Decreasing ‘psychosocial risks’ in the workplace
THERE has been increasing focus on the impact of workplace culture on employees’ mental health. The negative impacts of workplace culture are often termed ‘‘psychosocial risks’’. These refer to risks that are associated with a person’s thoughts, emotions, behaviours and the environment. The concept acknowledges the interaction between workers, their work environment and their life outside of work.
While remote, hybrid and flexible working arrangements increased during Covid, more recently a number of employers are requesting (and, in some instances, requiring) their workers to return to the workplace. The main reasons being cited are a lack of worker connectivity and deteriorating workplace culture.
Remote and hybrid working arrangements also have their own risks, including a lack of social connection and interaction, inferior supervision and oversight, and the blurring of lines between home and work. All of these factors may impact on a worker’s mental health.
ISO 45003 is an occupational health and safety global standard which was launched in 2021. The standard identifies three hazard domains. These domains relate to how work is organised, social factors at work and the work environment. Organisational factors include workload, work pace, lack of autonomy and employer expectations. Social factors include organisational culture, interpersonal relationships, a lack of work/life balance, and harassment and bullying in the workplace. Environmental and equipment factors include workplace conditions, such as space, lighting and noise. Employers’ obligations to staff, in terms of their health and safety, are primarily covered under the Health and Safety at Work Act. Employers have a duty to ensure the health and safety of their workers, so far as is reasonably practicable. This includes both physical and mental health. The duty to take reasonable steps to maintain a safe workplace is implied, if not expressed, in all employment agreements. This is in recognition of the special nature of the employment relationship. This duty of care extends to workers at home if the employer knows that they are performing work while at home.
A number of employers are introducing interventions designed to minimise risks of psychosocial harm. These include more inclusive workplaces, flexible working initiatives, integrating physical and mental wellbeing interventions, providing cognitive behaviour therapy and financial literacy interventions. Interestingly, the evidence suggests that mental health apps, resiliency programmes and mindfulbased interventions are less effective. A number of surveys show a very steep dropoff in user rates of mental health apps within 37 days. The effectiveness of resiliency programmes in workplaces remains unclear. A review of 37 studies found that the overall effect of such programmes was limited and that programme effects diminish over time.
Programmes employing a oneonone delivery format (e.g. coaching) proved most effective. Programmes using trainthetrainer and computerbased delivery formats were least effective. Mindfulbased interventions are shown to be effective in reducing anxiety and depression in highincome countries but not as effective in workplaces in low and middleincome countries.
WorkSafe has provided substantial guidance on psychosocial hazards. Among the recommendations are having clear policies on risks and how they should be addressed. Employers should educate their employees and supervisors to understand the scope and expectations of the role and increase workers’ ability to make their own decisions about their work. A good balance between effort and reward should be provided, along with a longterm view of productivity while focusing on retaining staff and promoting work/life balance. MBIE also provides guidance on stress in the workplace and how this might be identified and addressed.
Worksafe board chairman Ross Wilson is on the record as stating that we are not appropriately dealing with health and psychosocial stressors and that it is time to adapt and change to work differently and create better workplaces. He further identified the need to move from traditional risk management — shifting from a ‘‘liability mentality’’ to a ‘‘social purpose’’ perspective. People should be seen as the solution and not the problem.
WorkSafe sought public input on new Good Practice Guidelines for managing psychosocial risk at work. Submissions closed in December 2023 but the final Guidelines are yet to be published. The draft Guidelines detail the risk management approach to be taken to manage psychosocial risks and offer examples of control measures to manage these risks. The draft guidelines also offer examples of culturally inclusive practices for creating healthy workplaces and offer ‘‘good practice’’ advice for responding when workers have been exposed to psychosocial hazards at work. In Australia, the Fair Work Commission (which is similar to our Employment Relations Authority) has the ability to make a ‘‘Stop Bullying Order’’. If the Commission is satisfied that a worker has been bullied and there is a risk the worker will continue to be bullied, it can make any Order it considers appropriate other than an Order requiring payment of money. Orders can include conditions such as limiting contact between employees who have been in conflict, and prohibitions on email, text and verbal communications that may be perceived as bullying in nature. In addition, Australia has introduced new provisions which are known as ‘‘the right to disconnect’’. These allow employees an enforceable workplace right to refuse to monitor, read or respond to contact (or attempted contact) from an employer or third party outside of their ordinary working hours unless the refusal is unreasonable. Similar initiatives have been implemented for a number of years now in European companies such as VW.
New Zealand employees can bring claims for bullying, harassment and other failures to provide a healthy and safe workplace. Where the actions of the employer or the failings of the employer leave the employee with no alternative but to resign, then a claim for constructive dismissal can be brought.
Recent cases in both the Employment Relations Authority and the Employment Court have resulted in substantial monetary awards in favour of impacted employees.
A recent decision in the Employment Relations Authority saw an employee awarded $50,000 compensation for bullying and harassment while at work and a further $50,000 compensation for being forced to resign.
A recent Employment Court case awarded not only compensation and lost wages, but consequential damages, such as loss of value on the resale of a rental property, in circumstances where it was reasonably foreseeable that the employer’s actions may result in the employees being out of work. In that case, the husband and wife employees were diagnosed as having PostTraumatic Stress Disorder and were unable to work.
Not only is there an increasing focus on the impact of workplace culture on employees’ mental health, but there are also increasing awards to employees where their employers have failed unreasonably to provide a safe and healthy workplace.