The PPL scheme offers KIT provisions to facilitate employees’ return to work and to maintain attachment to the workplace. KIT days could include employee participation in a conference, planning day, workshop, a training day, or on-the-job training for example. The use of KIT provisions must be agreed upon by both the employee and the employer, and employees can take up to 10 KIT days before the end of their PPL period without losing their PLP entitlements. They are paid for these days by their employer at their normal rate of pay. The use of KIT provisions discussed here refers to formal KIT days as provided for by the PPL legislation and include either structured (e.g. agreed upon fortnightly or monthly KIT days) or unstructured (e.g. agreed upon KIT days for a one-time meeting or training day) KIT arrangements.
5.5.1 Awareness, intent to use and structure of KIT provisions
The EIPE survey data suggest that awareness of the KIT provisions is evenly split across all organisations with 50 per cent of employers stating they were aware of the KIT provisions (Table 5.37). Awareness of the KIT provisions varies by organisational size. Large organisations were much more likely to be aware of the KIT provisions (62 per cent) than medium (48 per cent) and particularly small (38 per cent) organisations.
Table 5.37 Employer awareness of KIT provisions
Whether aware of KIT provisions a
Employer Size All Organisations (per cent) Small (per cent) Medium (per cent) Large (per cent) Yes 38 48 62 50 No 61 52 36 49 Don't know 1 0 2 1 Total 100 100 100 100 N 149 177 175 501 a
Chi-square test indicates that this is significantly different across Employer Size at P>0.05. Note: Data weighted by employer size.
Source: EIPE
Interviews confirmed that many organisations were not aware of the KIT provisions. In fact, the subject of KIT provisions was an area where employers showed the least awareness of what the PPL legislation entailed. Following requests for this information during the interview, ten employers were given the PPL assistance email address to obtain further information.
The EIPE survey shows that among employers aware of the KIT provisions, a large percentage of employers aware of the KIT provisions intended to use them (79 per cent) (Table 5.38). The intent to use KIT provisions varied across organisational size.
135 In contrast to the low awareness of KIT provisions among small employers, among employers who were aware of the KIT provisions, small employers reported the highest intent to use them (87 per cent), followed by medium (82 per cent) and large (72 per cent) employers.
Table 5.38 Employer intent to use KIT provisions among organisations aware of KIT provisions
Whether
business/organisation plans to use KIT provisions a
Employer size All Organisations (per cent) Small (per cent) Medium (per cent) Large (per cent) Yes 87 82 72 79 No 11 13 11 12 Don't know 2 5 17 10 Total 100 100 100 100 c N b 57 85 108 251 a
Chi-square test indicates that this is significantly different across Employer Size at P>0.05.
b
Weighted number of employers who had heard of KIT provisions.
c
Does not equal 100 per cent due to rounding. Note: Data weighted by employer size. Source: EIPE
5.5.2 Employee use of KIT provisions
Employers who were aware of the KIT provisions were asked whether any of their employees taking PLP had used the KIT provisions. Half of employers (51 per cent) that were aware of the provisions said that employees had used at least one KIT day (Table 5.39), with a significantly higher percentage of KIT usage among employees in small organisations (62 per cent) in comparison to medium (54 per cent) or large (42 per cent) organisations. The number of employees that used KIT provisions is generally low: in organisations that have used the KIT provisions, 58 per cent reported only one employee had used a KIT day within the organisation. Only 11 per cent of organisations reported more than one employee had used KIT provisions, and 30 per cent of organisations did not know how many employees had used them.
In addition, in organisations where KIT provisions had been used, the use of KIT provisions was unstructured (being used for the occasional training day, conference or meeting) 80 per cent of the time, but this percentage is significantly higher among small (89 per cent) and medium (84 per cent) employers. One-third of large employers that used the provisions made use of structured (e.g. regularly scheduled days on a fortnightly or monthly basis) keeping in touch arrangements.
Among the 41 per cent of organisations who reported their employees had not made use of KIT provisions, 17 per cent stated that their employees were planning to use KIT provisions in the future, ranging from 13 per cent of small organisations, to 17 per cent of large and 21 per cent of medium organisations.
136
Table 5.39 Employee use of KIT provisions among organisations aware of KIT provisions
Whether employees in business/
organisation had used KIT provisions a
Employer Size All Organisations (per cent) Small (per cent) Medium (per cent) Large (per cent) Yes 62 54 42 51 No 36 43 43 41 Don't know 2 3 15 8 Total 100 100 100 100 N 57 85 108 251b a
Chi-square test indicates that this is significantly different across Employer Size at P<0.05.
b
Total number of employees who were aware of KIT provisions. Note: Data weighted by employer size.
Source: EIPE
5.5.3 Employer experience with KIT provisions
EIPE survey data indicate that 59 per cent of all organisations that used the KIT provisions felt that this use had benefitted the organisation in some way. Large and small employers were significantly more positive in this regard (67 per cent and 71 per cent respectively) than medium employers, of whom less than half (42 per cent) felt the KIT provisions had been beneficial. Of the 128 employers who felt that the KIT provisions had been beneficial, 76 employers provided examples of ways in which these provisions had benefitted the organisation. Their verbatim responses can be categorized into four broad groups:
1) It helped to keep the employee up-to-date, engaged with the organisation and eased return to work (59 per cent);
2) Keeping in touch with their employee was viewed as important in general, or was seen as a way to find out how the employee was doing while on leave (20 per cent);
3) It allowed the organisation to have access to that employee’s knowledge or expertise during their absence (9 per cent);
4) It helped with training efforts (either attending or providing training; 4 per cent).
Among those answers that could not be grouped into these broader categories, one employer explained that KIT provisions had, “helped in terms of planning the staff
arrangements in terms of people leaving jobs.” Another employer felt that the KIT
provisions had not necessarily been beneficial but helped to neutralize the ‘damage’ done by PPL: “I think it’s mitigated the damage that the program has done to our
organisation, it hasn't benefitted us.”
The interviews with employers highlighted similar benefits. A medium-sized private employer who had not used the KIT days but knew of them said:
I mean if there was training days that we had for groups of where we - we have quite varied groups within our company and if the team that they were on, were having formal training we would actually invite them to that formal training. So that’s when we would use it. [Employer # 20002058, medium,
private sector employer, management software]
Some employers had proposed the use of KIT provisions but their employee did not want to use them, as in the case of this large, public sector employer:
137
I did put a proposal forward for her (employee concerned about getting back into the routine of coming into work) to have a day - as a keeping in touch - to come in and do a training course, but she just declined.”
[Employer # 30003389, large, public sector employer, shire council]
This same employer felt, however, that they would "definitely" use the KIT days in the future. In addition, two employers in the interviews mentioned that prior to the implementation of PPL, some of their employees used to come back to work on a casual basis while on unpaid (maternity) leave. However, as a result of the implementation of PPL, they had restricted such practices. [Employer # 30003156, large, private sector employer, pest control; and employer # 30003357, large, not-for- profit employer, health services]
5.5.4 Section summary
This section looked at the awareness and use of KIT provisions.
• Half of employers (50 per cent) reported being aware of the KIT provisions. • Large organisations were much more likely to be aware of the KIT provisions
(62 per cent) than medium (48 per cent) and particularly small (38 per cent) organisations.
• Among employers who were aware of the KIT provisions, 79 per cent of employers intended to use them.
• In organisations where employers were aware of KIT provisions, 51 per cent of employers reported that employees had made use of the KIT provisions. This differed significantly across organisational size.
• More than half (59 per cent) of all employers that used the KIT provisions felt the provisions were beneficial to the organisation, with smaller organisations being more likely to have used the provisions.