Is workplace stress damaging you business?

Workplace stress is a growing problem for both employers and employees. It not only affects people’s health and their firm’s productivity, it is also a growing source of costly employment claims.

A recent survey by the Health and Safety Executive revealed that more than one in five British workers is now concerned about work related stress. Employees rate it as their most feared workplace hazard, well ahead off concerns over lifting heavy loads, slips and trips or exposure to dust and fumes.

It’s estimated that around 13 million working days were lost because of it in 2005.

Clearly with figures like that it is in every employer’s interest to try to reduce stress levels among staff as much as possible. However, productivity isn’t the only reason to tackle the problem. There is also the danger that overworked, stressed out employees will eventually snap and take their case to an employment tribunal.

About 40% of those questioned by the HSE thought that the risk of stress in the workplace could be realistically reduced, and yet less than a third said that their employers had taken preventative action to do so.

There have several notable compensation cases involving stress in recent years. In 2005, a pub manager took his case all the way to the Court of Appeal claiming stress from overwork had caused him psychiatric injury.

He had worked 90 hours a week and although he complained repeatedly, nothing was done. Then he became overwhelmed by his workload and collapsed suffering from an anxiety disorder. He sued his employer for failing in its duty of care to him and was awarded £21,000 compensation.

It was a timely warning to employers to take the problem seriously. It’s vital to have a clear cut policy and a set of procedures in place to both reduce the possibility of stress developing in the first place and then deal with it as quickly and effectively as possible when incidents do arise.

A number of high profile cases in the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords have led to some significant rulings and guidance.

As soon as an employer becomes aware that one of his staff is suffering from stress then he has a duty to take reasonable steps to do something to help. The sufferer doesn’t have to make numerous complaints or describe his symptoms in great detail. All complaints should be listened to sympathetically.

Those suffering from stress will often show signs of their problems through deterioration in their work, indecisiveness, failure to delegate properly and a declining relationship with colleagues.
It will then be necessary to try to identify the cause of the stress, whether it’s workload, excessive hours or difficult relationships with other employees.

Employers may also have to face up to whether staff stress may be caused by poor management, lack of support and inadequate training. If several members of staff show signs of stress then it may be that there are problems with the way the firm operates and organises its workload. This will show itself in increasing absenteeism, a constant turnover of staff and a lower level of productivity.

Employers must also react to periods of certified sickness due to stress or depression and take them seriously, even if the employee seems to perform adequately while at work. Sufferers should not be pressurised or ignored; instead steps should be taken to rectify the problem and improve the situation.

Once it’s identified that a member of staff is suffering from stress then it is mandatory that they should be monitored.

Remedies such as reducing the sufferer’s hours and workload may have to be taken. It might be necessary to provide health checks, counseling and even psychotherapy. If it isn’t tackled then sufferers could go on to develop more serious health problems.

The employer’s attitude to staff stress problems is likely to be very important in deciding whether there has been a breach of duty. An aggressive, dismissive attitude is likely to be looked on unfavourably by the courts, whereas a more sensitive and understanding approach could have a major bearing on the outcome of a hearing.

The case for putting measures in place to deal with stress is compelling.

It not only leads to a happier, more productive workforce, it also reduces the risk of costly and time-consuming compensation claims.

Sally Laughton is an employment expert at Andersons Solicitors. She can be contacted by emailing slaughton@andersonssolicitors.co.uk or calling 0115 988 6716


ANDERSONS SOLICITORS - ALWAYS THE RIGHT CHOICE
42 The Ropewalk, Nottingham, NG1 5EJ.
Tel: 0115 947 0641 Fax: 0115 950 4252
Email: info@andersonssolicitors.co.uk Web: www.andersonssolicitors.co.uk.

Protect your business against costly tribunal claims

The government says it is looking again at ways to reduce the number of tribunal claims made by staff against their employers.
It’s a move that will no doubt be supported by businessmen everywhere who for years have been subjected to the threat of costly and time consuming legal action. No responsible company will dispute that employees should be protected but there’s a growing tendency for some workers to play the system which is costing firms time, money and heartache.
A good example is the man who started 80 claims to employment tribunals over a period of 10 years. They were mainly to do with discrimination on the grounds of sex or disability.
He is either extremely unlucky to have come up against 80 bigoted bosses or there was something flawed in his definition of discrimination. The fact that he only won two of his cases suggests the latter may be true.
It could be argued that if he lost the other 78 cases then justice was done and employers have nothing to worry about. Unfortunately, that doesn’t tell the whole story. Every time an employee makes a claim his employer has to investigate.
That means taking senior managers away from their day jobs of running the company. Members of staff may have to be interviewed to establish the facts of the case. This can be disruptive and affect morale.
It adds up to a significant investment in time and money, and it leaves firms vulnerable to opportunist employees. There are even serial complainants who move from firm to firm seeking rich pickings from compensation.

