Posted By Robert M Edwards
The HSE have announced today that by the end of the year we should see the first prosecutions on the grounds of poor stress risk assessment.

The Health & Safety Executive (HSE) is to introduce work-related stress audits in its routine health and safety inspections by the end of 2003, and will ultimately have the power to fine organisations that fail to introduce minimum standards.

Employers will be obliged to carry out a risk assessment that identifying stress hazards, who might be harmed and how. They must then develop and follow through an action plan.

It is likely that specific duties to certain groups of employees will develop through case law as a result.

This will have a severe impact on the ever intertwined roles of HR and H&S and gaps identified on this site will have to be filled.

Posted By Robert M Edwards
Ouch Eric! Good point though, and it is clear from the bulk of case law already on this area that a generic stress risk assessment will have almost no use.

Given the areas I have built up over the other case law I am working on a risk assessment format now.

As soon as it is ready for release on the web site I shall send it to you.

Posted By Robert M Edwards
I am unsuprised that there is more than a pinch of cyncism here. However, there is a case on appeal in the House Of Lords at the moment, one of the Hatton four which is being run on the issue of stress risk assessment.

The limitations of the enforcing body will not stop the targets being set and these tend to materialise in case law.

Posted By Robert M Edwards
Yes, the case of Barber was lodged in the House of Lords in January, according to the listing officer the case will be set down for hearing later this year or early next.

The judgment, when it happens, can be read on
http://www.parliament.th...e.co.uk/pa/ld/ldhome.htm just follow the links for 'judicial work' and it updates the judgments as they are published.

The case is being appealed on the lack of stress risk assessment involved and the QC handling the appeal has written extensively on this subject.

Posted By Allan St.John Holt
Hilary,

Just another angle, but the way we've done it at Royal Mail is to look at the business unit and subject that to a stress risk assessment, rather than the individuals working in it. What that throws up is stressors within the working environment, of course, but that apply to everyone to some extent. Then working on those results depersonalises the process and it seems to work better that way. Maybe I'm not putting this very well, but it's another way of looking at the issue.

Allan

Posted By Hilary Charlton
Thanks Allan

I see how you are doing it and appreciate your response, however ...

My argument is that we always look at the person completing the task where this is a risk factor - taking the human factor into account as in the Domino Theory. Working abstractly and assessing where there are particular stresses is good as long as it is then applied to the persons within that environment and tailored to their particular personality traits - this is where I have the problem. Sure I can risk assessments on the process, but surely this is an identification of the hazard or potential rather than a measure of the risk or likelihood?

Hilary

Posted By Hilary Charlton
Yes, I have a stress policy in place which is a combination of work by myself and by the HR officer, however, this does require the person to identify that they may be stressed and to bring it to our attention.

I shall go with the area risk assessment for the time being but try to rely still on people being up front enough to bring any problems to our attention.

Thanks for the responses.

Hilary

Posted By Raymond Rapp
Robert et al,

I have noted the comments with interest and whilst I agree with many, there are a number of contentious factors I would like to respond to.

Occupational Stress is a complex and common problem and employers have a moral and legal duty to protect the health and well-being of their employees. What's wrong with that?

The only practical way of identifying psychosocial hazards is via a risk assessment, which is mandatory under the MHSWRegs. Normally a employee attitude survey (questionnaire) is used to identify the hazard - risk - harm relationships. The Keil Centre have done much research in this area and recommend that 'individual and group' factors should be identified via the risk assessment, so that common as well as individual stressors can be identified.

Primary interventions should then follow. The fact is many employers ignore basic requirements and without prescriptive legislation, some only implement stress controls as a means of protection against claims and compensation. Where is the moral imperative?

I accept that some employees use stress as an excuse for whatever reason, nevertheless most controls are not 'rocket science', and is really an extension of a good and caring management. Now who will own up to not having stress assessments or controls. I rest my case !!

Ray

Posted By Geoff Burt
Dave Daniel - I'm happy to recommend a good accountant which would help relieve some of your stress.

Like Eric, I'd also be interested in any research on stress in small businesses. Personally, I'll think you'll find that ill health absences for stress in small firms is low or non existent. Not that stress doesn't exist but if you don't work you don't get paid.

Ray Rapp - Well said, nicely put and in a nutshell. I can see an opening here for stress risk assessors!

Geoff