Employers push for tighter controls on absenteeism

During the negotiations on the introduction of a single status for blue and white-collar workers in Luxembourg, much debate arose regarding the impact on absenteeism and the cost to companies. Employer organisations agreed to a single status for workers in the private sector on condition that it would be cost neutral and that measures should be put in place to reduce the level of unjustified sick leave. Companies now appear to be taking action on the latter issue.

Social security contributions reflect level of absenteeism

On 1 January 2009, Luxembourg harmonised the different forms of employment status (LU0809019I). The associated modifications to the labour code include the general application of payment of salary in the event of incapacity for work during a period of 77 days. After this period, the National Sickness Insurance Fund takes over payment from the company. Previously, blue-collar workers were covered by the National Sickness Insurance Fund almost immediately, but they paid higher social security contributions. With harmonisation, former private sector white-collar workers now pay slightly higher contributions, while former blue-collar workers pay slightly less. However, the latter will have to continue paying contributions during a transitional period to finance the new Employers’ Mutual Insurance Scheme. This contribution is determined on the basis of the level of absenteeism in each company.

Combating absenteeism

During the negotiations on the new single employment status, the employer organisations drew the government’s attention on a number of occasions to the need to introduce structural measures to reduce the level of absenteeism. Indeed, this requirement was a key part of the employers’ demand that the change to a single worker status should be cost neutral (LU0702069I). According to the employers, the proposals that were made regarding unjustified sick leave were largely inadequate. Business Federation Luxembourg (Fédération des industriels luxembourgeois, FEDIL) in particular emphasised the importance of more effective administrative and medical checks on workers who report sick. FEDIL also highlighted the importance of introducing a suitable means of penalising abuses.

However, in relation to these recommendations, checking up on absenteeism is probably the element on which least progress has been made since the introduction of the single employment status. The special case of the large numbers of cross-border workers raises a problem in this regard. The authorities have not yet established a working partnership with the authorities of the countries where these workers live which would enable such checks to be carried out. The National Sickness Insurance Fund can perform checks of this kind, at the employer’s request.

Certificate of illness from first day

Meanwhile, the Luxembourg Confederation of Christian Trade Unions (Lëtzebuerger Chrëschtleche Gewerkschafts-Bond, LCGB) has observed that more employers are requiring their employees to present a medical certificate from the first day of absence, a practice which was more the exception than the rule before January 2009. LCGB has condemned what it describes as an ‘abusive and excessive’ practice. The trade union criticises the aggressive attitude of employers that wish to combat absenteeism at any price, despite procedures which have been agreed between the social partners and the new National Sickness Insurance Fund. In addition, LCGB points out that the increased demand for medical certificates has associated costs and places an extra burden on the social security budget.

In terms of legislation, the social security code states that a medical certificate must be sent to the sickness insurance fund once a period of sick leave reaches its third day. The labour code leaves some room for interpretation, stipulating that the certificate of ill-health must be submitted to the employer on the third day of absence at the latest. This means that the employer may in fact require a certificate to be submitted from the first day of absence.

Absenteeism rates

According to a study by the Centre for the Study of Population, Poverty and Socioeconomic Policies (Centre d’Études de Populations, de Pauvreté et de Politiques Socio-Économiques)/International Networks for Studies in Technology, Environment, Alternatives, Development, CEPS/Instead), the overall absenteeism rate was 3.25% in 2007, compared with 3.22% in 2006. If the old distinction is applied between the blue-collar and white-collar status, a clear difference emerges: the rate is around 2% for white-collar workers and 4.3% for blue-collar workers. However, Luxembourg is still well below the European average of about 4%. In particular, its neighbouring countries have higher absenteeism rates than Luxembourg, with France reporting a rate of 4.5%, Germany 4.4% and Belgium 4.1%.

Odette Wlodarski, Prevent