Employment Law News Roundup – 31.8.26

Presenteeism Goes Remote as Employees Stay Online While Ill

Presenteeism has traditionally been understood as an employee turning up to the workplace despite being too unwell to work effectively. Remote and hybrid working have complicated that picture. An employee can now remain at home while ill but still answer emails, attend virtual meetings, deal with urgent requests or work an otherwise normal day.

A new paper by university researchers argues that conventional definitions of presenteeism no longer adequately reflect how modern work is organised. The paper, published in Health Psychology Research, follows a purposive review of existing research and proposes a broader way of understanding what it means to work while unwell.

The researchers suggest defining presenteeism as working in a state of suboptimal health, while also recognising differences in where the work takes place and how much work is actually performed. In other words, an employee does not need to travel into an office to be experiencing presenteeism.

That distinction matters. Remote working can provide valuable flexibility to somebody managing a temporary or long-term health condition, but it can also make remote presenteeism easier to overlook, turning what would once have been sickness absence into a working day at home.

Presenteeism and the Risk of an ‘Always-On’ Workplace

Digital technology has made flexible working possible, but it has also weakened some of the physical boundaries that once separated sickness absence from work. That has created a new form of presenteeism in which an employee may be absent from the workplace but still digitally present.

An employee who would previously have switched off completely when too ill to travel may now feel able, or expected, to check Teams, respond to emails or join an important meeting from home. The researchers warn that technology can therefore become a trap in which flexibility develops into an expectation of continued availability, making remote presenteeism increasingly difficult to identify.

The distinction between being able to work and feeling obliged to work is important for employers. Managing presenteeism does not mean preventing employees from working flexibly when they genuinely wish and are well enough to do so. Allowing somebody with a minor illness to deal with a small number of essential matters from home may sometimes be helpful to both parties. Expecting an employee to remain digitally available whenever they are physically capable of opening a laptop is very different.

The evidence suggests that presenteeism is already widespread. Government research published by the Department for Work and Pensions found that 58% of workers had worked during the previous 12 months when they did not feel well enough to do so, including people working from home. The most common reason was not wanting to increase colleagues' workloads, cited by 46% of those who had worked while unwell.

Presenteeism: Health, Location and Engagement

The new paper proposes analysing presenteeism through three dimensions:

• Health: whether the employee is experiencing a physical or mental health problem;
• Location: whether they are working on-site or remotely; and
• Engagement: whether they continue working normally or reduce their hours, workload or level of engagement.

Combining those variables produces eight different forms of presenteeism. An employee with a physical illness who attends the workplace and works normally is therefore in a different position from somebody who remains at home and handles only a handful of urgent tasks. The same distinction can be applied where the underlying issue concerns mental rather than physical health.

That last point is significant. The researchers argue that traditional presenteeism research has concentrated heavily on physical sickness and that mental health needs to be considered more explicitly. Mental health presenteeism may be particularly difficult to recognise: an employee experiencing anxiety, depression or another mental health problem may be working at home and outwardly functioning normally while still working when they are not well enough to do so.

The proposed framework also moves away from treating every instance of presenteeism as inherently good or bad. In some circumstances, an employee may actively prefer reduced hours or limited duties rather than complete absence. What matters is whether the arrangement genuinely supports the individual's health and gives them appropriate control over how much they do.

Presenteeism: Nearly Half Worked Through Illness This Summer

Separate research commissioned by Vista Health illustrates the scale of presenteeism. Its survey of 2,003 UK adults found that 49% of workers had continued working while unwell during the summer, doing so for an average of six days.

Workload was an important factor in presenteeism. Some 28% said they had too much work to take time off, 19% were concerned about losing pay, 17% said nobody was available to cover their work and 16% were concerned that work would accumulate during their absence.

Continuing to work did not necessarily mean continuing to work effectively. The potential productivity cost of presenteeism is evident in the findings: 28% of respondents reported reduced productivity, 25% struggled to concentrate and 24% felt worse by the end of the working day. Nearly three in ten had also postponed a health appointment, test or check during the summer, with 35% of those who delayed care saying they had been too busy with work, the most commonly cited obstacle.

Those findings reinforce an important distinction for employers: presenteeism can conceal ill health rather than resolve it. Low sickness-absence figures do not necessarily indicate a healthy workforce if employees are continuing to work while unwell.

Remote Working and Presenteeism Create an Uneven Picture

There is also an equality dimension to presenteeism. Not everybody has the option of deciding to work from their sofa for a few hours while recovering.

An office employee may be able to work remotely, reduce meetings or concentrate on essential tasks. Somebody working in healthcare, retail, manufacturing, hospitality, transport or another location-dependent occupation may have much less scope to modify where and how they work.

Greater flexibility can therefore create very different experiences of presenteeism depending on the nature of the role. Remote workers may be able to reduce their workload or work from home while recovering, whereas employees in location-dependent jobs may face a more limited choice between attending work and taking sickness absence.

Employers should also remember that some physical and mental health conditions will amount to disabilities under the Equality Act 2010. Where the statutory definition is met and the duty is engaged, employers must consider reasonable adjustments. Depending on the circumstances, these can include changes to working hours, duties, absence-management arrangements or location.

Presenteeism After the 2026 Sick Pay Changes

The financial context has also changed. Since 6 April 2026, Statutory Sick Pay has been payable from the first full day of eligible sickness absence rather than after three waiting days, and the previous lower earnings threshold has been removed. Eligible lower-paid workers can therefore qualify for SSP, although the payment is the lower of 80% of average weekly earnings or the statutory weekly rate.

