Managing Employee Unplanned Absence

Audited Entities

• Public Service Commission
• Department of Justice and Attorney-General
• Department of Education and Training
• Department of Public Works
• Department of Community Safety

Audit Scope and Objectives

• To determine how effectively Queensland Public Service agencies manage unplanned absence of employees.

Audit Criteria

• Appropriate priority has been given to unplanned absence management.
• Unplanned absence data was being analysed to identify patterns and hotspots and inform management decisions.
• Appropriate benchmarks had been established and targets set.
• Policy, guidance and support was provided by central agencies to enable line agencies to effectively manage unplanned absence.

Main Audit Findings

• The annual direct costs of unplanned absence in the Queensland Public Service have risen by 55 per cent, from $328 million in 2006-07 to $509 million in 2010-11. With estimates of indirect costs, such as lost productivity, running at up to three times direct costs, unplanned absence could be costing closer to $2 billion annually.
• During the same period, the annual rate of unplanned absence per employee in the public service has increased by 9 per cent, from an average of 8.28 days to 9.02 days. It had been steadily falling before then, from 8.81 days in 2003-04.
• The Public Service Commission publishes the State of the Service report every two years, with the inaugural report tabled in November 2010. There is no narrative of impacts or analysis explaining the decreasing trend in unplanned absence between 2003-04 and 2006-07, or the increasing trend from 2006-07 to 2010-11.
• The Public Service Commission has not set sector-wide benchmarks for unplanned absence levels.
• Departments generally do not undertake appropriate analysis of their available unplanned absence data, to identify ‘hotspots’ where unplanned absence rates are demonstrably higher. They are also not determining the reasons behind those ‘hotspots’ – for example, whether they are staff with ongoing health issues, disengagement within the workforce, or due to a broader ‘entitlement culture’.
• While the overall unplanned absence rate remains within award conditions, the significant escalation of cost and the persistent upward trends create a strong imperative to reduce the rates of unplanned absence and therefore reduce costs. Most departments are not actively addressing this imperative. They are not analysing absence patterns to identify whether and where to target management intervention. Consequently, few departments manage unplanned absence effectively or can demonstrate a decrease in their unplanned absence rates.

Audit Recommendations

• It is recommended the Public Service Commission include in its publicly available reports:
  • the absenteeism rates and trends for all departments.
  • the annual direct and estimated indirect costs of absenteeism in the Queensland Public Service.
  • appropriate comparative benchmarks of the Queensland Public Service absenteeism rates with other jurisdictions and sectors.
• It is recommended that all departments:
  • analyse their unplanned absence data to identify patterns and ‘hotspots’ that require management intervention.
  • determine the criteria that will trigger management intervention, and how this will be monitored and reported.
• It is recommended that all departments:
  • identify relevant benchmarks and establish targets for acceptable levels of unplanned absence.
  • implement appropriate strategies and practical management tools for improving attendance and achieving acceptable levels of unplanned absence.

• PreviousManagement of Unplanned Leave in Emergency Services
• NextSick Leave