MUR update

The pressure usually takes the form of intimidating and bullying emails or similar behaviour during pharmacy visits. So many members were contacting the PDA about this type of problem from a wide variety of employers, that guidance was emailed to all members and also appears online.

The formation of the PDA Union gave statutory rights of representation to members of the Union, which has increasingly helped us to address the problems of MUR bullying. When informal resolution has not worked a number of PDA members have been intensively supported through the grievance process of their companies.

This involves a detailed assessment of the situation by a PDA legal advisor and assistance with articulating the problems.

An accredited union representative is assigned to the case and accompanies the member to the meeting. This personal representation is the most valuable part of the support package provided by the PDA, as it can be an intimidating experience for members to face a senior manager who can be more interested in protecting the company position, rather than understanding the genuine concerns raised by a pharmacist.

Recently the PDA has been involved in a number of grievances relating to the management style of some area managers in one region of Lloydspharmacy. The problems involved the circulation of emails threatening disciplinary action if MUR targets were not met, as well as behaviour perceived as threatening and intimidating by pharmacists during branch visits. Lloydspharmacy has now sought to clarify its practice on MURs and this is to be welcomed. Part of the problem seems to be a lack of consistency in managing performance around MUR targets and (in the view of the PDA), a breakdown in the control and monitoring of area managers in this region.

PDA’s understanding of how MUR performance should be managed in the Company is as follows;

• The area manager can adjust MUR targets as appropriate, taking into account individual circumstances and adopt a holistic approach to business targets.

• It should not be company practice to take disciplinary action on the sole basis of MUR performance.

• Pay review is based on an overall review of business performance which encompasses all key business targets.

Despite evidence from emails such as “Following the counselling session, disciplinary action will be taken against the pharmacist/pharmacy manager if the branch fails to achieve its [MUR] weekly target on two further occasions”, which appears contrary to the PDA’s understanding of the practice outlined above, it seems that the company does not at the present time consider these to be of a bullying nature.

Lloydspharmacy’s response states “the use of blanket e-mails threatening ‘further action’ for those not achieving is again not the best style of management for long term results, however we would not put this in the realm of bullying”. To its credit Lloydspharmacy has invited the PDA to a meeting to discuss our concerns.

Advice to pharmacists under pressure to meet MUR targets

• Ensure that the number of MURs claimed can be verifed if challenged.

• If struggling to meet targets, discuss this at an early stage with the line manager. Additional support or a review of the target should be requested and a record made of any discussions held. Ask for the company policy on setting and monitoring MUR targets.

• If requests for support are ignored or disciplinary action is being considered, contact the PDA as soon as possible.

As well as the emotional impact of this sort of management behaviour on the individual, we are increasingly concerned by the volume of cases from a range of companies that are coming to our attention, where employees have buckled under the pressure of delivering unachievable targets and been accused by their employer of falsifying documents or records. As this is classified as gross misconduct, dismissal can be the outcome. Unfortunately this can be the least of the ex-employee’s problems as there are NHS counter-fraud implications, as well as the prospect the employer will report them directly to the RPSGB for professional misconduct.

Dishonest or unprofessional behaviour cannot be condoned; however the threat of being identified as a poor performer or being disciplined for not achieving the MUR target may have encouraged some individuals to take risks they would otherwise not do.