Walker-v-Northumberland County Council - Stress Audits - Case Study Example

Name: Tutor: Title: Stress Audits Course: Institution: Date: Stress Audits Introduction CIPD, (2010) establishes that organizations in modern business and market environments have realized the great role the human resources serve and they have deemed them the most valuable and reliable assets that an organization has. Therefore, organizations are finding it fundamental to ensure that the needs of their workforces are effectively and efficiently met in order to ensure quality in terms of performance from them. The workforce is exposed and vulnerable to varied factors and elements that may interfere and even impede their performance at work and reduce their ability to exploit their skills and potential maximally (Palmer & Strickland, 1996). Among these factors are work related stresses. Although stress means varied things for different people, assessing the risks of stress related to work in the workplace environment is crucial since failure to efficiently mitigate these risks can result in not only reduced performance and productivity related to absenteeism and poor work performance but also bad publicity and reputation and financial loss related to legal disputes (Donaldson-Feilder, et al., 2011). For this reason, auditing stress is a concept that seeks to help the organization or the employer to apply their duty of care in regards to the mental and physical well being of its workforce by fully analyzing and establishing if stress is a risk in the workplace, examining the risks of stress which employees in the workplace may encounter as part of occupational health and safety assessment and establishing preventive measures to ensure employees are safeguarded from stress and its side effects and are fully able to counter stress when it actually occurs (HSE, 2007). More importantly, it can be used as defense against court cases. This informs this report which discusses the main standpoints and arguments contained within the statement: Proof of actually having executed Stress Audits may be a significant factor in the organization’s defense against litigation brought under the stress umbrella. The case of Walker-v-Northumberland County Council emphasizes the need for stress audits in the workplace. Definition of terms Stress is described as the unfavorable response individual has to enhance pressures or other forms of burden placed on them (HSE, 2007). Alternatively, a stress audit is a tool that effectively and efficiently establishes stress within units, sections, job types, job levels and gender and identifies likely causes of stress, levels of stress and pointers of impeding health concerns/ issues in the workplace (Ross & Altmaier, 1994). Among the main factors and aspects analyzed in the stress audit questionnaire includes relationships, demands such as burden of work, patterns of work and the work conditions, roles, change, control and support such as sponsorship, assistance, encouragement and resources offered by all relevant parties (HSE (2007). Review of the literature As argued by Hayday and Silverman, (2005), stress has a huge impact on the performance of the individual and the organizations which has therefore compelled varied organizations to actively manage stress in their workplaces. According to the author, most cases of employees’ absenteeism are mainly due to minor ailments as the major cause and work associated stress as the second cause. It is imperative that an employer ensures that workers are not negatively impacted by their work, and where stress is generated or made bad by work can result in poor health; the employer must review the threat. As highlighted by HSE, (2007), work related stress is a huge problem with one person in every seven people being in extremely stressful work. According to HSE, almost half a million people in the UK indicated that in the period of 2005 and 2006 experienced occupational stress at a rate that made them ill with the average length of sick leave due to stress being 30.1 days. In addition, more than eleven million working days were made use work-associated stress for the year 2005/06 with stress being the main cause of accidents as a result of human error (HSE, 2007). Many organizations are much more aware and keen on ensuring physical health of its workforce such as prevention of work accidents such as fires, falls and trips and are negligent of psychological health (Clarke & Cooper, 2004). Being accountable for the mental health of workers receives less attention perhaps owing to lack of clarity on where the accountability of the employer ends and how it can compute. For example, an employer may contemplate that workers should leave their personal stress at home, which might be difficult for the employee to do since they are the same person who is in both worlds. Ross & Altmaier, (1994) states that carrying out regular stress audits are essential since there are likely to be liability where the organization can practically predict harm emerging owing to work related stress and it does not take decisive and reasonable steps and actions to address it. Stress audits are carried out for ethical, economical and legal reasons (Kinder, 2004). In relation to legal reasons, organizations have legal responsibility under the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 to carryout out appropriate and effective review of the heath risks and safety which their workforce are prone to while in the workplaces. According to Health & Safety Executive Guidance Notes on tackling work related stress, employers have the duty of care to ensure employees do not get sick due to carrying out their work tasks and where stress initiated or worsened by work that can lead to poor health, employers must examine the risk and if required, take reasonable actions to tackle the identified work pressures (Matthews). It is imperative for the employer to record the fundamental findings from the stress risk assessment which can be used as a basis for developing recommendations and more significantly can be used as a defense in case of lawsuit brought under the stress umbrella. Kinder, (2004) notes that failure to adhere with regulations on assessment of work related stress can generate into harsh criminal and financial penalties like fines, custodial sentences, prohibition and improvement notices, and loss of directorship which can have severe consequences for business and for the concerned persons. CIPD, (2010) indicates that carrying out stress audits is advantageous for the employer particularly with the rise in the number of workers suing their employers for illnesses caused by stress caused or worsened by work, who have in the past been successful and have received significant amounts of compensation. According to Mathews, although there are no specific laws controlling stress at work, the employment relationship is governed by law of contract and law of tort which defines the concept of duty of care (Matthews). Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 states that “It shall be the duty of every employer to prepare and as often as may be appropriate to revise a written statement of his general policy with respect to the health and safety at work of his employees and the organization and arrangements for the time being in force for carrying out the policy, and to bring the statement and any revision of it to the attention of all his employees” (HASWA 1974: section 2.3). This informs the 1992 Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations that indicates that “Every employer shall make a suitable and sufficient assessment of the risks to the health and safety of his employees to which they are exposed whilst they are at work for the purpose of identifying the measures he needs to take to comply with the requirements and prohibitions imposed on him by or under the relevant statutory provisions” (MHSW Regulations. 1992: Section 3). Palmer, (2011), highlights that among ways of resolving and preventing stress at the workplaces includes offering stress counseling, conducting regular stress management workshops and facilitating stress seminars. According to the author, the primary roots of stress in the workplace includes role conflicts, issues of downsizing and de-layering which has resulted in enhanced work overload and lack of favorable working conditions. The case of Walker-v-Northumberland County Council The case of John Walker versus Northumberland County Council set example that an employee can sue the employer and held them accountable for psychological harm initiated by work related stress. In the case, John Walker was able to prove that his employer infringed on their duty of care to offer a safe and secure working environment in regards to work-related stress and failed to take reasonable actions to safeguard him against stress risks which caused and worsen his mental health and caused him to fall ill (Palmer, 2011). The plaintiff was awarded two hundred thousand pounds by the court although the case was latter resolved out of court. The plaintiff, John Walker, worked for Northumberland county council in middle management and was charged with leading four teams of social workers located in Blyth Valley area, who were accountable for child mistreatment cases. An increase in the population in the area saw an increment in the numbers of cases the teams had to deal with especially cases dealing with child care issues. As the pressures of work augmented so did the levels of stress and as of 1986, Walker experienced a nervous breakdown and he was unable to go back to work until 1987 (Palmer, 2011). After ensuing work, Walker was offered a principal field work officer as an assistant by his employer who offered him help in carrying out varied roles assigned to him. Nevertheless, upon return to work, the help was withdrawn two months later and Walker began developed symptoms of stress that he immediately reported to his employer. Although he received medical attention, the doctor advised him to take a leave of absence due to illness owing to his stress-related illness (Palmer, 2011). Walker suffered another mental meltdown that left him unable to either return to a comparable work in social services or find another job. In 1988, Walker was relived off his duties and his contract terminated by his employer on the basis of long-term poor health. Important standpoints in this case was that the employee, John Walker who was the plaintiff was able to prove that his employer was unable to carryout their duty of care and more so, he proved his illness was as a result of the work-related stress since he had never had a mental illness and furthermore, his doctor was able to affirm that there were no other stressors such as personal issues other than work-related stress that culminated to his injuries (Palmer, 2011). Walker was able to prove the element of foreseebility on his employer’s part especially for the second mental breakdown if not the first one. The first breakdown should have