Walker VS Northumberland County Council - Case Study Example

Executing stress audits Introduction It is a fact that stresses in the workplace impacts very negatively on the individual and the organization at large. This in return has forced these very organizations to look for proactive ways of managing stress. It is also being cited from several sources that the main reason from absenteeism from work is illness, however, the second main cause of absence from non-manual workers is work related stress, and stress is also the fourth main reason why manual workers decides to get absent from job. In 2004 alone in the UK it was estimated that approximately 1.4 million working days were lost as a result of stress, and this translated to an estimated £3.8 billion loss to the UK economies. It is the negative economic implications arising from such astronomical figures have propelled UK based institutions to increase their interest on assessing the level of stress among their workforce. This current brief is going to begin by discussing a case study proof which is going to outline that having some executed stress audits may be a significant factor in a company’s defense against litigation, and in our case we will use Mr. Walker VS Northumberland County Council suit. This brief will then proceed and address some of the current issues involved with measuring and managing stress in the workplace. The document is going to discuss what are stress audits and the kind of information these audits produces, the potential benefits, and some of the pitfalls that are likely to arise. The brief will also discuss the products that are available for managing stress audits, implications for conducting stress audits, and steps which are necessary after an audit has been conducted. Literature Review Walker VS Northumberland County Council Case Walker (Plaintiff) worked for the Northumberland County Council (Defendant) as a social services officer between 1970-1987. He was a middle manager responsible for managing four teams of social services field workers within the Blythe Valley in Northumberland, and Mr. Walker was answerable to the assistant director of field services division. Blythe Valley was amongst the five social service divisions within Northumberland and the area comprised of new town dwellings with relatively proportion of very young families. During this period of 80’s, Blythe Valley population also increased significantly and in return the volume of work that had to be undertaken by Mr. Walker and his team also rose in tandem. Even though the number of field workers during the period 1974-1978 were increased by the Northumberland County, there was no increase of Blythe Valley workers in 1978, and come 1986 the pressure of work on workers operating at Blyth Valley was so intense, and not only the team was pressurized, but also Mr. Walker as their boss. Come November 1986, Mr. Walker suffered a nervous breakdown. Mr. Walker suffered from upset, inability to cope up with any sorts of stress, irritability, sleeplessness, headaches, acute anxiety, and mental exhaustion. This condition forced Mr. Walker to seek some off work until 4th March 1987. When Walker was off duty, he would visit his family doctor Dr. D.A Stephens for medical checkups. Mr. Walker had no previous history of any sorts of mental illness, and his personal doctor, Dr. Stephens managed to observe the Mr. Walkers anxieties were as a result of the work pressure because a comprehensive review of all other areas in his life failed to produce any evidence of concurrent problems. In view of this fact, it became common ground that Mr. Walker’s illness was directly attributed to his personality in the workplace. In February 1987 Mr. Walker made an attempt to discuss his position in the social services department with Mr. Davison, who is also his immediate boss. Mr. Davidson became very understanding and he was very sympathetic that Mr. Walker should not revert back to his previous job responsibilities. As a response to the concern, Mr. Walker suggested that Blyth Valley area should be split up into two divisions, However, Mr. Davison did not agree with this particular idea and instead during their course of discussion suggested that Mr. Walker would be assisted in his duties by Mr. Robinson, who works as a principal field officer. Mr. Walker was also to be provided with backup from other area officers whenever chairing case conferences. When Mr. Walker resumed work, all that had been initially agreed upon failed to materialize as planned and Mr. Walker received no visit by Mr. Davison as initially agreed, and just within a span of one month after Mr. Walker had just resumed back to duties, Mr. Davison told Mr. Walker that he Mr. Robinson was needed to cover for the unavailable members of staff from other divisions, and during this time Mr. Walker was completely exhausted and was just struggling to keep up with his main duties at county hall. Mr. Walker also realized that during his absence when he took the off wok, substantial volume of paper wok had piled up, and it was until May when he managed to clear the backlog. During March/April 1987, Blyth Valley area started experiencing an increase in child cases and come July 1987 Mr. Walker had again very limited support compared to what was available for him the previous year, and he once again begun to experience stress symptoms and come 8th September he told Mr. Davison that he would not continue with his official duties. Mr. Walker postponed doing urgent work because he believed that his judgment in relation to decision taking was being adversely affected. As a consequence, Mr. Walker was rendered incapable of resuming to social services duties which he had been holding for over the last twenty years, and his confidence deteriorated. Come