Bradford Factor

[Marty Voiceofchange]

The Bradford Factor or Bradford Formula is used in human resource management as a means of measuring worker absenteeum. The theory is that short, frequent, and unplanned absences are more disruptive than longer absences. However short-sighted management and unrealistically small trigger scores can lead to staff grievances. The Bradford Factor is calculated as follows:
B= S2 X D
(S2 = S squared)

where:

• B is the Bradford Factor score
• S is the total number of instances of absence during the last 52 weeks
• D is the total number of days absent during the last 52 weeks

For example:

• 1 instance of absence with a duration of 10 days is 10 points (1 x 1 x 10)
• 5 instances of absence each with a duration of 2 days is 250 points (5 x 5 x 10)
• 10 instances of absence each with a duration of 1 day is 1000 points (10 x 10 x 10)

Does anyone know much about this and the legal implications?

How does an employee stand if an employer is using this system to withhold money and possibly use it for disciplinary procedures even though the sick leave was justified?? i.e. not Monday/Friday etc.

Would appreciate some views on this.

 

[yorkshirejames]

Yes - this is a standard tool within HR.

If an employer suspects a worker is wrongly claiming sick time, they should call an investigation. Part of that investigative process will probably be to speak to the GP, get medical records (preferably looked at by an occupational health advisor) and then make a decision.

If this illness is genuine, then you have nothing to worry about.

When you say withholding money, do you mean paying statutory sick pay instead of your full salary? Or do you mean paying nothing at all?

 

[Marty Voiceofchange]

Hi,

Thanks for replying!

I mean paying nothing at all. I'll explain a situation a colleague is in...

The bradfor factor is in place here and there are thresholds for points. Now whenever you go off sick even if its for a justified reason, the points add up on the bradford factor.

My colleague was off sick for 2 days then came back into work for a day and sounded pretty rough. This guy then had to go off sick again because he lost his voice and he trains engineers so he can't exactly train without talking.
Anyways the company is now saying he wont get paid and possibly will get disciplinary action because of the formula the frequency x duration means that due to him coming back for a day and trying to work he is now worse off for it.

This is not a good message to send to staff "come to work and be penalised"

I believe that its victimisation to employ this formula to everyone all the time. It should be used with discretion and only on people who seem to be having too many days off. I think that justified illness should not add to the factor point.

Arn't managers supposed to manage staff? motivate them and make sure they are performing acceptably? Not a formula that penalises you for making an effort?

So I understand its a HR system but what legal right does a company have to use it this way if any?

Would appreciate feedback thanks!

 

[NCA]

The legal side is partly dependent on what the contract of employment says. It is not against the law for an employer to monitor attendance and sickness levels and investigate anomalies.

As an aside its called the Bradford Factor because it was first introduced by the Bradford Bus Company.

 

[Marty Voiceofchange]

Well it might not be against the law to monitor sick but monitoring using a system is different to abusing a system to force people to work when perhaps they shouldn't be.

Its more down to workers rights and not being supressed buy unffair systems. I can't see how this bradford factor is lawful. It might not be against the law but someone must know more about this thing?

 

[yorkshirejames]

NCA - do you mean Bradford City Transport, the company who ran the buses in Bradford until 1974 (question being asked purely out of personal interest).

Marty - they can use the Nellie the Elephant Index to measure sickness and they're not doing anything wrong.

Where they ARE doing something wrong, is not paying this worker at all. Can you PM me the paragraph in your contract/workplace handbook that talks about sick pay please. Also - has your friend been there for less than a year? If so, then don't rock the boat.

 

[NCA]

NCA - do you mean Bradford City Transport, the company who ran the buses in Bradford until 1974 (question being asked purely out of personal interest).

Marty - they can use the Nellie the Elephant Index to measure sickness and they're not doing anything wrong.

Where they ARE doing something wrong, is not paying this worker at all. Can you PM me the paragraph in your contract/workplace handbook that talks about sick pay please. Also - has your friend been there for less than a year? If so, then don't rock the boat.

I am not sure. I just recall reading about it when writing software to calculate the scoring.

 

[Marty Voiceofchange]

James - thanks for the comments. I will PM you soon so you can see what you think. This guy has been with the company about 12 years!

 

[yorkshirejames]

I am not sure. I just recall reading about it when writing software to calculate the scoring.

Not to worry - do let me know if you ever find it again. A google didn't reveal anything (except this thread - amazingly quickly!).

Theres a strong person interest in knowing.

 

[roy strange]

My Mum is having the same trouble, with her firm, the firm she works for allows for 47 days off in the year, my mum has had 177 days so far, but not technically due to this bradford factor it has accumalated up to that because it doubles or something i am not sure how it works neither is my mum.

