NAPIER, 10 February 2016, Gordon Anderson - It was Edward Deming 1900-1993, an American engineer, statistician, professor, author, lecturer, and management consultant who coined the 85-15 rule. He stated that 85% of the problems in any operation are within the system and are management’s responsibility.When I questioned this nearly 30 years ago, the response was, who is responsible for providing the 4 x Ms The Methods or internal management systems including compliance management for the work to be carried out effectively? The Manpower with the skills qualifications and or experience? The Machinery or equipment to undertake the work and the Maintenance of the equipment? The Materials to work with? At what cost and quality? A: Management. The other 15% he contributed to human error and other external factors
You may well be asking what this has to do with workplace stress. Health and safety is one of those compliance responsibilities and as the name suggests, is not just about physical injury but also the health of employees or in this case the mental illness or wellbeing of employees.
Stress or mental incapability that is caused by workplace pressure or overload, is a health and safety issue that needs to be recognised for what it is, a debilitating mental illness that effects thousands of New Zealanders. It results in employers, managers and employees spending months in counselling, using medication and often not being able to return to their full time or original position and in too many instances taking their own life.
Why is this a health and safety issue?It is the responsibility of the employer to monitor an employee’s work load and not place or allow an employee to be in or get into a position that will create the stress or work overload.I image that some reading this will think this to be a load of PC rubbish and employees should just harden up or get a councillor as there is no problem or we don’t want to know about it.
If you are a PCBU, an employer, a directors or officer of a business and this is your attitude to this defined definition of Harm, then I suggest you take this seriously. Why? This will be reinforced with the introduction of the new H&SW Act on the 4th of April and you will held be held responsible if a workplace stress related issue is proven to have been caused by a workplace situation.
The recognition of workplace stress is already enshrined in the current H&SE Act under section 6Employers to ensure safety of employees • Every employer shall take all practicable steps to ensure the health and safety of employees while at workAnd in the definition ofHarm— • (a) means illness, injury, or both; and • (b) includes physical or mental harm caused by work-related stress
(b) was included in the 2003 amendment to the HSE Act and instigated by a Police photographer, a Prison warden and a Bank manager who took their own lives due to work related stress disorder.The investigations found that there was a common thread where all three had approached their employees for help due to work related pressure and stress. Little or no help was provided by their employees resulting in them taking their own lives.
Employment agreementsAll employment agreements contain or should contain a clause about the employee’s responsibility to comply with the employer’s H&S policies and procedures. What is often forgotten is that the agreement is a legally binding contract between both parties, the employer and the employee.This then requires the employer to have all the health and safety policies, procedures processes and checks and balances in place to address all H&S matters so the employee can fulfil their employment conditions. Workplace stress related stress is just one of these checks.
CASE STUDYA medium sized manufacturing company is owned by two brothers who also have three other silent shareholders.The brothers decide to step back from the management of the company and appoint the 52 year old operations manager of the main plant of the company as the general manager of the business. As part of his responsibility he is to maintain the smooth running of his own division as well managing two other divisions located in nearby towns.Twelve months into his role, a divisional manager resigns. He approached his employees for permission to employ another manager where they informed him that they are in the process of appointing three independent directors within the next three months to oversee the running of the business and any future decisions will be made by them.
The directors are appointed who in turn inform him by email that the decision to appoint another manager is on the agenda, but not a priority. Six months pass and he is still managing the three sites as well as acting as general manager. He finds that his health is suffering and he is becoming stressed, he can’t sleep and constantly wakes at 2-3 am worrying about work. As a result he seeks medical help and is prescribed medication to help him in his day to day activities.
He requests a special meeting with the three directors to discuss his need for help and he is queried by the directors as to why production is slipping as the P&L statements are not as they have been previously. He explains to them the workload he is under, the associated stress and medication and again, appeals to them for help. Their response was to recommend a professional councillor who could assist him with his stress disorder.On his return to his office he documents the discussion and outcome and puts in writing of his concerns and remedies for action to the directors. No response from the directors is received.
A month later he receives a letter from an independent human resource company, informing him that they have been engaged by the company directors to manage a restructure of the business.A complete new structure is to be implemented and his position will be affected by this. He is also informed that he will have the opportunity to apply for a position.This comes as a bomb shell to his already stressed situation, he suffers from an anxiety attack and is hospitalised for two days. Later, one of the owners of the business visit him at his home while he is recuperating and he queries him about the proposed restructuring. He knows nothing of it.
When he returns to work he finds that he cannot cope with the added pressure due to his stress disorder and failing health. His doctor recommends that he takes three months stress leave.During this time he is not contacted by the owners or the directors to see how he is improving.Four months later the restructure takes place, he applies for the position of general manager and is unsuccessful in his application.
This decision is devastating and a friend recommends that he seeks professional advice from an employment lawyer. He is advised that the company has a case to answer for a breach of his agreement and he has three avenues of redress. 1. To take a personnel grievance against the company for breach of his agreement under the terms of the Employment relations Act; 2. To lay a complaint with Worksafe NZ for them to investigate the company and to prosecute them for their lack of duty of care; 3. If they do not prosecute the company, to proceed with a private prosecution with costs against the company.I would be interested in your comments as to what course of action the manager should take and why? Please send any responses to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Foot noteIt’s interesting to note that a few years prior to his passing, Deming changed his 80/20% rating to 92/8%. The reason for this was the trend to use professional managers with degrees and accountancy backgrounds.This brought a strong focus on financial results at whatever cost and in many cases KPIs with financial rewards linked to results.The quickest method to save costs is to ether increase the price of the goods and services, down size, restructure or to attack the 4Ms. Savings at any cost is never the final cost.
Unfortunately there are always causalities and too often it’s those who can’t defend themselves, the employees, hence a fertile ground for physical and mental stress as illustrated above.The rate of suicide in NZ is too high and a devastating loss to all who are effected, in many cases this action can be directly linked to employment and business situations.Under the 2015 Health and Safety at Work Act, all business owner, directors and managers (PCBUs) will have a greater responsibility to actively manage this and to place a greater emphasis on not only the physical and safety aspect of business but also the mental wellbeing of their employees.
Gordon's contact details are:
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.www.Hasmate.co.nz06 84 22 499