February 1988 Mr. Walker was dismissed by the council on the grounds of permanent ill health. Mr. Walker proceeded and claimed damages against the council who happened to be his employer. Mr. Walker claimed that the council grossly breached its duty of care as an employer by failing to take responsibility to avoid exposing him as an employee to health endangering workloads. Mr. Walker contended that the council should have recognized the fact that the workloads he was exposed to were the main cause of his health deterioration, and he Mr. Walker had also made several attempts to alert his line manager notable Mr. Davison on the stress creating nature of social service work that he was constantly getting involved with. Facts Mr. Walker, who is charge of a team of social workers, had reported work related stress that he has been undergoing in his day to day duties pertaining to the ever rising numbers of child abuse cases. Mr. Walker reported this matter to his supervisors and even suggested a restructuring mechanism. In return, these suggestions were not taken seriously and the plaintiff suffered some mental breakdown. On return to duty, the plaintiff was made to understand that an assistant would be made available to ease his workload, but surprisingly the assistant was only intermittently available, and the plaintiff suffered a second mental breakdown and was forced to retire early from work. The Decision It was found that the council was guilty for breaching its duty in the respect of second nervous breakdown. The council was not guilty of the first nervous break down because, immediately the first break down occurred, the council had already noticed risks facing the plaintiff and it could have taken appropriate measures to reduce stress from the employee by lessening his workloads and providing far much better assistance. The court also recognized the fact accepted that taking some measures could have caused disruption to some key services within the council, however, this could not outweigh the obligation to protect the plaintiff against serious health risks. The court decision then clearly implies that employers are under duty to provide their employees with assistance so that employees can perform their contractual duties and obligations with most comfort. The courts ended up awarding Mr. Walker some estimated over £400,000 and this included £175,000 in damages, £150,000 for the full two week trial, Sick pay, and Ill health pension. This particular case has established a precedent that an employer can be held liable for mental injury to an employee as a result of work related stress and pressure. What is stress? Stress can be described as a neutral motivating force which enables individuals to persevere in things which they are working on. However, when stress on work becomes too much, individuals tend to perceive that they are getting out of control on work. This particular state of excessive stress will eventually hinders the individual’s motivation from persevering. In the workplace such situations tend to occur often when employees fail to satisfy the employer’s expectation, or when these employees ability fail to live up to the workplace expectations. Because stress is accumulative, if it is not handled at its early stages, its effect tend to get stored with time, and some of the factors which may lead to stress accumulation may be internal, and this could easily result into loss of balance in the well being of an individuals body and brain. There are also external factors as well and this is usually as a result of unfavorable conditions. Some of the common physical and psychological symptoms related to occupational stress include Table 1.0 showing the common signs and symptoms of stress In an organization excessive stress is more likely to hinder employee’s ability to efficiently discharge their duties, and this as a consequence, adversely affects the entire organizations performance hence resulting into Poor relationship between employees, and between employers and employees Increase of incidents within the organization Poor product and service quality Poor decisions Frequent absenteeism High turnover rate Stress Audits Stress audits can be described as formal company wide approach in risk assessment that attempts to identify the locations, causes, and effects that stress is likely to bore within an organization. Some instances of where stress is likely to originate from include home-work interface, interpersonal relationships, company structure, job role, and career progression among others. Numerous researchers have revealed that approximately 76% of employers address stress management in the workplace, and approximately 50% of employers involved have introduced stress audits as art of their employee’s wellness programs. There are various steps which need to be followed in conducting a stress audit and these include: Identifying if the stresses are negatively impacting the organization If stress has been identified to impact negatively on the organization, the employer should identify the underlying causes, hence come up with a strategy that will combat the stress Identify if whether certain sections or department within the company are more affected by stress than others Identify stress results in terms of employees overall performance Define the extent and severity of the problem in hand so that changes which are made between audits can be measured Devise appropriate strategies which can mitigate on stress within the organization Properly formulated stress audits normally consists of a survey/questionnaire given to representative sample of employees which in return provides some qualitative data, and at the end a report is normally produced which includes the recommendations that forms the basis for implementing suitable