absenteeism on certain days of the week and during certain months of the year. The proposed survey/research will also be expected to examine other issues giving rise to sick leave including.
·The effect of shift work and routine overtime working
·The nature of the working environment
·Injuries sustained on duty.
The Cost of Sick Leave
The prison authorities do not make provision in the roster system to cover periods of absence of staff on sick leave. Where sick leave arises, staff members, who are not on duty, are recalled to the prison to cover for the absence. Overtime is payable in these circumstances.
Prison management have maintained statistics since 2001 that show the impact of sick leave on overtime costs. In 2002 the cost was over €8.6m. This was just under 15% of the overtime bill and slightly over 4% of payroll costs. Table 4.6 shows, by prison, the cost of overtime attributable to sick absences for the years 2000-2002. Overtime costs by prison for 2000 are not available, and a three year comparison is not possible. The table also shows that overtime costs arising from sick leave have been consistent over a number of years.
Table 4.6 The Cost of Sick Leave in Overtime 2000-2002
Prison
|
2000€
|
2001£
|
As % of Overtime
|
2002€
|
As % of Overtime
|
Arbour Hill
|
153,587
|
136,344
|
8.43
|
123,006
|
7.77
|
Castlerea
|
242,364
|
322,449
|
11.85
|
248,349
|
8.48
|
Cloverhill
|
339,236
|
584,108
|
10.44
|
567,749
|
8.98
|
Cork
|
715,350
|
1,025,630
|
30.17
|
889,628
|
25.13
|
Curragh
|
167,324
|
156,237
|
12.66
|
212,753
|
15.34
|
Fort Mitchell
|
153,074
|
164,018
|
13.87
|
157,890
|
14.38
|
Limerick
|
893,048
|
717,003
|
23.95
|
851,267
|
26.59
|
Loughan House
|
30,780
|
39,216
|
6.58
|
36,281
|
6.06
|
Midlands
|
29,270
|
460,617
|
12.31
|
899,318
|
17.39
|
Mountjoy
|
—
|
1,247,046
|
9.83
|
1,437,170
|
11.31
|
Portlaoise
|
1,086,135
|
1,275,746
|
15.29
|
1,471,113
|
17.39
|
St. Patrick’s
|
363,660
|
455,715
|
11.78
|
379,335
|
9.26
|
Shanganagh
|
84,731
|
93,309
|
15.21
|
90,288
|
13.97
|
Shelton Abbey
|
88,151
|
88,151
|
15.33
|
88,635
|
14.59
|
Training Unit
|
93,110
|
131,499
|
16.37
|
122,237
|
13.88
|
Wheatfield
|
740,516
|
830,405
|
16.09
|
1,069,035
|
18.63
|
Total €
|
2,456,303
|
7,727,493
|
|
8,644,054
|
|
Operational Response to Sick Leave
The Prison Service is entitled to compel all serving grades to perform overtime. However, many prison staff see the opportunity to work overtime as highly desirable. There is a high volunteer rate and infrequent use of compulsion.
The officer in charge of the Detail Office of each prison is responsible for finding replacement staff to cover for those on sick leave. To this end, he currently maintains two lists of officers. One shows those volunteering to replace staff on sick leave, and the other shows those who will be compelled to replace such staff if the need arises.
Overtime is allocated on the basis of availability by reference to the volunteer/compel lists. Under this system, an officer who is not available, for whatever reason (including sick leave), to work the required period of overtime is placed at the end of the priority list. This should preclude an officer returning from sick leave being immediately allocated duties involving overtime, as his or her name would be at the bottom of the list. This in turn would seem to discourage officers taking excessive sick leave. However, the SORT report noted that in a number of institutions there was an agreed policy of distributing overtime equally among staff over a specific period of time. This policy included staff who had been absent on sick leave during the period. This approach offered little incentive to have a good attendance record. The Prison Service has indicated that practices vary from institution to institution. Officers returning from sick leave may immediately be offered overtime if other staff are unable or unwilling to perform it. The overall effect of this practice on the rate of sick leave is unknown.
The Accounting Officer in commenting on this stated that volunteer/compel lists will become obselete on the introduction of the proposed annualised hours attendance system. This approach will ensure that deficiencies in the present system are removed.
Control and Management of Sick Leave
General Policy Approach to Control and Management
The last general agreement between the Prison Service (the Department of Justice at the time in question) and the Prison Service staff was made in 1976. This agreement brought the Prison Service rules in regard to casual sick leave into line with the general Civil Service.