She has recently been ill off work for 5 weeks, she still isnt right yet, shes having tests at the hospital, the thing is now her firm has told her she can not have anymore time off work at all untill november this year, if she does they will start on the dicplinary road, verbal, written out the door.
the thing is she may have to have some sort of surgery relating to the recent illness, i think its ludicrus when a doctor signs you off work he is stating that you are unfit for work so i am under the impression that if a doctor signs you off work you cant go to work as the firms insurance that covers their employees will not cover them.

surely can they do this, its like the following day mum was home from 4 days in hospital the HR phoned her to interview her to see when she is coming back, even though the doctor had signed her off in total for 5 weeks, and mum had submitted the sick note, and they are very badgering and harrasment like, i think mum should get some legal advice, do anyone think that would help?

 

[yorkshirejames]

My Mum is having the same trouble, with her firm, the firm she works for allows for 47 days off in the year, my mum has had 177 days so far, but not technically due to this bradford factor it has accumalated up to that because it doubles or something i am not sure how it works neither is my mum.

She has recently been ill off work for 5 weeks, she still isnt right yet, shes having tests at the hospital, the thing is now her firm has told her she can not have anymore time off work at all untill november this year, if she does they will start on the dicplinary road, verbal, written out the door.
the thing is she may have to have some sort of surgery relating to the recent illness, i think its ludicrus when a doctor signs you off work he is stating that you are unfit for work so i am under the impression that if a doctor signs you off work you cant go to work as the firms insurance that covers their employees will not cover them.

surely can they do this, its like the following day mum was home from 4 days in hospital the HR phoned her to interview her to see when she is coming back, even though the doctor had signed her off in total for 5 weeks, and mum had submitted the sick note, and they are very badgering and harrasment like, i think mum should get some legal advice, do anyone think that would help?

First of all, you're in the wrong place for help (this forum is typically for business managers to get advice on the 'other side' of issues like this).

In essence, no they cannot do this. It could well be disability discrimination. She could win thousands at tribunal. A good place for you to go to get some help would be the employment forum at http://www.armchairadvice.co.uk - that forum gives advice for workers not managers.

 

[Tony221268]

Its more down to workers rights and not being supressed buy unffair systems. I can't see how this bradford factor is lawful. It might not be against the law but someone must know more about this thing?

It may not be against the law but it is certainly bad practice to use this tool so bluntly.

 

[Employment Law Clinic]

It may not be against the law but it is certainly bad practice to use this tool so bluntly.

Blunty? What is being used bluntly?

Marty (when they posted a couple of years ago) described a scenario that just isn't feasible for this management tool: a monitoring system.

Well it might not be against the law to monitor sick but monitoring using a system is different to abusing a system to force people to work when perhaps they shouldn't be.

The tool doesn't "monitor" anything, it simply indicates when sick leave (that would need to be monitored by a manager) is becoming potentially excessive; nothing more than a trigger-point tool that indicates to managers that they should look at the sick leave more carefully.

That should be a positive management action in anyone's view, as if the sick leave is indeed excessive, the manager should be taking action to see improvements, and that - less sick leave - is of benefit to employees as well as employers! It doesn't force people to work when they shouldn't, but the actions that follow a trigger point should make employees think whether they should be at work when they otherwise might not be.



Karl Limpert

 

[Tony221268]

Blunty? What is being used bluntly?

Marty (when they posted a couple of years ago) described a scenario that just isn't feasible for this management tool: a monitoring system.


Karl Limpert

Using something that was developed as an indicator of disruption as a "tool" is using it bluntly.

 

[Employment Law Clinic]

Using something that was developed as an indicator of disruption as a "tool" is using it bluntly.

Any unplanned absences of staff is a disruption for an employer, but the Bradford Factor is neither an indicator of disruption, nor was designed for that purpose.

The BF simply identifies when short-term absences are becoming frequent - the result of the frequent disruption. Employers will notice disruption the moment they get the phone call (or as is common these days, a text, tweet, or Facebook message), and managing with staff taking too much sick leave is something employers need no tools to recognise the disruption caused.



Karl Limpert

 

[Atilla]

Using something that was developed as an indicator of disruption as a "tool" is using it bluntly.

Nonsense.

Lets's try an alternative.

My gut instict tells me some of the staff are lazy, skiving nohopers, so i'll penalise them. End of. If this impacts on the genuine cases tough, they should go sick in their own time. If they don't like it, well, they know where the door is. My rules and i decide whats fair!!

Now, which do you prefer?

 

[Tony221268]

Nonsense.

Lets's try an alternative.

My gut instict tells me some of the staff are lazy, skiving nohopers, so i'll penalise them. End of. If this impacts on the genuine cases tough, they should go sick in their own time. If they don't like it, well, they know where the door is. My rules and i decide whats fair!!

Now, which do you prefer?

How very enlightened. How about managing people properly?

 

[Employment Law Clinic]

How very enlightened. How about managing people properly?

Which the Bradford Factor is a tool to help with!

