EMPRO SAS Limited

Why should I bother to go to this additional expense?

To save, at least, £515 per employee per year, which is the estimate agreed by various government and employer organisations, and that figure does not take into account the 63% that were exposed to stress but did not take time of work and who's productivity could be affected.

We have procedures in place for dealing with employees with stress and we prefer to deal with these kinds of issues as they arise. Its affectively an 'open-door policy' we operate.

Identifying and dealing with these kinds of issues before they arise can save the company money, reduce the risk of being successfully sued (and the time involved in preparing for a court case), and it can improve productivity. Also, research has shown most people will not come forward when suffering stress, choosing to carry on working with reduced productivity or simply choosing to go off sick periodically. Of course, in the worst case scenario, employees will go off sick and then bring a claim against an employer without the employer ever being aware of the problem in the first place.

I think that asking every employee to fill in a form could cause unease and unrest, and it could also lead to some of them going off sick if they actually thought about whether they are stressed or not.

Research in this country and in the USA has shown that if you explain that it will help you as an employer to keep their stress levels as low as possible, the effect is the opposite to what you think. This is the Hawthorn effect*, named after the factory where it was noticed.

I can't see how filling out a questionnaire can lead to increased productivity.

The information obtained will identify employees suffering stress. You can then take steps to reduce the stress. Reducing stress increases productivity. That is not our finding but the finding of various government and employer organisations.

It's up to the employee to notify us of them feeling stressed and not for us to tell them.

That is not strictly the case. At least three High Court cases have emphasised that to avoid being held liable for negligently causing an employee's stress, employers should place much more emphasis on identifying where an employee is vulnerable and take appropriate steps to remove or mitigate the causes of the stress.

What do I get out of this? I pay for each employee and I'm either going to get a clean bill of health on all my employees or a lot of work counselling, which I might not of needed to do if we don't go through with 'form filling.'

If you get a clean bill of health for your employees you get two things. First of all, you get the assurance that if an employee then started litigation against you for stress related illness, you will not be held liable as you have shown duty of care to your employee required by the Health and Safety at Work Act (2002). Secondly, you get improved productivity due to the Hawthorn effect. If you do not get a clean bill of health you get a lot of work in counselling, which can have the effect of costing you, on average, £515 per employee per year (minimum).

If it ain't broke why fix it?

How do you know that your system is working really well, instead of maybe just well? Research has shown that under normal circumstances something in the region of 63% of employees were exposed to stress but did not take time off work, which has been proven to effect productivity.

*The Hawthorne effect is a form of reactivity whereby subjects improve an aspect of their behaviour being experimentally measured simply in response to the fact that they are being studied.