Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Missing in Action.
At a Glance
The average absenteeism rate in 2011 was
9.3days per full-time employee.
The estimated direct cost of absenteeism
to the Canadian economy was $16.6 billion
in2012.
Despite the enormous cost of absenteeism,
less than half of Canadian organizations (46per
cent) currently track employee absences.
Methodology
This briefing features data from two main sources. The data
on the numbers of days lost per employee in 2011 are from
Statistics Canada. Data on tracking absenteeism and cost of
absenteeism are from The Conference Board of Canada.
Statistics Canada Data
the LFS data do not capture lost time, including reasons for
lost time, for specific jobs. Men taking either paid parental
or paternity leave (Quebec data only) are included in the
calculation up to 2006. Although some human resources
professionals exclude those taking leave in excess of one year
for long-term disability from their attendance management
metrics, Statistics Canada does include these people if they
consider themselves employed (they receive full or partial pay
from employers while on disability leave). In 2011, an average
of 33,200 people per week were on long-term leave for illness
or disability. If this group is removed from the calculation, the
average weekly work absence for disability or illness drops,
from 5.9 to 5.6 per cent. Additionally, the inactivity rate drops
from 3.1 to 2.8 per cent.
Conference Board of Canada Data
Tracking Absenteeism
Table 1
Tracking Absenteeism
2009
2012
per cent
per cent
Overall
255
40
344
46
Private sector
179
35
249
39
Public sector
76
54
95
63
In the United Kingdom, employers have more latitude to inquire about the source of casual absences.
Research done by the Chartered Institute of Personnel
Development (CIPD) found that the primary reason for
short-term absences is minor illness (headaches, colds,
and the flu) followed by musculoskeletal injuries, back
pain, and stress. Stress more commonly affects nonmanual workers while musculoskeletal injuries and
back pain are frequent among manual workers.1
Program (EAP) providers, employee health risk assessments, anonymous employee surveys, or data on the
causes of short- and long-term disability claims to gain
a better understanding of the health issues facing their
employees. By analyzing their absenteeism patterns and
employee health risks, organizations will be better situated to address the root causes of absences and reduce
absenteeism.
10
9
8
7
6
2001 02
03 04
05 06
07 08
09 10
11
Chart 2
Absenteeism Rates in 2011, by Province
Table 2
Absenteeism Rates, by Sector, Industry, Union
Status, and Organization Size
Saskatchewan
Quebec
New Brunswick
Nova Scotia
Newfoundland and Labrador
Manitoba
British Columbia
Prince Edward Island
Ontario
Alberta
Canada
Overall
9.3
Sector
Private sector
8.2
Public sector
12.9
Industry
10
12
14.0
Public administration
12.8
12.3
10.1
Educational services
9.4
Manufacturing
9.1
8.6
8.5
Trade
7.9
7.6
Construction
7.6
Utilities
7.3
Primary
7.2
Other services
6.5
5.8
Union Status
Non-unionized
Unionized
7.5
13.2
Organization Size
7.5
9.3
100500 employees
10.6
11.1
the days lost per worker were 13.2days for union members or those covered by a collective agreement, compared
with 7.5 days for non-unionized employees.7 Included in
their collective agreements, unionized employees usually
have more generous sick leave entitlements, job security,
and better safeguards against punitive actions due to
absences.8 The sick leave and security negotiated by unionized employees also tend to influence benefits received
by non-unionized employees in the same organization.
Conference Board of Canada research has shown that
public sector employees have access to a greater number of paid sick leave days than those in the private
sector (11.6 days per employee compared with 8.2 for
the private sector).9 This could also contribute to higher
usage among public sector employees. Often, the more
generous the sick leave policy, the more sick days
employees will use.
Higher absenteeism rates in the public sector could be
a symptom of the tight fiscal restraints and scrutiny
that the public sector faces. Many argue this pressure
contributes to heightened stress levels and consequently
increased absence among employees. For example, the
uncertainty and stress felt by federal public servants
in the current downsizing of the federal public service
could be leading to more absenteeism.10 It should be
noted, however, that higher public sector absenteeism rates relative to the private sector are not a new
phenomenon, which would indicate that the pressure
on the public sector over the past few years is not the
solecontributor.
9 Ibid.
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
1519 2024 2534 3544 4554 5564 65 and
over
27 Ibid., 325.
28 Johns and Patton, Womens Absenteeism, 1579.
29 Hendrix, Spencer, and Gibson, Organizational and
Extraorganizational Factors Affecting Stress.
Chart 4
Absenteeism Rates in 2011, by Presence of Children
Illness/disability
Personal/family responsibilities
Without children
With children under the age of 5
With children aged 512
With children aged 13 or older
0
Drivers of Absenteeism
10
Exhibit 1
Chart 5
Tracking the Cost of Absenteeism
Drivers and
Predictors
Causes
15
Results
Societal
Influences
Access to resources
Information
Health care
Prejudices
Community
support
Personal
Characteristics
Education
Income
Family
Age
Gender
85
Source: The Conference Board of Canada.
Stress
Health issues
Disengagement
Entitlement
Absenteeism
Non-voluntary
Voluntary
Organizational
Influences
Work conditions
Work environment
Workplace culture
Unionization
Absence policy
Sources: The Conference Board of Canada; Hendrix, Spencer, and Gibson.
Cost of Absenteeism
Few organizations track the direct costs of absenteeism.
