# The Bradford Factor



## Grandma Death (Feb 17, 2009)

I've got a meeting next week with the head of our HR to discuss the Bradford Factor sickness management tool.

Does anyone have:

Personal experience of it.

Links to the downsides of it (if any)...


Thanks in advance.


----------



## Zeppo (Feb 17, 2009)

Bradford factor is bad news for employees. Used a lot by organisations as they say it can pick up trends in sick absences. I think 
it works like this - number of sick days x their frequency = total. So if you have been ill 3 days on 3 occassions - total is 9. If your sick absence trigger is 9 before they take action then u could be in trouble.

It is quite tough if you have a frequent illness or take days off for period pains. Bradford factor is popular to use but note the above. Make sure they do not try to put it in retrospectively.


----------



## mentalchik (Feb 18, 2009)

Zeppo said:


> Bradford factor is bad news for employees. Used a lot by organisations as they say it can pick up trends in sick absences. I think
> it works like this - number of sick days x their frequency = total. So if you have been ill 3 days on 3 occassions - total is 9. If your sick absence trigger is 9 before they take action then u could be in trouble.
> 
> It is quite tough if you have a frequent illness or take days off for period pains. Bradford factor is popular to use but note the above. Make sure they do not try to put it in retrospectively.



We have it where i work and it doesn't work exactly like this ^......every time of sick is counted as 1  - so 3 days on 3 occasions would be 3 in total. If we have more than 5 occasions in 1 year we have to come in for a meeting and get sent for a check up......it also records how far apart the sick times are, iyswim !


----------



## mk12 (Feb 18, 2009)

It punishes people who take the odd day off here and there basically. So if you're ill, take the whole week off


----------



## High Voltage (Feb 18, 2009)

We're about to have the Bradford system brought in where I work.

Cut 'n' Pastey . . . 

The Bradford factor calculation is as follows:

S x S x D = Bradford points score

Where: S is the number of occasions of absence in the last 52 weeks and D is the total number of days’ absence in the last 52 weeks.

So, for employees with a total of 14 days’ absence, for example, in one rolling 52-week period, the Bradford score can vary enormously, depending on the number of occasions involved.

So, for example:

one absence of 14 days is 14 points (ie 1 x 1 x 14)
seven absences of two days each is 686 points (ie 7 x 7 x 14)
14 absences of one day each is 2,744 points (ie 14 x 14 x 14)
Although a rolling year is common, other timescales such as 13 weeks may be used, with the associated points total correspondingly lower.

From the firms PoV it can be used to trigger various actions.

eg

We're (yes, boo hiss) I am a manager 

Looking at several point targets.

Lowest one will trigger a "How you doing" chat, along with a back to work interview

Next level could mean a "HOW ARE YOU DOING!!" chat 

Next level could result in the suspension of the Company sick scheme

Next level could result in a disciplinary

Next level could result in dismissal

There is still a level of discretion for managers though

I know that it has been brought in at other factories in the group and it has greatly reduced the "can't be bothered to go in cause I had a heavy night last night so fuck it" days off.

And is fairly popular with the shop floor as it discourages people from taking the piss and putting there work on to the others who come in.


----------



## Kanda (Feb 18, 2009)

If you're genuinely sick, not just taking odd days here and there, what's the downside?


----------



## Looby (Feb 18, 2009)

Kanda said:


> If you're genuinely sick, not just taking odd days here and there, what's the downside?



As long as there is discretion for people who suffer from things like severe migraines as they're more likely to take an odd day off here and there rather than long term absences.


----------



## Grandma Death (Feb 18, 2009)

Well from the googling I did last night I have to say overall I'm not happy with it. It would appear that some organisations use it as a monitoring tool but not a process whereby sickness triggers result in punitive action.

Other organisations use it as a starting point to monitor and discipline people on the sick.

I accept that in all organisations there will be lead swingers but it would appear the Bradford factor is using a rather large hammer to crack a small nut.


----------



## High Voltage (Nov 23, 2013)

Hmm!! and 4 short years later - I'm representing an employee who has managed to get themselves up to an awful lot of points - has had a final written warning overturned due to a successful appeal but had another sickness (.5 day) which has put them back into final written warning land again

cesare - Umm! help

They're going to appeal - the manager in question has NOT, in my opinion used any discretion at all - from the last incident to now they have showed a demonstrable improvement in their time keeping - the last time they were of they actually came into work, threw up in their car, went to see HR who were of no fucking help at all, following the "it is up to you to decide if you are fit enough to work"

The person in question has had a real turn around in their attitude to time keeping and sickness attendance so their manager has got the desired result and now it just feels like another couple of digs to make up for having a successful appeal - this is wrong - the system has "worked" - get on back to work

They have committed to not going sick until early Jan when (short of a broken leg) they have committed to changing their lifestyle to remove "some" hazardous hobbies / interests

The first 3 instances of sickness there was No Bradford points total given and they were only made aware of their total 100+

All in all, I think that any half decent employment type lawyer would drive a coach and horses through the companies case if it went to tribunal - but they don't want to leave they love their job


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Nov 23, 2013)

sparklefish said:


> As long as there is discretion for people who suffer from things like severe migraines as they're more likely to take an odd day off here and there rather than long term absences.