The Prison Service drafted an Attendance Policy in November 2001. The purpose of this detailed document is threefold
·To set out a clear and consistent policy in relation to the management of attendance
·To devolve managing that policy to local prison level and
·To ensure that immediate supervisors have a clear and defined role in the management of staff who report to them.
As part of the draft Attendance Policy, the Prison Service proposed that there would be regular contact with staff on sick absence. The contact was to be by telephone, followed by prearranged visits periodically thereafter. The benefits of such a policy were stated to include
·The employee updating the supervisor on his/her medical condition
·The supervisor updating the employee on work events
·Completion of outstanding paperwork
·Identification of the employee's needs in the structured return to work programme.
The Prison Service also proposed return-to-work interviews. These would be conducted with every member of staff on return to work after a period of sickness absence, including a one-day uncertified absence. The officer's immediate supervisor would conduct the interview.
The POA rejected both initiatives and no progress has been made in finalising the draft Attendance Policy. Until all parties agree such a policy, Prison Service management has stated that it is bound by the general sick leave regulations. It cannot introduce any schemes that would not be standard or acceptable practice in the wider civil service.
In the UK, the NAO found that the Prison Service encouraged prison establishments to keep in touch with absent staff to help demonstrate commitment to their welfare and interest in their recovery and return to work. However, the NAO also found that most prisons were inconsistent in the frequency and type of contact made. Furthermore, as few establishments required notes to be taken of such contacts, estimates of the number of contacts made could not easily be validated.
In relation to return-to-work interviews, the NAO found that the Prison Service in the UK planned to introduce them following all absences. Interviews were to be documented for all absences of six days or more.
Performance Management
Targets for the reduction of sick leave are not included in the Strategic or Business Plans for the Prison Service. This contrasts with the situation pertaining in the United Kingdom where NAO reported that the Prison Service there had introduced reductions in average levels of sickness absence as a key performance indicator from 1999. The indicator was to be reflected in targets set for each prison. Prior to this it was left to individual prisons to set such targets. The majority did not do so.
In commenting on this, the Accounting Officer expressed the view that imposing sick leave targets on prisons was unrealistic, as such targets could not possibly take account of events such as injuries on duty and pregnancy related absences. Nevertheless, the Department expects that the SORT exercise will reduce sick leave by up to 50%.
Monitoring and Control Procedures
Sick leave is recorded in all prisons on a computer system available to the Pay Offices of prisons. The system is used to provide monthly reports, through the prison Governor to Prison Service Headquarters. The names of the staff members and the breakdown between certified and uncertified leave are also reported.
Prison Service Headquarters primarily review these monthly reports to stop or reduce pay and annual leave entitlements where sick leave exceeds that permitted under the regulations.
The Accounting Officer informed me that the system is also used to produce printouts of officers who have had more than 60 days sick leave in the previous four years (30 days sick leave for officers who have been recruited since 1998/1999). This figure does not indicate an acceptable level of sick leave. It is simply an administrative filter to focus on the more serious cases. The reports have been used as discussion documents between the Prison Service Human Resource Directorate and the prison Governors on how to tackle those officers whose records indicate absenteeism, which is defined as an excessive amount of sick days coupled with an excessive number of absences. One such meeting with each Governor has taken place between November 2002 and July 2003. There is a choice of sanctions to be imposed, viz:
·Issue a warning of varying severity
·Withdraw privilege of uncertified sick leave for a specified period- usually a year
·Withdraw privilege of paid sick leave, both certified and uncertified, for a specified period- usually a year
·Referral to the Chief Medical Officer
·Recommend retirement on the grounds of ill health
·Recommend dismissal (in the case of a probationer the Minister has power to dismiss. In the case of an established officer only the Government can dismiss).
The system also produces five, six and seven day uncertified sick leave warning reports intended for staff members involved and their local management. However, the computer system does not record the number of warnings produced or issued thus limiting its usefulness for producing management information. Similarly, details of the duties and rosters worked by prison officers are not correlated with their sick leave records. In the circumstances, it is not possible to determine whether sick absences are significantly linked to particular areas or activities of prison work. Neither is it possible to readily determine the responses of individual managers to patterns of casual sick leave in their area without an extensive review of personal files. It was noted in the course of my examination that in one prison a second computerised information system was used to enable prison management to monitor the use of manpower resources and prisoner movements. This database also facilitates detailed monitoring and review of individual, workgroup and prison-wide sick leave. Service wide use of such a database could lead to the identification of problems giving rise to excessive sick leave. The Prison Service has stated that this system has no prison-wide standing and that its usefulness or otherwise has not been established. However, the Accounting Officer has informed me that the Prison Service is presently conducting a major review of its IT systems.