Now Trade and Industry Secretary Alistair Darling has asked his officials to examine how the rules could be simplified as a way to reduce the regulatory burden on businesses. The move comes only two years after the department’s last attempt to discourage weak or vexatious claims.

The changes introduced in 2004 encouraged the use of internal dispute procedures which are less costly both in time and money for employers than tribunals. The new approach did lead to a significant drop in numbers but the success was short lived. After a temporary respite, the number of claims during the last financial year rose by a third to 115,000, marking a quick return to the levels seen before the changes were introduced in 2004. Mr Darling later said: “We do need to ask ourselves, and not be too proud about this, did we get it right first time.” It’s yet to be seen if the government will get it right the second time.

Faced with such a deluge of rising figures it’s not surprising that so many employers have been losing faith in the tribunal system. According to a recent survey by the CBI, many firms settle cases they have a strong chance of winning because they fear the cost of going to tribunals.

Nevertheless, employers should not give in too easily when faced by unreasonable claims. It’s easy to see a firm’s dilemma if they feel the tribunal system is more trouble than it’s worth, but if everyone simply gives in then it encourages more people to proceed with weak cases and the problem snowballs.

Sometimes it’s cheaper to stand your ground and fight. A good example of this is the case of the deputy head teacher who recently sought £1m compensation for bullying and intimidation after claiming she’d been forced to use a chair that made embarrassing noises every time she sat down.
The tribunal ruled that she was neither unfairly dismissed nor discriminated against. Ironically, it may be the fact that she was claiming so much that led to her defeat. Had her demands been more modest her employers might have decided that it was cheaper to settle out of court.
If they had taken that decision then clearly an injustice would have been done and taxpayers’ money would have been wasted on undeserved compensation.

As in so many things, prevention is better than cure. Putting the correct employment policies in place helps to ensure that problems to do with pay, staff relations, discrimination and so on don’t occur in the first place. When cases do slip through the net, the employer is more like to succeed at a tribunal if he can show that he followed the company’s own published and properly drawn up dispute procedures.

A little foresight and planning combined with properly drawn up policies can save thousands of pounds in the long run.

Sally Laughton is a Solicitor within the Employment Team at Andersons Solicitors. She can be contacted on 0115 988 6736 or email: Sally Laughton

We produce FREE monthly electronic newsletters including; Private Individual, Business and Employment Law. You can register for your copy online from our website
www.andersonssolicitors.co.uk or e-mail Carly Williams at Carly Williams.

Employers urged to help staff tackle obesity

Employers are being urged to join the fight against the growing obesity epidemic by encouraging healthier lifestyles in the workplace. Employment expert Malcolm Davies from Andersons Solicitors in Nottingham examines the proposals and outlines what legal rights overweight people might have if they feel they’re being discriminated against by their company.

Employers are already obliged to observe a plethora of laws to ensure their employees’ safety and protect them from discrimination in such things as age, sex, race and religion.

Now they’re being asked to go one step further and promote a healthier lifestyle. The proposals by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence are not obligatory and are part of a package of measures involving a range of organisations including government, local authorities, schools and many more.

NICE proposes that industry’s contribution towards tackling obesity should be to promote healthier eating and more exercise in the workplace. For example, it recommends that travel expenses should be used to encourage staff to walk to work or move from site to site. Showers should be provided to encourage cycling to work and stairwells should be improved to encourage people to walk rather than take the lift. NICE also wants firms to provide healthier food in canteens and vending machines, and promote out of work activities such as exercise clubs.

The measures are voluntary but NICE is trying to persuade employers to come on board by pointing out the benefits of a healthier workforce in better output and fewer absences due to illness.

Putting in place some of the measures suggested by NICE would also strengthen an employer’s case should an employee ever bring a discrimination claim.

Unlike America, there is no specific law in Britain outlawing discrimination on the grounds of obesity. Nevertheless, there is some protection under the Disability Discrimination Act 2005. It removed the previous requirement that mental impairments had to be clinically well recognised before they could be classed as disabilities. It means that obesity could now be considered a disability if it can be shown that it is caused by anxiety, depression or an eating disorder.