In 2012, only 15 per cent of organizations tracked this
type of dataunchanged from 2009. (See Chart 5.)
The direct cost of absenteeism is the salary cost associated with the number of workdays lost. For 201112,
organizations estimated that the direct cost of absenteeism averaged 2.4 per cent of gross annual payroll
down slightly from 2.6 per cent in 2009. (See Table 3.)
International Comparisons
Canadas absenteeism rates are high by international
standards, at least when comparing ourselves with our
neighbours and closest comparators. It should be noted
that it can be difficult to make exact comparisons as different studies define absenteeism slightly differently.
A study done in the U.S. in 2010 found that employees
took, on average, 5.4 incidental unplanned absence
days (casual absences, lasting five days or less), ranging
from 3.9 for non-unionized management employees
to 7.3 for hourly unionized workers. The same study
found that the direct cost of incidental unplanned
absences was 2 per cent of base payroll, and that the
total cost (including direct and indirect costs) of incidental unplanned absences averaged 5.8 per cent of
payroll. When extended absences (lasting more than a
week, including short-term disability, long-term disability, and absences covered under the Family and Medical
Leave Act) were included, the total cost crept up to
8.7per cent of base payroll.37
In the U.K., research done in 2012 by CIPD found
that the average number of days lost per employee was
6.8days, or 3 per cent of work time lost. As in Canada,
this number is higher in the public sector at 7.9 days
compared with 5.7 days for private sector employees.38
In a separate study done by CBI and Pfizer, the absence
rate was found to be 6.5 days per employee in 2010,
again higher in the public sector at 8.1 days a year,
compared with 5.9 days for the private sector. The study
estimates the cost of absenteeism to the U.K. economy
at 17 billion, of which 2.7 billion can be attributed to
absences occurring with no medicalreason.39
Table 3
Direct Cost of Absenteeism
2009
2012
per cent
per cent
Overall
37
2.6
50
2.4
Private sector
18
2.3
31
2.3
Public sector
19
2.9
19
2.6
Chart 6
Changes in Total Direct Costs of Absenteeism
(n = 92; per cent)
10
5
38
No change
Dont know
Increased
47
Decreased
Bibliography
Barton, Tynan. CBI/Pfizer Research: Workplace
Absences Cost Economy 17 Billion. Employee
Benefits. May 12, 2011. www.employeebenefits.co.uk/
cbi/pfizer-research-workplace-absences-cost-economy17-billion/12849.article (accessed May 10, 2013).
Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development.
Absence Management 2012. London: CIPD, 2012.
Chaudhury, Mohammed and Ignace Ng. Absenteeism
Predictors: Least Squares, Rank Regression, and Model
Selection Results. Canadian Journal of Economics
25, no. 3 (August 1992): 61535.
Dabboussy, Maria, and Sharanjit Uppal. Work Absences
in 2011. Ottawa: Statistics Canada. April20,2012.
www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/75-001-x/2012002/article/
11650-eng.htm (accessed May 5, 2013).
Duxbury, Linda, Christopher Higgins, and Sean Lyons.
The Etiology and Reduction of Role Overload in
Canadas Healthcare Sector. Toronto: Workplace
Safety and Insurance Board, 2010.
Hendrix, William H., Barbara A. Spencer, and Gail
S. Gibson. Organizational and Extraorganizational
Factors Affecting Stress, Employee Well-Being, and
Absenteeism for Males and Females. Journal of
Business and Psychology 9, no. 2 (1994): 10328.
Hopman, W.M., M.B. Harrison, H. Coo, E. Friedberg,
M. Buchanan, and E.G. VanDenKerkhof. Associations
Between Chronic Disease, Age and Physical and
Mental Health Status. Chronic Diseases in Canada 29,
no. 3 (2009): 10816.
Hughes, Lisa. Beyond Benefits II. Ottawa: The
Conference Board of Canada, 2010.
Johns, Gary, and Eric Patton. Womens Absenteeism
in the Popular Press: Evidence for a Gender-Specific
Absence Culture. Human Relations 70 (2007):
15791612.
Acknowledgements
The briefing was prepared by Nicole Stewart.
This study was funded by Morneau Shepell, Sun Life Financial, Centric Health, Banyan Work Health Solutions, Sanofi Canada, and
The Conference Board of Canadas Canadian Alliance for Sustainable Health Care (CASHC).
The author wishes to thank Ian Cullwick, Karla Thorpe, and Louis Thriault at The Conference Board of Canada for their insights. She also
thanks the project advisory board for their expertise and review.
The findings and conclusions of this report are entirely those of The Conference Board of Canada. Any errors or omissions in fact or
interpretation remain the sole responsibility of The Conference Board of Canada.
To cite this briefing:
Stewart, Nicole. Missing in Action: Absenteeism Trends in Canadian Organizations. Ottawa: The Conference Board of Canada, 2013.
2013 The Conference Board of Canada (incorporated as AERIC Inc.). Published in Canada. All rights reserved. Agreement No. 40063028.
The Conference Board of Canada and the torch logo are registered trademarks of The Conference Board, Inc.
For more information, please contact us at the numbers listed above or e-mail contactcboc@conferenceboard.ca.
This publication is available on the Internet at www.e-library.ca.
Forecasts and research often involve numerous assumptions and data sources, and are subject to inherent risks and uncertainties.
This information is not intended as specific investment, accounting, legal, or tax advice.