Prison-wide Programmes to Manage Sick Leave
The Prison Service operates two principal programmes to manage sick leave. The first of these, the Employee Assistance Programme (EAP) is the civil service wide support programme designed to assist employees with personal difficulties. The programme provides information and aims to facilitate the voluntary resolution of attendance problems. In the Prison Service, it has been in operation since 1992.
The EAP has 2 full-time Employee Assistance Officers (Welfare Officers) who are supported by 32 parttime Staff Support Officers (SSOs) who perform these tasks in addition to their normal Prison Service duties. The Prison Service conducted a competition earlier this year from which additional Staff Support Officers were recruited.
The Prison Service also operates an Intervention Programme, which comes into effect when all other attempts to manage a prison officer's poor attendance record fails, and the officer faces dismissal proceedings. The Programme is not intended to operate in cases of serious illness, rather for casual sick days taken and less serious certified illnesses. Participation is voluntary but follows a rigorous and clearly defined series of steps. These document the seriousness of the situation and seek to gain the employee's commitment to remedying the problem within an agreed timeframe. The officer's POA representative is associated with the intervention from the outset.
Under the Programme, eight meetings are to be convened between the Governors, the prison officer facing dismissal proceedings and the POA, with the intention of obtaining a resolution to the benefit of the Prison Service and the employee by the end of the eighth meeting. It is understood from the Prison Service that the Programme generally runs the full course of eight meetings.
Disciplinary Procedures
The Prison Service Operating Review Group noted in 1997 "since 1992 a vigorous policy has been pursued with a view to reducing absences." This policy included sanctions on officers who incurred excessive sick leave. The Prison Service could place those officers with more than 60 days in the previous four-year period and 10 days in the current year on sick leave without pay. This sanction was subject to an analysis of the person's record to discount such factors as accidents on duty, operations and non-recurring illnesses. The Group observed, however, that while initially large gains were made as a result of this approach, in 1995 and 1996 this progress has since been reversed. This is evident from the available statistics as shown in Figure 2 below.
Figure 2
65,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
60,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
*
|
55,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
50,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
45,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
40,000
|
*
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
35,000
|
|
*
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
30,000
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1992
|
1993
|
1994
|
1995
|
1996
|
1997
|
1998
|
1999
|
2000
|
2001
|
2002
|
Prison Service records show that, in the period 1998 to 2001, two hundred and ninety four officers were put on sick leave without pay. Eighty-one of these officers serve in Portlaoise prison, fifty-three in Limerick prison with forty-one each in Wheatfield and Mountjoy. The Accounting Officer has stated that in the period 2001/2002 many measures designed to combat persistent absenteeism had to be placed on hold pending the outcome of the High Court proceedings referred to earlier. Following the judgment in this case, staff from the Prison Service headquarters have met the Governors of all sixteen institutions to discuss the issue of absenteeism. These meetings have resulted in 48 prison officers having the privilege of sick leave with pay withdrawn for a period of 12 months. In all cases this sanction has been imposed because of excessive absenteeism that is defined as a high number of sick days combined with a high number of absences. In addition, forty officers had the privilege of uncertified sick leave withdrawn. Furthermore, dismissal procedures are in train in relation to a number of established officers who have a persistently high level of sick absence and in relation to a number of probationers who have poor attendance records.
Retirement on Medical Grounds
Where staff are found to have a consistently poor sick leave record they may be recommended for retirement on health grounds. This is in line with practice pertaining to other civil servants. Neither group may be dismissed from service on medical grounds alone.
The Prison Service sometimes refers its difficult sick leave cases to the Chief Medical Officer (CMO). There is no automatic referral system and each referral is done on a case-by-case basis. Both Prison Governors and Prison Service Headquarters may refer particular cases to the CMO as a preliminary procedure in the process of retirement on health grounds. Only the CMO may recommend that an employee is retired on ill-health grounds.
In reply to this Report, the Accounting Officer stated that, as part of the monitoring and control procedures, files continue to be referred to the CMO for consideration of ill-health retirement of officers who have been absent for prolonged periods. In some of the cases referred, the CMO has advised that the officer concerned is making slow progress but no date for resumption to work can be given. Such cases make a very significant contribution to the total number of sick days in any twelve-month period. Monitoring and control procedures can only have a negligible impact on it.