Stress is the real issue not long hours, says CIPD

As the TUC’s ‘Work Your Proper Hours Day’ approaches the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) has commented that the real issue for employers is stress and pressure at work rather than long working hours.

According to the TUC, Work Your Proper Hours Day is the day when those who do unpaid overtime would start, on average, to get paid if they did all their unpaid work at the start of the year. This year it has been calculated that the first day these employees would get paid would be Friday (23 February).

However, recently the Office of National Statistics has suggested that the average number of hours worked is actually falling. The Labour Market Statistics – January 2007 – reveal that the average hours worked fell to 31.9 in the three months to the end of November 2006, which compares to an average of 33.2 hours in 1992.

At present, the European Union has legislation (Working Time Directive) that limits maximum working hours for an employee to 48 hours a week. The UK has more flexible legislation (Working Time Regulations) that allows employers and workers to opt out and work for longer. The TUC is among those campaigning to protect workers from the health and safety issues surrounding overworking, by removing the UK’s opt-out clause.

If the CIPD is correct, however, the removal of this opt-out would not be enough, and the organisation is urging employers to tackle the real issues surrounding stress at work.

The recent Intel Corporation (UK) Ltd v. Tracy Ann Daw case shows how important it is to ensure that you are dealing with stress at work correctly. Daw suffered a breakdown due to work-related stress associated with her workload. Despite the fact that Intel offered an in-house stress counselling service to employees she won her case and was awarded £134,545 in damages.

Jayn Bond, Head of HR at Workplace Law Group, comments that having a stress counselling service in place is a good idea, but that you can not count on this service to then deal with all stress-related employee problems. Daw repeatedly brought the fact she was suffering from stress, because of her excessive workload, to the attention of her employers, but Intel did not act on these complaints. In this situation the counselling service was of no use because it was unable to do anything about her workload, this is something the company should have formed an action plan to deal with.

According to the HSE stress is the second biggest cause of occupational ill health, coming after musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs). However, the average annual days lost per case are actually higher for stress, depression or anxiety (31 days) than for MSDs (20 days), accounting for around 13 million working days lost.

Employers owe their employees both specific duties under heath and safety legislation and a common law duty to take reasonable care to ensure their health and safety. If an employee can show that they suffered from stress related ill health and his employer could or ought to have foreseen and prevented it, the employer could be found to be negligent.

Ben Willmott, CIPD Employee Relations Advisor, says:

“Managing stress at work is to a large extent simply about good people management, and this can be completely unconnected to the number of hours worked. Line managers must set clear objectives for individuals in their team, communicate with clarity, consult and provide plenty of feedback about performance – including praise. They must also spend time coaching and developing members of their team.”

According to Lizzie Mead, Junior Associate at Berwin Leighton Paisner, there are a number of things employees can do to ensure their employees are not overloaded with work, and so minimise the likelihood of absences and stress claims at a later date.

• Provision of training - The HSE has identified that employees may feel anxious about their work if they do not know exactly what is expected of them. Employers implementing a thorough induction process and providing detailed job descriptions to employees can avoid this. They should be trained appropriately throughout their employment in order that they understand their role and how best to fulfil it. Training managers how to recognise stressful situations and manage employee stress should ensure that early warning signs do not go ignored.
• Monitoring – The Intel case illustrates the importance of using performance appraisals, return to work interviews and exit interviews to monitor stress levels. To avoid claims for negligence, employers should document complaints and actively consider whether remedial action is necessary in each case.
• Remedial action - Many employers now provide free counselling and support services to employees. However, the Intel case has highlighted that employers cannot rely on this to avoid stress related claims. Whether or not this service is available, if an employee makes a complaint about workplace stress, or a manager identifies that an employee may have a problem, the employer should always consider taking remedial action. It may be suitable for example for the employer to reallocate work, or provide cover during sickness absences to ensure other employees are not overloaded. Although it is up to the employer to take the initiative in such circumstances, consultation with the employee should help to ensure that they feel that their concerns are being addressed.

Mead adds that the most important lesson for all employers to learn is to "not let stress go unnoticed, to address any concerns promptly and, once aware of a problem, monitor the situation to ensure it is resolved”.

[reference workplacelaw.net 20th February 2007 ]

Complete Therapies Agency
Therapy House
23 Archers Close
Droitwich
Worcestershire WR9 9LH
UK
Tel: 0870 067 3240
Fax: 0870 803 1782
enquiry@completetherapiesagency.com

www.completetherapiesagency.com