Edge Hill NATFHE

Response to Management Document, Wednesday 23 May 2001

[Note on layout - all we have done is taken management's document, and inter-laced it with our response.  Our comments are visible in bold]

Edge Hill welcomes the opportunity to respond formally to the findings of the Stress Survey reported by Natfhe. We do however have concerns that Natfhe is publishing this material without the express consent of those participating in the survey. Such action is contrary to the professional advice received by the institution and our response cannot be seen as endorsing such publication.

The survey has been thoroughly scrutinised by the legal team at NATFHE with specific reference to the Data Protection Act - no problems in this regard were reported. Prior to this, the institution's Data Controller assessed the questionnaire finding no fault with it.

The issue of work related stress is taken very seriously at Edge Hill and where it has been identified managers and Human Resources work co-operatively and positively to address the issues.

The particular concern for NATFHE is that not enough has been done to identify the problem and to encourage those suffering from work-related stress to approach Personnel to discuss it. 88% of those who responded to the survey reported suffering work-related stress.

A significant amount of support is already provided to staff. This includes:

• a totally confidential staff Counselling Service which is provided free of charge
• use of an independent Occupational Health Service to provide guidance and support to staff and managers
• use of Return to Work interviews which are aimed at providing support to staff on their return from illness
• open door policy by Directorate and Human Resources to enable staff to raise issues of concern
• a positive approach by Human Resources in developing strategies to support any member of staff experiencing illness

Unfortunately, it appears that many of the academic staff suffering from work-related stress are reluctant to make use of support mechanisms - the reasons for this must be investigated further.

Action taken by Human Resources to support staff has included:

• redeployment
• changes to role, responsibilities and hours of work
• provision of equipment and resources
• mediation and communication with managers and staff
• development of action plans to monitor progress
• phased return to work
• development opportunities in the use of alternative therapies
• assessments of work stations and working environment

A survey on The Management of Sickness Absence undertaken by HEFCE last year indicated that Edge Hill operated to Best Practice and indeed we were commended for the way in which staff who experience illness are provided with support. A recommendation from that survey was that Edge Hill should develop an overarching procedure, which would bring all the elements of support and management of sickness.

In order to achieve this the Occupational Health Working Group has been formed. The group includes representatives from across college and from both Natfhe and Unison. The group is reviewing our current processes and will make recommendations on how we further develop our support to staff. We note that Natfhe failed to attend the recent meeting of the Working Group.

It remains to be seen whether those suffering from work-related stress will have their concerns addressed by a working group that focuses on Occupational Health in its entirety rather than devoting attention to alleviating work-related stress specifically.

The external review by HEFCE presents a very different picture to that in the Natfhe report. Human Resources regularly review absence information to ensure that, where stress has been diagnosed, action is taken to support the member of staff. Sickness for academic staff for 2000 (reported via self or medical certificates) indicates the following.

Of the 5 staff reporting stress or debility, 2 had absences of less than 10 days.

This goes to show that the levels of work-related stress are not being identified by what are essentially 'basic procedures' that concentrate on the reporting of work-related stress through sickness certification. If people (including line managers) regard work-related stress as a sign of weakness then it is not surprising that such basic reporting mechanisms are misreporting the levels of stress.

This conflicts with the Natfhe report which received responses from fewer than 8% of staff employed on teaching staff contracts in 2000/01 and which states "many members of staff have suffered severe physical and emotional conditions that have been caused either directly or indirectly by work related stress".

The survey was explicitly aimed at identifying stress levels among 'Academic staff' at Edge Hill. The personnel department indicated in February 2001 that there were just under 300 academic staff employed at Edge Hill. We received responses from eighty-eight of those people. Therefore, roughly 30 per cent of all academic staff completed the questionnaires.

None of this negates the importance of stress, nor our commitment to supporting individuals who are affected by it. We would ask that staff report such issues to their manager or Human Resources and we will continue to seek ways to effectively identify the symptoms of stress and manage them in a supportive way.

In an average week Human Resources deals with approximately 100 staff queries, often of a sensitive and confidential nature. The number of staff utilising the service has grown significantly over the last two years. Our hope is that this level of trust shown in the service by so many colleagues can be replicated throughout the institution.

At NATFHE we too are hopeful that those suffering from work-related stress can entrust the personnel department to alleviate the stress they so clearly suffer from. Thus far, they have not been willing to approach personnel.