been a clear indication for the employer that there was risks and should have carried out necessarily actions and assessment as stipulated by the 1992 Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations which demands that each manager must make appropriate and adequate evaluation of risks to health and safety of their workers that they are susceptible to while working, with the aim of establishing the necessary measures the employer wants to take to abide by the prerequisites and bans enforced on them by the pertinent statutory provisions. The first breakdown should have primarily helped the employer to find out the causes, establish effective and efficient ways of preventing future stressors and effective ways of managing them. In addition, the second mental breakdown should have been easy to predict by the employer since nothing much had changed upon Walker’s return to work (Palmer, 2011). If the employer per say, could have carried out a stress audit, they could have been able to effectively prevent the harm that was inflicted on Walker following the second mental meltdown and hence, prevent the criminal and financial punishment imposed on them. It is important to note is that proving the aspect of foreseebility in regards to mental injuries is not only crucial in filing for a claim but also, it is particularly hard to prove (Palmer, 2011). An employee filing such a claim should be in a position to prove that the employer knew or ought to have known about existing work pressures in the workplace. In addition, proving that working conditions exposed them to real risks causing or worsening ill health and the employer was aware that the risks were severe enough to culminate to metal illness, which can be verified by using a doctor’s report showing that the plaintiff had been off work previously owing to similar illness (CIPD, 2010). Walker’s employer was found liable to breaching their duty of care in regards to the second meltdown since they had the notice of the specific risk facing Walker and through stress audit they could have taken reasonable steps to minimize stress such as minimizing workload and offering him more help, which they did not. As argued by the court, additional costs and disruptions caused by addressing Walker’s needs could not outweigh the Council’s responsibility to safeguard its employee against a severe risk to his wellbeing. From the case, it is apparent that a manager is under a responsibility of care to offer their workers with help, of unspecified scope and time, to empower them and help them to carry out their contractual roles/ duties, failure to which severe consequences can occur. Impact of work related stress for businesses According to Donaldson-Feilder, et al., (2011), failure to effectively manage stress in the workplace results in physical, emotional, intellectual and behavioral changes characterized by poor health, lack of motivation and concentration, use of substances and nervous break downs which culminates to poor performance of contractual duties among employees. The impact on the organization is also detrimental since the increased levels of absenteeism, employee turnover, time wastage, decreased performance and reduced productivity, increased complaints from employees and reduced morale translates to failure to achieve anticipated organizational outcomes and goals (Clarke & Cooper, 2004). Therefore, developing and implementing stress audits that provide information and recommendations for the most effective systems to counter sources of stress at work are critical. Among the main sources of stress at work includes unfavorable working environment, long hours of work, poor relationships among employees, demanding work, lack of self-worth for work, bullying and intense work pressure owing to the nature of work and the amount of work (Cooper, et al., 2010). Impact of stress audits for businesses According to Kinder (2004), effective stress audits allows for comprehensive and a more interactive way of dealing with occupational stress where coping strategies are not implemented by the individual alone but also, engages the organization, which facilitates healthy behavior and working practices in the workplaces. Kinder notes that carrying out effective and efficient stress audits allows organizations and employers to rely on preventive intervention measures rather than adopting reactive approaches (Kinder, 2004). Adequate and sufficient stress audits are able to deal with primary and core causes of stress related to work through collection of both qualitative and quantitative data that constructs clear representation of core issues and suitable solutions (Palmer, 2011). Among quantitative data includes statistics of sick leaves, level of productivity among workers, number of accidents and near misses, rate of employee turnover and employee opinions among others. Qualitative data on the causes and solutions to occupational stress can be gathered using focused group discussions with varied employee groups, walk-through reviews, and talk through assessments, employee complaints, and details of return to work discussions after sick leaves, feedback from labor unions, industrial actions and from counseling services (Kinder, 2004). Carrying out regular stress audits offers a basis for developing effective systems that prevents and efficiently manages stress. Davies, (2010) indicates that effective management of occupational stress is beneficial for both the employee and the employer which includes minimized costs