Posted By Paul Cornet There is nothing in the RIDDOR regs that states Work Related Stress is reportable.

Posted By Heather Collins Me three. Not reportable. Nothing has changed since the last thread on this.

Posted By Mike Miller Nothing in RIDDOR I agree but: Any injury sustained at work that results in 3 day absence is reportable. Work related stress is a work injury. The problem arises from substantiating the claim that is it work related. What ususally happens is that if proven it becomes a personal injury claim which is dealt with at a tribunal. HSE have a guidance note on stress at work but are not really in a position to deal with it.

Posted By Jay Joshi Stress is not an "injury".

Posted By VJM Thanks All, Lloyd - thankfully it's not PTSD! Just stress by the medical certificate at the moment. Kieran, we do manage it, we are currently reviewing our stress policy, so i'm not too worried about that aspect. However I'm trying to get out of the EHO why she thinks stress is three day injury (as mentioned by someone else), when it's not stated anywhere else (schedules etc) and even the HSE are telling me it's not. All very confusing, but if I do figure it out, i'll be sure to put a post up for you all.

Posted By Lloyd Cole Thanks VJM

Posted By CFT Mike As others have said, 'stress is not an injury, or anything like it, and it remains a completely non reportable issue. Lloyd PTS tends to affect an individual as a result of 'a terrible experience' of some kind or another, this would not be reportable directly. If the PTS lead to an accident that was within the scope of Riddor reporting, then that event would be, but not for PTS itself; it would certainly form part of an investigation though from outside or internal, depending on what level of commitment the individual had received from the organisation (if indeed they even knew,if it was not work related) CFT

Posted By Mike Miller Hi I am aware of a case that ended up in a ET regarding stress. I am not going to detail it here as it was very long winded. Briefly however The LA in question capitulated on the advice of their barrister after a 3 day legal argument. It was work related stress brought about by bullying of an individual by managers. Proven because there was previous history regarding the perpetrator and the LA was aware of it and failed to act on all 3 previous counts. The point made is that injury at work does not need to be physical it can be mental or otherwise. When proven after the event (as this is the only way) it is then an injury sustained at work. Not reportable but recordable. The sad fact is that not everyone gets the benefit of an ET. Often victims leave the work place as they are not supported leaving the bully to move to their next victim. Any witnesses when asked will not give statements as they do not wish to find themselves in the same boat. well I off back into the desert for another long shift.. good night and speak again soon Inshalla!!

Posted By Mike Miller Raymond' I couldn't agree more!

Posted By Mitch CFT, Agree potential minefield, however if WS is as commonplace as thought it needs to be addressed (as working at height, slips and trips etc) even if it causes a meltdown. Mitch

Posted By Jay Joshi The HSE and all the stakeholders cannot agree on an ACoP on Work Related Stress so the concept of stress becoming RIDDOR reportable at this pint in time is not practical Reporting under RIDDOR has very little to do with genuine workplace stress claims.

Posted By Raymond Rapp CFT et al I agree that stress and in particular work-related stress is a very difficult subject. However, that in itself does not excuse the fact that it is not very well managed or reported. Until the Walker case occupational stress was not recognised by the regulators or the medical fraternity. That did not make it right either. Indeed, it is rather damming that it took the judiciary to recognise its existence in the first instance. A GP can diagnose work-related stress, albeit with the help of the sufferer. Whilst some people may use stress as an excuse for some other problem, real or perceived, it is often an underlying symptom of some other chronic problem such as workplace bullying. Moreover, making up excuses is not unique to work-related stress, as there have been many excuses of a 'bad back' or 'migraine' over the years. Interesting debate... Ray

Posted By VJM All, Thanks for keeping this post going, it's much appreciated. I have an update... The EHO that told me that stress is reportable has just rung to apologise and tell me she was wrong! It's NOT, from the horses mouth. I think everyone has bought up some valid points about this subject, but thought I'd keep you up to date on my progress. It's not every day you have an EHO ringing up to apologise! Vanessa (VJM)

Posted By CFT Vanessa Thank you for the update; it is appreciated. As Jay states at least they came back to apologise. Bit worrying though in truth! My final word on this one, (I think) stress IMHO, is never likely to be included as a Riddor reportable area as diagnosis (genuine) is so difficult; as indicated earlier, it is what it may lead to that is important and one would be wise to consider all possible eventualities if someone is a sufferer, be it work related or not, it could have implications at some time or another. CFT

Posted By Chris Jerman It is disappointing to read that simply because 'stress' isn't an injury (in some people's view) it's not reportable under RIDDOR. OK, maybe stress is a collective term for a range of physiological disorders - which are very real. Let's say, then, that the employee is suffering from clinical depression brought about by an employer who fails to manage their work situation adequately; is that now notifiable? Or does that person have to self harm before it becomes notifiable? Is it the word 'stress' that's the issue under discussion, like RSI? It is the GPs that write stress or work related stress on the sick note, not us. Perhaps we should not be accepting that as a diagnosis and throw it back to them saying "Tell us precisely what it is." I find the argument, as I said, disappointing. Let's get back to the spirit of RIDDOR here and what it was designed to do; not simply the list of what is and what isn't. As employers we have a clear duty to look after people who work for us - period. OK, there are limits to that duty, but that depends upon how much extra you want to care about your staff. When Robens and his crew dreamt up the HS@W Act, they clearly tried to build in a degree of future proofing. It's done well to get to 2008 and still be valid. It would appear that RIDDOR hasn't faired so well. Would the HSE be prepared to take a case against an employer who causes psychological 'damage' to an employee. Well, we know the answer to that. I have always asked in relation to RIDDOR "Would the HSE actually be interested or benefit from knowing about this?" After all that IS the spirit of RIDDOR. Isn't it? So in relation to 'stress' or whatever the medics actually call it once they've consulted their books, I believe that it is meritorious of a report - regardless of any list. It is baffling that the HSE will not accept reports concerning 'stress' (I know because we submitted one and we're talking about someone who is genuinely damaged, not just a bit 'stressed' and they WOULD NOT have it.) I asked the HSE head of policy where they had got their figures for the numbers of WRS cases from. He replied 'From sick notes' When we (the collective heads of safety from most of UK retailers)asked how many of those turned out to be genuine cases following investigation, it was clear that they had not done that research and had taken them all to be genuine! So, would we report 'stress' as a RIDDOR simply on the basis of the GP, no chance. But if we have sent someone 'over the edge' as it were, under the over 3 day ruling, we would report. What they do with that is their affair, but we shall continue to report. Err, obviously were are trying NOT to mentally injure or staff. You have to ask, if we 'did' this to someone, didn't report it and it came to light, would the HSE raise the failure to report it to the authorities? There are altogether too many questions about whether it's RIDDOR or not. Why does it matter? If you're wrong and it isn't, so what? It only matters if your company uses the numbers of RIDDORs as some misguided performance measure or indicator of 'safety'. We don't, consequently we have no difficulty with managers reporting incidents within the business. Chris Jerman CFIOSH