Spiral Wellbeing Logo
 
Index 		Divider
 
About Us 		Divider
 
Courses & Coaching 		Divider
 
Public Courses 		Divider
 
Staff Wellbeing Consultancy Services 		Divider
 
News 		Divider
 
About Stress 		Divider
 
Testimonials 		Divider
 
Contact Us
Pointer
 
The case for tackling stress at work
Posted on Friday 16th September 2011 at 9:26 am by Jon

'There is a difference between the buzz people get from doing a busy and challenging job and an unreasonable pressure which can harm health' - 

Bill Callaghan, Health and Safety Commission.

STRESS IS:



  • The adverse reaction people have to excessive pressures or other demands placed upon them.


  • It arises when they worry that they cannot cope. 

(Health and Safety Executive 2000)

    

THE LEGAL REASONS TO TACKLE STRESS AT WORK



    Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 places a duty on organisations to look after the health safety and wellbeing of their employees. This is both physical and mental health.



    Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 states an organisation must:



  • Take reasonable steps to identify risks to health of stress at work.

  • Manage the risk, i.e. assess the risk and minimise it.



    Disability Discrimination Act 1995 in some cases covers staff who have long term mental health illnesses relating to stress. If staff members fall within the scope of this act an organisation must make reasonable adjustments to their work.

    Stress and the Law - Key Case Studies:

    Health & Safety at Work Walker v Northumberland County Council
    
Lancaster v Birmingham City Council
    
Hatton v Somerset County Council

    Barber v Somerset County Council





    Lord Williams (providing the leading judgment on the Barber Case) said:

    

“At the very least the senior management team should have taken the initiative in making sympathetic enquiries about Mr Barber when he returned to work (after three weeks absence due to stress) and making some reduction in his workload to ease his return. Even a small reduction in his duties coupled with the feeling that the senior management team was on his side, might itself have made a real difference. In any event Mr Barber’s condition should have been monitored, and if it did not improve, some drastic action would have had to be taken.

    

Supply teachers cost money, but not as much as the cost of the permanent loss through psychiatric illness of a valued member of the school staff.”

    

The following is an extract prepared by Barber’s barrister (Andrew Buchan) containing his interpretation of the current principles now seeming to apply to workplace stress:




    1. “An “autocratic and bullying style of leadership” which is “unsympathetic” to complaints of occupational stress is factors that courts can take into account in deciding whether there has been a breach of duty.

    

2. Once an employer knows that an employee is at risk of suffering injury from occupational stress, they are under a duty to do something about it. This duty continues until something reasonable is done to help the employee.



    3. Employees who complain do not need to be forceful in their complaints and need not describe their troubles and symptoms in detail. After all, they may be suffering depression, for example, making it more difficult to complain. Their complaints should be listened to sympathetically.



    4. Certified sickness absence due to stress or depression needs to be taken seriously by employers. It requires an enquiry from the employer about the employee’s problems and what can be done to ease them. They should not be brushed off unsympathetically; nor should they be handled by sympathising but simply telling him or her to prioritise their work without taking steps to improve or consider the situation further.

    

5. A management culture that is sympathetic to employees suffering from occupational stress and “on their side” in tackling it, may make a real difference to the outcome. Monitoring employees who are known to be suffering from occupational stress is mandatory. If they don’t improve more drastic steps may need to be taken to help them. Temporary recruitment may be required. Although this will cost money, it will be less costly than the permanent loss through psychiatric illness of a valued member of staff.”






    Guidance from the Health & Safety Executive

    

The Health & Safety Executive issued the Management Standards for stress at work in November 2004. The aim of the Standards are to work with employees and their representatives to continuously improve performance in tackling work-related stress.




    They have identified 6 key areas of risk for stress:



  • The demands of the job

  • Control over the work and how it is carried out

  • Support available to the individual at work

  • Relationships at work

  • Their role

  • How change is managed in the workplace.




    The HSE guidance is based on:



  • Good management practice

  • Prevention rather than cure

  • Shifting the workforce from an “undesirable state” to a “desirable state”

  • The best available evidence

  • Support for managers - NOT an enforcement led approach

  • A risk assessment approach






    ‘The HSE Management Standards will help employers identify and manage stress at work by providing a framework to pinpoint particular causes of stress as well as achievable solutions.’ 
(Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development 2004) 







    THE ECONOMIC REASONS TO TACKLE STRESS AT WORK

  • 13 million working days each year lost to stress, anxiety and depression (HSE 2004)


  • The average time taken off by workers as a result of stress is estimated at 28.5 days per year (HSE 2004)


  • 1 day’s absence (including hidden costs) amounts to an average of £165 per day (CBI 2004)


  • High potential compensation costs related to claims of stress at work.


  • Lower Employer Liability Insurance premiums. Some insurance companies are reducing premiums for employers who are taking a proactive approach to managing stress at work.


Case Study at Somerset County Council proved effective management of and training for stress saves money:


  • In 2001/02 sickness absence levels at 10.75 days, costing approx £3.7million in that year

  • After stress management interventions sickness absence fell to 8.29 in 2003/04

  • In monetary terms this represents a total saving of £1.9million over 2yrs

  • Represents a net saving of £1.57 million




    THE ETHICAL REASONS TO TACKLE STRESS AT WORK



  • ‘Stress is responsible for around a fifth of heart attacks world-wide’ DeHavilland Information Services plc – 2004 (The Lancet)


  • ‘Stressful life events were associated with the onset of undetected non-insulin-dependent diabetes (type 2) as well as increased fat around the abdomen.’ - 2000 Mooy, DeVries, Grootenhuis


  • About 1 in 5 people say that they find their work either very or extremely stressful and over half a million people report experiencing stress, anxiety or depression that they believe is caused by work HSE 2005


  • Research has shown strong links between stress and:


  • Physical ill health e.g. heart disease, back pain, headaches, stomach problems

  • Psychological ill health e.g. anxiety, depression

  • Behavioural outcomes that are harmful to health e.g. increased consumption of alcohol, and caffeine, increased smoking, skipping meals
    • - HSE 2005 

    •  
     

    © 2024 Jon Kestell, Spiral Wellbeing, trading address 115 Marldon Road, Paignton TQ3 3NN. Providing staff training, wellbeing training, stress management and stress prevention courses throughout the UK, United Kingdom, England, Scotland and Wales.