^ that.

It's based on the assumption that any (alleged) sickness that only lasts one day is likely to be skiving rather than genuine.

It's also questionable from a disability discrimination perspective in that it punishes people with long term health condition, which is (in equalities law) a 'disability'


----------



## equationgirl (Nov 23, 2013)

It is not a tool for chronic long-term illness absence management, although HR will often use it as one. Anyone suffering from a long-term condition such as diabetes, chronic kidney disease, MS, basically any condition covered by the Equality Act 2010 should not be penalised by the Bradford Factor. Such disability-related absences should be counted separately to non-disability-related absences.

For example, I suffer from chronic kidney disease and sometimes need a day or two off. When I fill out the sickness form on my return I clearly state 'this absence is related to my disability'. But if I have flu or an upset stomach I state 'this absence is not related to my disability'. Such disregarding of disability-related absence is a reasonable adjustment an employer can make, and is recommended best practice. Not making this adjustment could prove difficult for an employer later on down the line.


----------



## oryx (Nov 23, 2013)

Kanda said:


> If you're genuinely sick, not just taking odd days here and there, what's the downside?


 
Why would you not be genuinely sick if only taking odd days off?

E.g. you can take two days off with a heavy cold, stomach upset, severe period pains, migraine - all sorts of things.

I worked somewhere where I believe this system was used and it was shite. I probably had six days or so a year off sick for not wanting to go in when feeling rotten, or to spread sickness. They were very hot on back to work interviews and telling you how your numbers of days off were racking up etc. I never got threatened with disciplinary, trip to work-appointed 'medical advisor' etc. but if it had got to that stage union involvement and probably a grievance would have been in order.......


----------



## equationgirl (Nov 23, 2013)

If anything, the Bradford Factor encourages 'presentism' where people who should be at home getting better come into work, spreading whatever they have amongst their colleagues causing more absences.


----------



## equationgirl (Nov 23, 2013)

At one point, my BF score was in the 000s - then they took out my disability-related absences


----------



## cesare (Nov 24, 2013)

High Voltage said:


> Hmm!! and 4 short years later - I'm representing an employee who has managed to get themselves up to an awful lot of points - has had a final written warning overturned due to a successful appeal but had another sickness (.5 day) which has put them back into final written warning land again
> 
> cesare - Umm! help
> 
> ...


It looks as though you've identified the main issues/grounds to represent them ie (1) the disciplinary being used for punitive purposes rather than an aid to improvement - and the purpose of disciplinary procedures might be stated in their policy too, which would help; (2) that the Bradford method is being used bluntly as a substitute for management rather than an aid/tool; (3) that there's a clear pattern of steady and consistent improvement over time; and (4) that there's a possibility of tit for tat because the last appeal succeeded, a seeming retaliation on the part of the manager and determination to "win". 

Having all the facts available before the hearing will help eg the employee's absence record so you can point to trend of improvement. It might also help to try and ascertain other previous decisions so that you can point to precedents and any lack of consistency.

You don't mention a union, is the employee in one and are you their union rep? You also don't mention disability, possibly this isn't a factor (I know you mentioned lifestyle factors) but if you haven't already done so you need to find out if there's any underlying chronic medical condition. And also check if there are any other mitigating circumstances that might be worth mentioning. Good luck!


----------



## High Voltage (Nov 24, 2013)

cesare said:


> It looks as though you've identified the main issues/grounds to represent them ie (1) the disciplinary being used for punitive purposes rather than an aid to improvement - and the purpose of disciplinary procedures might be stated in their policy too, which would help; (2) that the Bradford method is being used bluntly as a substitute for management rather than an aid/tool; (3) that there's a clear pattern of steady and consistent improvement over time; and (4) that there's a possibility of tit for tat because the last appeal succeeded, a seeming retaliation on the part of the manager and determination to "win".
> 
> Having all the facts available before the hearing will help eg the employee's absence record so you can point to trend of improvement. It might also help to try and ascertain other previous decisions so that you can point to precedents and any lack of consistency.
> 
> You don't mention a union, is the employee in one and are you their union rep? You also don't mention disability, possibly this isn't a factor (I know you mentioned lifestyle factors) but if you haven't already done so you need to find out if there's any underlying chronic medical condition. And also check if there are any other mitigating circumstances that might be worth mentioning. Good luck!



