The possibility for employers to engage in early discussions with sick employees - without talking about diagnosis or treatment - to see what they can still do, is no longer available. The Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens ) indicates that the company doctor must have given an opinion - even in the case of short-term absenteeism - before the employer and employee can talk any further. The Eigen-Regie-Model, which gave employers the opportunity to deal with the increasing (financial) responsibility regarding sick leave and reintegration, is thus bankrupt. The new Occupational Health and Safety Act actually provides more opportunities for the employee to exert influence. It includes the option for a 2nd opinion and direct (anonymous) access to the company doctor, as well as more participation via the prevention officer and Works Council.
In a utopian world, it would be possible to deploy a company doctor at the moment of reporting sick, who immediately provides the employer with guidance for absenteeism and guarantees the privacy of the employee. FNV would like to see this put into practice as evidenced by the reaction to the pamphlet of VNO-NCW and MKB Nederland by stating that privacy should really be left to medical experts. The AP's interpretation of these laws and regulations, resulting in the policy rules 'The Sick Employee', more than meets the FNV's needs. That reality is more recalcitrant is not only reflected in the fact that AP's vision conflicts with the legislation it is trying to interpret, as the employers substantiate with examples in their pamphlet.
Another and very practical problem is the availability of the company doctor. The policy rules and the recently amended Occupational Health and Safety Act provide for a very prominent role for the company doctor. Besides assessments in case of (short) absence - among other things in connection with assessment (partial) taxability - there are the anonymous consultation hours, second opinion consultations and company visits. It is out of the question that the strongly aging population of company doctors, with hardly any recruitment of new colleagues, can meet this demand.
Back to Home Rule after all? It is understandable that FNV reacts vehemently to the pamphlet. It assumes exemplary employer behavior. Let's face it; in the pre-policy rule era, there were also questionable examples of self-direction by employers. And sometimes you still hear them. Toe-curling "highlight" then is that an employee should request leave of absence from the supervisor instead of calling in sick. With the consequence that that request can also be denied. And don't forget the cowboys among the absence service providers who (allowed) their services to match that. We certainly shouldn't (re)want those practices.
So much for negative comments. There has been in recent years -in addition to the Eigen-Regie-Model industry-, another development. A development that serves the interests of all much more and which the Nivel has also looked into and reported on: Task delegation. There are several variations in task delegation but I will now confine myself to the form I know well and which we call -to stay in model terminology- the DRT model: Dual Direction with Task Delegation. The absence coach as delegate of the company doctor is the external director while the manager directs internally.
The absence coach is authorized by the company doctor to request medical information so that the absence counseling can start without any loss of time. This approach works so well because the permanent absenteeism coach is both highly committed to the client organization and completely confidential to the (sick) employee. In this way the sickness coach as external director - where necessary after consulting the company doctor - quickly gets to the core of what is going on and the employer can - as soon as possible - take internal control. Of course, the (sick) employee by definition has the right to access the company doctor.
The absence coach is trained to put the privacy of the employee first. The company doctor is and remains ultimately responsible and non-compliance with agreements as laid down in the task delegation agreement means end of story. This is also expressed in the communication with the employer. There is a common interest. After all, no one wants a negative image and (internal) reputation damage due to incorrect handling of personal data.
Under the circumstances, task delegation seems to be a solution direction that can make the unworkable workable again. Even if employers were allowed to have the conversation with the employee again as was previously possible, task delegation has much to offer. After all, if treatment is long overdue, it is nice if the absence coach can discuss waitlist mediation as an option. But also, translating limitations into possibilities with a little more background is an easier task.
In short: Compliance meets Performance.
This article can also be found in the Privacy in the Workplace file