Or do you not think Tony that employees that have a lot of sick leave should be identified & supported where necessary - that typically being when they are genuinely ill, not taking the p!$$?



Karl Limpert

 

[Tony221268]

No I don't think that the Bradford Factor (a tool designed to spot disruption in the workplace) should be used for managers to identify individuals in their team who are frequently absent.

What sort of manager requires a simplistic mathematical measure which takes no account of personal circumstance, has origins as a cross corporate analysis measure and designed for an entirely different purpose in order to help them manage individuals showing a tendency towards frequent absenteeism?

Sorry for the rhetoric, but in my humble opinion it would take an incompetent idiot and one who is entirely unfit to manage.

A slightly more enlightened alternative might be someone who has enough brains and contact to either a. understand their staff and why they are being frequently absent or preferably b. someone with the leadership and talent to ensure that staff absenteeism is kept to a minimum in the first place, usually by helping to ensure that the workplace is naturally compelling and interesting to the staff that work there. In the first place, you need more than a single number to understand what is going on; you need all of the details, all of the records and, above all, dialogue.

But that's just my view, you go ahead and use it ;-)

 

[Atilla]

How very enlightened. How about managing people properly?

You really don't understand the issue here do you?

 

[Atilla]

No I don't think that the Bradford Factor (a tool designed to spot disruption in the workplace) should be used for managers to identify individuals in their team who are frequently absent.

What sort of manager requires a simplistic mathematical measure which takes no account of personal circumstance, has origins as a cross corporate analysis measure and designed for an entirely different purpose in order to help them manage individuals showing a tendency towards frequent absenteeism?

Sorry for the rhetoric, but in my humble opinion it would take an incompetent idiot and one who is entirely unfit to manage.

A slightly more enlightened alternative might be someone who has enough brains and contact to either a. understand their staff and why they are being frequently absent or preferably b. someone with the leadership and talent to ensure that staff absenteeism is kept to a minimum in the first place, usually by helping to ensure that the workplace is naturally compelling and interesting to the staff that work there. In the first place, you need more than a single number to understand what is going on; you need all of the details, all of the records and, above all, dialogue.

But that's just my view, you go ahead and use it ;-)

So just how do you propose management are to identify the absentees?

I take it you have heard of the quaint practice of 'clocking in/out'?

Any T&A software worth bothering with has the BF built into it. Management decide the trigger points, and as Karl said, it is just a method of highlighting 'concerns'. These 'concerns' would be aired at any subsequent return to work meeting - from both parties.

Judging from your response it's either based on Academic ideals or misguided leftie dreaming.

 

[obscure]

You seem to have got several things arse about backwards.....

I can't see how this bradford factor is lawful. It might not be against the law but someone must know more about this thing?

If it isn't against the law then by definition it must be lawful.
As said above companies have the right to monitor sickness and absenteeism. This is just a method of flagging up individuals who need management attention. It is then up to the management to handle the issue in a reasonable way that takes into account the facts of the case and to ensure they follow their procedure properly when taking any disciplinary action

I believe that its victimisation to employ this formula to everyone all the time. It should be used with discretion and only on people who seem to be having too many days off.

Again your view of what constitutes victimisation is all wrong. It would be victimisation to do what you suggest and only monitor/track some individuals. By tracking everyone the company is treating everyone equally and not victimising anyone. In addition they are also able to show that an individuals absences are disproportionately high when compared to the workforce as a whole.

I think that justified illness should not add to the factor point.

Of course it should. It is not just people skiving off who need to be managed. An employee who has extensive time off sick due to a genuine illness also has to be managed. The person may be genuinely sick but not getting the proper treatment (bad toothache forces them to take time off but they refuse to attend the dentist because they have a phobia of dentists drills). In this case it is unfair that the company must pay them when they refuse to get treatment. Once the situation is identified by monitoring the company can take action to ensure the employ gets treatment.

My colleague was off sick for 2 days then came back into work for a day and sounded pretty rough. This guy then had to go off sick again because he lost his voice and he trains engineers so he can't exactly train without talking.
Anyways the company is now saying he wont get paid and possibly will get disciplinary action because of the formula the frequency x duration means that due to him coming back for a day and trying to work he is now worse off for it.

This certainly seems unfair. This was clearly a single instance of sickness and he should make this point during the disciplinary. If this were the sole reason reason for the disciplinary action I would consider it unreasonable.

So, is it the sole reason? Is this one instance of sickness (split into two by one day back) the only sick days this individual has taken? Or are there in fact numerous other instances that have not been mentioned here, and this one is just the final one which has triggered the monitoring to flag up this person?

 

[Tony221268]

Judging from your response it's either based on Academic ideals or misguided leftie dreaming.

Atilla - since you have such strong opinions, you are welcome to leave comments on our blog about the Bradford Factor.

 

[Atilla]

Atilla - since you have such strong opinions, you are welcome to leave comments on our blog about the Bradford Factor.

And why would i bother to do that?