related to sick pays, recruitment costs and sickness cover, reduced time wastage owing to absenteeism, enhanced morale, efficiency, productivity and performance by employees, increased motivation by employees to work even harder and enhanced relationships along and across organizational structures. Having proof of executing stress audits is of great importance for the employer as it can be used as a defense tool as it indicates that the employer was accountable in their duty of care (HSE, 2007). A case filed under the stress umbrella, the employee, the plaintiff, has to not only prove the employer failed in their duty of care, but also, they need to prove the work environment poses the risk of causing illness, they need to prove the foreseeability of the employer, that is, they knew of the impeding risk and did nothing about it and they need to show that the destruction experienced was initiated by the work environment and that the manager failed in their duty of care to take reasonable and response actions to prevent or manage the risks. Conclusions The underlying principles for conducting stress audits are similar to those of risk assessment which are primarily to establish whether established control and management measures and systems are able to safeguard harm on the workforce and find out if more needs to be done. Despite the fact that the intention is on evaluating the risks, the main aim of stress audit is to gather and record the findings and take reasonable actions and steps as a result. This means, using the information gathered from stress audits to continually review and enhance the situation in the workplace. Therefore, efforts must be expended in developing necessary changes after audits are done. Stress audits should not merely be carried out as a way of meeting the legal prerequisite of employers to carry out their duty of care, but it should be done with the view of enhancing the working environment and ensuring employees are safe and secure holistically. This means, making stress auditing a part of the organizational culture by integrating it in the planning process. Stress audit should not be done artificially but should incorporate qualitative and quantitative data to ensure causes of stress and suitable solutions are comprehensively sought and verified and offer long term solutions to occupational stress. It is paramount for organizations to carry out stress audits to ensure they are well versed with the working environment and conditions their employees are exposed to and in so doing identify varied risks among them occupational stress and effectively prevent and manage them accordingly. In so doing, organizations will have proof they have not breached duty of care of their employees and therefore, evade criminal, civil and financial penalties associated with court cases brought by the employees under the stress umbrella. When employers conduct effective stress audits and take reasonable actions to mitigate the identified risks, it becomes difficult for the employees to prove foreseeability aspect, violate of responsibility of care and proving the work environment as the real risk causing or worsening their illness. Stress audits should be accompanied by organizational changes informed by the findings of the audits. Conclusively, it important that once the employer is aware that an employee is undergoing some work-related stress, to analyze the issue and establish ways and means of resolving them which often is influenced by the size of the organization and available resources. References CIPD. 2010. Work-related stress: What the law says. London: CIPD. Accessible from http://www.cipd.co.uk/NR/rdonlyres/1B504994-F40F-4801-B93D- 8FA4DE73E1FD/0/5233Stress_and_Law_guide.pdf Clarke, S., & Cooper, C.L. 2004. Managing the Risk of Workplace Stress: Health and Safety Hazards. Upper River Saddle: Routledge. Cooper, C., Weinberg, A., Bond, F., & Sutherland, V.J. 2010. Organizational Stress Management: A Strategic Approach. Sidney: Palgrave Macmillan. Davies, A. 2010. Workplace Law Handbook 2011 - Health and Safety, Premises and Environment Handbook. New Jersey: Workplace Law Group. Donaldson-Feilder, E., Lewis, R., & Yarker, J. 2011. Preventing Stress in Organizations: How to Develop Positive Managers. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Hayday, N .L. & Silverman, S. 2005. Stress audits: What you need to know. London: Institute of Employment Studies. Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 HSE. 2007. Managing the causes of work related stress: A step by step approach using the management standards. HSE Books, Accessible from http://www.carecallwellbeing.com/SiteDocuments/Publications/Manage%20the%20Caus es%20of%20Stress.pdf Kinder, A. 2004. Stress audits: what are they and why bother? Counseling at work, pp 14-16 Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1992 Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 Matthews, P. Stress at work- The legal implications. Accessible from http://www.workplacebullying.co.uk/stressMat.html Palmer, S. 2011. Occupational stress: Legal issues and possible new directions for rational emotive behavior counselors and trainers. Center for stress Management, Accessed on 20th April 2012 from http://www.managingstress.com/articles/webpage1.htm Palmer, S. and Strickland, L. 1996. Stress Management: A quick Guide. Dunstable: Folens. Ross, R. R. and Altmaier, E. M. 1994. Intervention in Occupational Stress: a Handbook of Counseling for Stress at Work. London: Sage. Read More