Employers who want to avoid constructive dismissal claims from staff who say they have been off work through stress need to make employees realise that their condition will be investigated at an intensive return to work interview, the employment law specialist Bibby Consulting & Support has said.
Increasingly, employees are quoting stress as a major reason for taking time off, and while of course there will be some genuine cases, which employers need to handle carefully, these are not at the same level that we see the “stress card” being used.
The good news is that there are some simple tools that employers can use to filter out the less-than-genuine cases and therefore keep claims down to a minimum.
Communicating a return to work policy and the importance of the formal return to work interview during a new employee’s induction is in itself a deterrent to many employees who toy with the idea of taking an extra sick day here or there.
For stress or anxiety related absence, it is also a good idea that you tell employees that you will involve Occupational Health Professionals in return to work meetings that relate to this type of absence. Again not only will this act as a deterrent to stop employees using the “stress card”, but by using a health specialist you can quickly see which cases are genuine and which are not. Occupational Health support does not cost as much as people think, and when you offset that against the cost of not addressing the issues, it pales into an insignificant amount.
Says Bibby Consulting & Support’s Managing Director Michael Slade: “Too many employees are playing the stress card – it’s like the new bad back. That’s why professionally managed return to work meetings are essential – they help employers get to the heart of issues affecting staff and prevent them escalating to the point of a constructive dismissal claim.”
Slade admits that dealing with such matters is often a difficult balancing act between the needs of the business and the needs of the employee but well run return to work meetings can satisfy both. For the employer, though, they provide an opportunity to place a ‘benchmark’ on file that allows any future activity, including patterns of absence, to be measured against.
Slade concludes: “Employers have a duty of care to protect their employees – but they must also protect themselves. Stress management is a key means of making sure that workers understand that there are strict rules and processes in place. If employees are given clear guidelines and told that their claims of stress are going to be thoroughly investigated – including a health check – they are less likely to use the “stress card” or in the genuine cases, look to a tribunal for financial compensation .”
While I agree with the protective thrust of this advice, I think it’s important to consider the whole relationship with the employee – especially at induction. It is possible to put the return to work policy in a positive light – and at this early stage of the relationship it is important to do so. Making it sound like just a deterrent, may tell the new employee that “we don’t trust you” and this could damage the commitment and psychological contract of the new employee in a way which could lose much more than is gained.
I agree with Bob’s comment – policies couched in such punitive terms never enhance working relationships. They also demonstrate a lack of understanding of mental health issues and the need for pro-activity in maintaining people’s performance. It’s also useful to remember that many people who are experiencing stress don’t recognise it and carry on until they ‘crash and burn’, often with some collateral damage along the way.
As an employee risk consultant that is both ‘poacher’ and ‘game keeper’ in that I work with individuals who are seeking redress from their employer and employers who are seeking to protect themselves from unnecessary claims, I feel the tone of the article, if applied by an employer, could produce as many problems as it is seeking to resolve.
There is a clear difference between pressure and stress – stress being the point that excessive and/or persistent pressure causes physical and/or mental harm. Pressure in normal and often good for an employee. Stress is not good but happens, and if caused by an employer needs to be managed effectively, correctly and transparently, with respect for employees who often have resilience and coping skills issues that must be seen to be addressed appropriately by the employer before taking a ‘big stick approach’.
After over 12 years in stress risk management I still find the biggest preventable cause of ‘real stress’ problems in organisations is line management.