long term strategies within the enterprise. The questionnaire in a stress audit is going to assist the organization to establish the likely causes of stress, and probable levels within certain group of individuals or rather the organization. Organization stress audit is a valid tool that can be used in identifying stress within departments, among different age groups, gender, job types, and in the end this particular audit will assist the company ascertains the exact stress levels and any sort of indications of impending health concern. Some of the notable reasons for conducting a stress audit include: Ethics Because employers prefer no to make their employees ill due to work related concerns, then these very employers would go to an extent of preventing certain stress from occurring, and so the ethical approach is to do as much as possible to prevent employees from getting ill as a result of stress. This means that the employer has to measure the amount of stress present, and also find out what the likely cause of stress is, and also where the stress is residing at inside the organization. Legal Organizations have legal obligations to make suitable and sufficient assessment of risks pertaining to health and safety concerns which their very own workforces are likely to be exposed to while on their duty. These regulations will require that the employer has to assess risk to their own workers, and any other party who is likely to be affected by their work or business operations. This in return enables the organization to identify necessary steps in order to comply with health and safety laws. Failure to comply with such laws may lead an organization being penalized with severe criminal and monetary fines, losing directorships, custodial sentences, and prohibitions. This in the end is likely to result in disastrous consequences on both the individuals and organization concerned. Economic Iconic bodies have already indicated that stress related health concerns are already causing business loss in the range of £350-£500 annually per every employee. Such astronomical are the main reasons enough why employers should deal with work related stress. Other hidden costs associated with staff suffering from stress include; poor customer service, costly mistakes, high staff turnover, and lack of commitment among others. Benefits of auditing stress in an organization When stress is audited, response patterns of individuals to the sources of stress are always present and other potential stressors likewise are examined. When this is done, the organization has the capacity to identify potential remedial actions hence inform a rapid response. Other benefits include: Because the company is addressing an often difficult topic directly and openly, it is therefore perceived to be enhancing its reputation as a caring employer The workforce is encouraged to talk and be more open about personal issues that are likely to affect their performances at work It is possible to identify long term health and performance related issues and also address those same issues Stress management interventions can be targeted to address specific needs, this in return saves on wasted efforts and costs that are associated with addressing work related issues in a haphazard manner. Both the individual and the organization stand to benefit mutually It is possible to reduce hidden costs associated with poor performances as a result of stress It is possible to measure the benefits using different dimensions and also quantify the return on investment Phases of conducting a stress audit Phase 1 Here an audit plan is carefully presented within the company Phase 2 Background information is collected through interview Phase 3 The organization will devise and select appropriate measures which deliberately focus on the causes and effects of stress Phase 4 Here the diagnostic measures are deployed appropriately and information obtained is analyzed Phase 5 Here the participants will be provided with feedback from the results at a personal level, and this is going to be conducted in a very confidential manner. Phase 6 The report on the findings together with all the recommendations pertaining to the remedial action is produced to the senior management, and in most cases the report will involve matters that the company may consider on a wider perspective when developing stress management strategy or a policy framework for that matter Phase 7 Here the appropriate recommendations are implemented if necessary Outcome of a Stress Audit The actions that can be followed after a successful stress audit will definitely have to be in accordance with the nature of the findings, and the program outcome of stress management is likely to include one or more of the below findings Working relationship/interpersonal communications improvement workshops Role analysis workshops Attending seminars on job workouts Job re-designing Enhancement in the psychological climate of the company Enhancements in physical work environment Improved employee participation in change processes Career coaching Conclusion Recently there has been several guidance from numerous sources dealing with workplace related stress. Iconic organizations have also issued insightful guidelines pertaining to the main causes of stress. In crease in litigations and rising cost of suits not mentioning the tattered reputation is likely to make employers act hence engage themselves in stress management. To assist companies, guidance on protection against such compensation claims is available. In this work some of the benefits and pitfalls of conducting stress audits have been coherently been addressed and the evaluation of available stress prevention tools and techniques highlights on some of the shortfalls as well as methodological problems. Read More