Obese people might also be classed as disabled under the Act if their obesity causes illnesses such as diabetes or heart disease. In these circumstances, employers would have to make reasonable adjustments to meet the needs of the overweight person as required by the Disability Discrimination Act. If they fail to do so then an employee who feels they’ve been treated unfairly could bring a case of discrimination on the grounds of disability.

In spite of all the potential pitfalls, employers are entitled to dismiss employees whose obesity prevents them from doing their job properly. However, firms should tread carefully before taking any disciplinary or dismissal procedures. It is vital to first check if there is a genuine medical reason for the obesity which might classify the employee as disabled.

The employee should be offered help to lose weight and given time to do so. He should also be warned at the beginning of the process that failure to lose weight could result in dismissal.

Malcolm Davies is Senior Partner at Andersons Solicitors and specialises solely in Employment Law. He can by email: davies@andersonssolicitors.co.uk

We produce FREE monthly electronic newsletters including; Private Individual, Business and Employment Law. You can register for your copy online from our website
www.andersonssolicitors.co.uk or e-mail Carly Williams at Carly Williams.

ANDERSONS SOLICITORS - ALWAYS THE RIGHT CHOICE
42 The Ropewalk, Nottingham, NG1 5EJ.
Tel: 0115 947 0641 Fax: 0115 950 4252 Email: info@andersonssolicitors.co.uk Web: www.andersonssolicitors.co.uk

Employers urged to help staff tackle obesity

Employers are being urged to join the fight against the growing obesity epidemic by encouraging healthier lifestyles in the workplace. Employment expert Malcolm Davies from Andersons Solicitors in Nottingham examines the proposals and outlines what legal rights overweight people might have if they feel they’re being discriminated against by their company.

Employers are already obliged to observe a plethora of laws to ensure their employees’ safety and protect them from discrimination in such things as age, sex, race and religion.

Now they’re being asked to go one step further and promote a healthier lifestyle. The proposals by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence are not obligatory and are part of a package of measures involving a range of organisations including government, local authorities, schools and many more.

NICE proposes that industry’s contribution towards tackling obesity should be to promote healthier eating and more exercise in the workplace. For example, it recommends that travel expenses should be used to encourage staff to walk to work or move from site to site. Showers should be provided to encourage cycling to work and stairwells should be improved to encourage people to walk rather than take the lift. NICE also wants firms to provide healthier food in canteens and vending machines, and promote out of work activities such as exercise clubs.

The measures are voluntary but NICE is trying to persuade employers to come on board by pointing out the benefits of a healthier workforce in better output and fewer absences due to illness.

Putting in place some of the measures suggested by NICE would also strengthen an employer’s case should an employee ever bring a discrimination claim.

Unlike America, there is no specific law in Britain outlawing discrimination on the grounds of obesity. Nevertheless, there is some protection under the Disability Discrimination Act 2005. It removed the previous requirement that mental impairments had to be clinically well recognised before they could be classed as disabilities. It means that obesity could now be considered a disability if it can be shown that it is caused by anxiety, depression or an eating disorder.

Obese people might also be classed as disabled under the Act if their obesity causes illnesses such as diabetes or heart disease. In these circumstances, employers would have to make reasonable adjustments to meet the needs of the overweight person as required by the Disability Discrimination Act. If they fail to do so then an employee who feels they’ve been treated unfairly could bring a case of discrimination on the grounds of disability.

In spite of all the potential pitfalls, employers are entitled to dismiss employees whose obesity prevents them from doing their job properly. However, firms should tread carefully before taking any disciplinary or dismissal procedures. It is vital to first check if there is a genuine medical reason for the obesity which might classify the employee as disabled.

The employee should be offered help to lose weight and given time to do so. He should also be warned at the beginning of the process that failure to lose weight could result in dismissal.

Malcolm Davies is Senior Partner at Andersons Solicitors and specialises solely in Employment Law. He can by email: davies@andersonssolicitors.co.uk

We produce FREE monthly electronic newsletters including; Private Individual, Business and Employment Law. You can register for your copy online from our website
www.andersonssolicitors.co.uk or e-mail Carly Williams at cwilliams@andersonssolicitors.co.uk.

ANDERSONS SOLICITORS - ALWAYS THE RIGHT CHOICE
42 The Ropewalk, Nottingham, NG1 5EJ.
Tel: 0115 947 0641 Fax: 0115 950 4252Email: info@andersonssolicitors.co.uk Web: www.andersonssolicitors.co.uk