Those reforms remove two features of the previous system that could discourage some employees from taking short periods of sickness absence. They do not, however, remove other causes of presenteeism such as workload, inadequate cover, workplace culture, professional responsibility or fear of falling behind.

Employers should therefore avoid treating remote working as a substitute for sickness absence. Reducing presenteeism requires a culture in which employees can take appropriate time away from work when they are genuinely unwell. The starting question should be what arrangement best supports recovery, not simply whether technology makes it technically possible for them to continue working.

Employers Feel the Strain as Long-Term Absence Takes a Heavier Toll

Long-term absence can have a substantially greater operational impact on businesses than shorter periods away from work, according to research conducted by Opinium on behalf of Everywhen.

The research found that 58% of employers regarded long-term absence as having a high or severe impact on the day-to-day running of their organisation. This compared with 30% saying the same about short-term absence.

Short absences can undoubtedly create disruption, particularly in organisations operating with limited staffing capacity. Long-term absence presents a different management challenge because employers may need to maintain cover for weeks or months while simultaneously supporting the absent employee, considering medical evidence and planning for a possible return.

Which Employees Are Reported to Experience Long-Term Absence?

When employers were asked which age groups were most likely to experience long-term absence in their organisations, Generation X employees aged 45 to 60 were most frequently identified, at 24%. Baby Boomers and Millennials were each identified by 21%, while Generation Z employees were least frequently identified, at 14%. A further 16% said no generation was more likely than another to experience long-term absence.

Those figures should be treated as employer perceptions from the survey rather than population-level absence rates. They do, however, reinforce the importance of employers understanding the health profile and absence experience of their own workforce rather than assuming that one form of support will suit every demographic.

The causes of prolonged absence were also varied. Chronic illnesses such as heart disease and diabetes were identified by 28% of employers, followed by acute medical conditions such as cancer or stroke at 27%. Depression or anxiety associated with home life accounted for 21%, musculoskeletal conditions for 19%, family or caring responsibilities for 19%, and work-related mental health issues such as stress for 18%.

By comparison, minor illnesses such as colds and flu dominated short-term absence, cited by 51% of employers.

Employers Are Recording Absence, But Are They Using the Information?

Most employers believe they have a good understanding of absence within their organisations. Some 89% said their business understood employee absence, with 42% logging absence details and a further 47% both logging and analysing them.

Recording absence is only the beginning. The useful question is what employers do with the information.

Repeated musculoskeletal absence within one team might suggest an ergonomic or workplace-design issue. A concentration of stress-related absence could indicate workload or management concerns. Repeated long-term absence among employees with particular health conditions may indicate a need for earlier occupational health intervention or more effective workplace adjustments.

Absence data should not be used mechanically. Employers should consider individual circumstances, confidentiality and data-protection obligations, particularly where records reveal health information. But properly analysed trends can help organisations move from reacting to individual absences towards identifying whether preventable organisational factors are contributing to ill health.

Flexible Working Is the Most Common Form of Support

The research found that 41% of employers offered flexible working arrangements as a way of helping to prevent absence, while 43% used flexibility to support employees returning to work.

Mental health support such as counselling was offered by 34% for both prevention and return-to-work purposes. Occupational health support was offered by 25% to prevent absence and 26% to support returns, while employers also reported using lifestyle support, virtual GP services, private medical insurance, screening and physiotherapy.

Flexibility can be particularly valuable during a return to work. An employee who is not ready to resume their former hours or duties immediately may be able to return through reduced hours, modified duties or a phased increase in workload. Acas specifically identifies phased returns, flexible working and reasonable adjustments as matters employers should consider following sickness absence.

For disabled employees, however, flexibility is not simply an employee benefit. Where reasonable, modifications to working arrangements may be required under the Equality Act 2010.

Long-Term Absence Requires Individual Management

The underlying cause of absence matters.

A six-month absence caused by cancer treatment requires a different approach from recurrent stress-related absence, absence caused by a musculoskeletal condition or time away for disability-related treatment. Employers should avoid applying absence policies as though every case were interchangeable.

Medical or occupational health evidence can help identify functional limitations, possible adjustments and the prospects for a return. Fit notes may also indicate that an employee “may be fit for work” if particular changes can be made.

Where a health condition amounts to a disability, employers must consider reasonable adjustments. These might include modifying duties, altering working hours, allowing a phased return or adjusting the way disability-related absence is treated under attendance trigger systems.

Long-term sickness can ultimately become a capability issue, but dismissal should be a last resort. Employers should first investigate the position properly, obtain appropriate evidence, consult with the employee and consider whether adjustments or alternative arrangements could enable a return. Dismissing an employee because of disability without properly addressing those issues can create both unfair dismissal and discrimination risks.

Are Employers Making Full Use of Their Existing Support?

The survey also found that 61% of employers use health and wellbeing support proactively to reduce the likelihood of absence, while 45% use it to help employees return to work more quickly.

However, 15% said they did not use their health and wellbeing provision to help manage employee absence at all.

That may represent a missed opportunity. Employers can spend significant sums on employee assistance programmes, occupational health, group income protection, counselling, virtual GPs and other benefits, but those services have limited value if employees and line managers do not know they exist or do not understand when to use them.

The focus should therefore not merely be on the number of benefits offered, but on whether support is accessible, understood and connected to the employer's absence-management process.

For employers, effective long-term absence management involves balancing several competing considerations: supporting the individual, maintaining appropriate contact, protecting confidential health information, managing operational disruption and planning a realistic return to work.

The objective should be early and appropriate intervention. Where employers understand their absence patterns, make effective use of occupational health and wellbeing support, and consider adjustments before problems become entrenched, there is a greater prospect of helping employees remain in work or return successfully after a prolonged absence.