It's a legitimate H&S issue, Ian. As with any of these things, we build the risk management tools for others to use. HR would certainly need to be involved in developing these things. Sounds like your current organisation is acting maturely with the joint approach.

Ian In my experience only the larger organisations tend to take stress seriously or at least are prepared to manage it. There is still a stigma associated with work related stress, as well as other complex issues like HR involvement. In this current climate I think even responsible organisations are probably putting it on the back-burner.

Since (perceived) lack of control and lack of communication are both major risk factors in stress, perhaps the larger organisations manage it more actively because the small organisations don't need to. If the company comprises the owner and three others, no member of the workforce needs reassuring that he's more than just a faceless minor cog in the bowels of the enterprise, for example.

My opinion is that H&S and HR generally need to work together - it is likely that control measures stemming from a decent risk assessment will fall within both remits. HR usually have a lot of good data too from staff surveys, absence management, management training etc. They're also ideal people to arrange focus groups and the like. However, in my experience, HR don't necessarily get the risk assessment approach to this subject area - needing to remove the stressors rather than just provide blanket control measures e.g. Advisory services and Harrassment Policies (not saying that such things don't help, just saying that they're not necessarily borne of genuine employee needs). So unless you've got HR bods who are very switched on to H&S, I always think the joint approach is best.

'Walker Vs Northumberland County Council', probably the best place to start when stating that Stress is a H&S issue. I've just been doing some work for a family member on this issue and it's been an eye open in terms of the difference between what should be done and what is done to manage stress in the workplace with some company's. With the way things are at the moment I'd have to say that more focus should be placed on workplace stress prevention not less. It's an interesting and complex subject to get your teeth into thats for sure.

Sorry Phil, i dont quite understand your post, of course outside issues impact on stress, that is part of the problem but if someone is stressed at home and comes to work and it continues ... And if we are not specialists - who is? (I hope i can deal with complex issues) I cant see why HSE have reduced the standards, they have consistently flagged it up as one of the biggest issues which is why more and more HS advisors are becming involved and managers are realsing that it is their actions that maybe responisble for high turnover and low self esteem, bullying work practices ...

SpaceNinja ianjones,this was what was explained to myself on a recent seminar I attended. And I agree that it becomes a problem when staff are stressed and bring it to work.Stress is not a medical condition or illness as such, it is however a set of symptoms, that can be brought on by change, conflict or constraint, what I mean by specialist input is managers that can be in a position to monitor absenteeism, communicate etc.

mate i am not having a dig but i think you need to look deeper at this stress is a recognised medical condition. have a look at the hse's excellent stress webspage http://www.hse.gov.uk/st...management-standards.pdf

Stress is not a medical condition. Stress exposure may cause physical responses and lead to illness. It's a bit like saying someone suffers from 'noise'. Excessive noise can lead to ill-health (NIHL). But noise is not the medical condition. HSE quote: "By the term work related stress we mean the process that arises where work demands of various types and combinations exceed the person’s capacity and capability to cope. Think of this as ‘bad work’. It is a significant cause of illness and disease and is known to be linked with high levels of sickness absence, staff turnover and other indicators of organisational underperformance - including human error." The most useful outcome from all the HSE research on stress is the line manager behaviour guidance. So - if one of the main causes of stress is manager behaviours, who - HR or H&S - is in the best position to influence, judge or sanction such behaviours? The 'hazard' of work-related stress (inducers) is identified at the general risk assessment or safety review stage, and as such would be advised on by H&S specialists, well versed in the HSE guidance. As with any hazard, the aim is to reduce impact potential in whatever ways are reasonably practicable. This is the occupational aspect of stress - think police officer, social worker, debt counsellor versus gardener, artist, personal trainer. However, where the main stress inducers appear to be either external (the individual) or from manager behaviours, this takes the problem into the arena of HR. Therefore the answer is BOTH, sometimes H&S sometimes HR.

It is a moot point whether stress is or is not a medical condition. Stress is an ambiguous term as it can refer to both an agent and its consequences. However, since the seminal case of Walker v Northumberland County Council, the judiciary have recognised that 'psychiatric' injury has the same status as physical injury suffered at work.

The important element that needs to be remembered is that stress comes as a result of pressure, whether that be work based or personal. To address the issue of stress there needs to be an understanding of what the potential pressures are and how that pressure is managed. So, excessive pressure can cause stress, stress can cause other medical conditions. With that being the case I would say that excessive pressure is the hazard that needs to be used to carry out the stress RA. Nit picking possibly but important to understand none the less.

I second Nlivesey on pressure being the hazard. Its pleasing to note that we all are in agreement that workplace pressures of the nature that feed into stress are best handled by a range of people, including ourselves. On a note about HSE/LA priorities earlier - check out the 'low risk office risk assessment' on the HSE website and see what that has about stress. Its very poor and the management standards approach is not mentioned. 'Offices' can quite obviously vary from a small 2 man job up to 1000's with significant potential for stress. The dangers of arbitrarily describing a premises as low risk are again flagged up... Stress has very much been downgraded (as have most occ. health subjects) and if the HSE didn't serve IN's before on this subject, they certainly aren't going to be doing so in the near future. Totally and utterly wrong in my opinion to move focus away but nonetheless the Government appetite for action in this area is clear....and the HSE are not providing such clear direction on topics to LA's anymore either.

In my experience it very much depends on what is / has caused the stress & what is the perceived solution. A recent case I was asked to get involved with related to an employee having a period of time off work - when he returned to work he was no longer a 'he' if you get my meaning. The male employees wouldn't let him/her use the Gents & the female employees wouldn't let him/her use the Ladies - result is that he/she goes off work with stress. My solution, not surprisingly; contact HR, as there are obvious other issues with pay, social security, pensions etc. Would any of you out there disagree & subsequently got involved? I certainly don't think its an H&S matter to 'fix'.