A coefficient used in Brussels
According to the cabinet of the Minister for the Civil Service of the Brussels-Capital region, Sven Gatz, this index is no longer used insince the end of 2019.”We no longer use the Bradford method in the management of human resources in regional public services and Public Interest Organizations (OIP) Brussels. Indeed, the use of the Bradford factor is strongly questioned by European justice and the data protection authority“, says Amil Djellal, one of the minister’s spokespersons.
“The Belgian data protection authority does not seem to have issued an opinion on this subject yet. Nevertheless, in consultation with our Data Protection Officer and the external medical control body, the Brussels-Capital Region has decided to no longer take into account the results of this factor in its human resources management policy.“
However, this opinion is not respected everywhere since a well-known Brussels public service still uses it today: the STIB.
Its spokesperson, Françoise Ledune, confirms the use of the Bradford factor for around ten years by STIB’s human resources. “This is a criterion that is often used in large companies because it is difficult to monitor the absenteeism of 10,000 workers. It is interested in the recurrence of absences rather than their duration because many short absences disrupt the company more than longer absences. They are unforeseen and it is more complicated to replace the worker at short notice.“
She adds that this is not the only indicator used by the company. “We compare ourselves to the average absence index of companies with more than 1,000 people, we make the difference by profession, etc. which can give an indication of the causes of absenteeism.“
drifts
The unions of the public transport company, for their part, point the finger at the abuses of the use of the Bradford postman and, more broadly, of the STIB Absenteeism Plan.
According to a worker representative on the Committee for Protection and Prevention at Work (CPPT) who prefers to remain anonymous, around a hundred STIB employees were dismissed in 2021 in an abusive and discriminatory manner, solely on the basis of their state of health.
Accusations that Françoise Ledune refutes: “We do not lay off on the basis of the Bradford index. It’s just an indicator that allows you to say: ‘there is a problem’. When a Bradford index is very high, the line manager summons the agent and will try to find out why there are these recurring absences. The latter can sometimes be gray absenteeism, that is to say that the absence will be a consequence of something that may have nothing to do with the state of health of the person, for example example a disagreement with his boss, a difficult family situation, etc. We will try to identify the problem and possibly fix it.“
The CPPT worker representative of STIB offers another version of these interviews. “A STIB employee who reaches three periods of incapacity for work over the last twelve months – a medical certificate of one day or one month counting for one period – is called for an initial absenteeism interview“, he explains.
“During this interview, intrusions into medical secrecy are inevitable, but above all it is pointed out to the worker how much his ‘frequent absenteeism generates a disorganization of work’. The worker is asked to sign a document in which the agent undertakes to make an effort. This signature is then used either to put pressure on the agent to reduce his absenteeism, or to justify a dismissal by claiming that the agent was warned and that he had undertaken to make an effort.“