“The government’s new fit note strategy will “inevitably” lead to disputes between employers and staff about what constitutes suitable work following a period of sickness absence, HR chiefs have warned” Personnel Today

I have been interested in the recent debate regarding the new “fit note” strategy. This is the new scheme that from April will require Doctors to consider if a person is not fully fit for all their duties, but may be fit to return to work in limited or restricted duties, or on a phased return basis.

My interest is sparked primarily because this is the way that many organisations in the public sector, including my own previous employer have been operating for some years now. My own experience was that a system that should in principle bring people back to work sooner, encouraging the long term absent to re-engage with the work place and focus on what they could do, rather than on what they couldn’t, was never as successful as it should have been.

It required high levels of intervention by managers and senior managers, the relentless efforts of a pro active Occupational Health Adviser and critically the involvement, good advice and willingness to engage by GP’s.

The GP advice was the first major stumbling block to the success of the system, despite always approaching GP’s for advice through our very capable Occupational Health Nurse (one medical professional to another) this was very frequently a futile effort. GP’s would only ever come back with vague comments that helped the Occupational Health Nurse and the managers get no further forward than how to bring their employee back to work.

The new scheme does not require GP’s to go into any detail of what is suitable work. So HR practitioners and managers are back to a degree of reliance on the person’s perception of what they can do.

Is this a naïve belief by the designers of the scheme that all the participants will work together in a joined up way? Is there no recognition of the increasingly litigious environment that we live in? When some times a return to work does not work out, it being too soon, or symptoms return or (even worse) exacerbated by the return, no one wants to be the one who determined what “suitable work” might be for fear of legal action against them.

The second major issue for us was that there was only limited alternative work that could be offered. The type of work environment meant that the physical design and operating practice meant that too many people on alternative duties actually hindered the delivery of the operation. This often led to increased feelings of ill will amongst the remainder of the staff, when a person’s recovery appeared to them to go on and on, they openly voiced their concerns that the recovering person was being paid the same for doing significantly less. Will we see a change in GP’s behaviour? Instead of keep signing a person off, signing them fit for some work over and over. Just giving a little more time and then a little more time to recover, without any of the pain of what is happening in the workplace.

I predict this new scheme will make it harder to encourage some people to return fully to work, a new class of “worried well” at work, and some interestingly complex claims in the coming years.

Jane Pound MCIPD

The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views of the CIPD.