I am in a union the employee isn't - I'm not a union rep at this firm - unfortunately unions are "not recognised" at our site but other sites do have unions and they are recognised (I think) - I have been a shop steward previously a long time ago though, (I'm actually one of the "blue meanie" managers that everyone Boo's and Hisses at) - they've already been successfully represented by another member of the management team, they were unable to attend this latest farce so I was asked if I minded and for consistency I've also agreed to be present at the appeal

The last 2 (maybe 3) instances of illness appear to be traceable to an undiagnosed medical condition - this has since been diagnosed and is now being treated (we assume successfully) - *so how is this useful?*

 - a sizeable amount of time off (5-7 days in one chunk - it's unclear which as the back to work interview indicates 7 but the the total number of days off totals only 10 - so some of this time off has been allowed as holiday - again, really shitty procedure) - this was down to a medical procedure where the employee offered to take all of the time off as holiday but was told (verbally) by their manager to take it as sick - there were complications during the procedure so there was additional time off


----------



## equationgirl (Nov 24, 2013)

High Voltage if the medical condition is likely to continue for 12 months or more then it may fall under the Equality Act 2010 provisions and be classed as a 'disability'.


----------



## equationgirl (Nov 24, 2013)

And that could be helpful to them in that any absence due to the disability should not be counted for the purposes of Bradford Factor calculations.


----------



## High Voltage (Nov 24, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> High Voltage if the medical condition is likely to for 12 months or more then it may fall under the Equality Act 2010 provisions and be classes as a 'disability'.



Nah! - happened twice - went to doc - got treated - now on meds to control it - hopefully it's either gone away or is now manageable - final instance "looked like" existing condition but could just as easily have been a bug that really was going around at the time


----------



## equationgirl (Nov 24, 2013)

High Voltage said:


> Nah! - happened twice - went to doc - got treated - now on meds to control it - hopefully it's either gone away or is now manageable - final instance "looked like" existing condition but could just as easily have been a bug that really was going around at the time


But if they're on long-term medication to control it, it might fall under the Equality Act.


----------



## cesare (Nov 24, 2013)

High Voltage said:


> Nah! - happened twice - went to doc - got treated - now on meds to control it - hopefully it's either gone away or is now manageable - final instance "looked like" existing condition but could just as easily have been a bug that really was going around at the time


How useful (in this context) this is depends on the medical condition. You're right that successful management of a condition can result in one of the factors (substantial adverse effect on ability to carry out day to day activities) being negated to a large extent; but there are some conditions that are protected from the point of diagnosis and aren't reliant on the "substantial effect" factor to qualify under the EA - and the main examples of these are MS, cancer and HIV. However, assuming the condition isn't one of those protected from point of diagnosis, it's worth providing a medical diagnosis if there is one together with an explanation that although the condition is being managed it took a while to diagnose and treat which had an adverse impact on the absence record until then and condition-linked absences should be disregarded for disciplinary purposes.


----------



## Pingu (Nov 26, 2013)

IME US companies usually solve the "days off cos cant be arsed going in" thing by not paying sick days.


----------



## lolo (Nov 27, 2013)

in my experience the Bradford score is f-ing gash, it's used as a way to bully people. They don't even take into account a self certificated period or a GP certificate - for example why should i have the same score as someone who self certified as sick when we had the same number of sick days but mine were all the GP saying do not go to work - unfair, it's gash full stop. Yet another confusing and difficult bit of bureacracy in the public sector


----------



## StoneRoad (Nov 28, 2013)

In my experience, a lot of the use of this "Bradford Factor" is as a management tool to bully staff.

It makes the worst possible interpretation of single days off - such as migraines, recovering from IBS attacks, or period pains - and encouraging people to force themselves into work with colds etc thus spreading germs to others.


----------



## equationgirl (Nov 28, 2013)

lolo said:


> in my experience the Bradford score is f-ing gash, it's used as a way to bully people. They don't even take into account a self certificated period or a GP certificate - for example why should i have the same score as someone who self certified as sick when we had the same number of sick days but mine were all the GP saying do not go to work - unfair, it's gash full stop. Yet another confusing and difficult bit of bureacracy in the public sector


Most organisations these days insist on some form of self-certification for any absences lasting less than 7 days. A GP will generally not issue a certificate for less than 7 days in any case. 

It is used as an intimidation tool. I've been threatened with disciplinary action myself. Luckily for me, I improved sufficiently.


----------



## equationgirl (Nov 28, 2013)

StoneRoad said:


> In my experience, a lot of the use of this "Bradford Factor" is as a management tool to bully staff.
> 
> It makes the worst possible interpretation of single days off - such as migraines, recovering from IBS attacks, or period pains - and encouraging people to force themselves into work with colds etc thus spreading germs to others.


Aye, the team next to me are suffering with some kind of virus and they've all struggled in with it.

Thanks guys.


----------

