Star date: 20th May 2015

SALFORD CITY COUNCIL STAFF CRACKING UP UNDER STRESS OF CUTS

A new Salford Council report shows that staff are cracking up with stress due to cuts related changes. Two thirds of staff are worried about job insecurity, a quarter found their job stressful and almost a third are experiencing `difficulties with their mental wellbeing' caused, in part, by increased workload and heavy handed managers.

Salford Council's solution?  A Workforce Health and Wellbeing Strategy, which includes draconian absence rules involving stricken staff having meetings with their managers, and the issuing of `notices to improve' that could lead to the sack.

Full details here...

Salford City Council staff are cracking up, thanks to cuts, job insecurity, increased workload and changes in their conditions. A survey by the University of Salford, completed by just under a third of all Council staff showed the enormity of the problem...

Over two thirds (66.5%) of Council employees were worried about job insecurity, a quarter (25.1%) found their job either `very' or `extremely stressful' and almost one third (32.2%) were `experiencing some form of difficulties with their mental wellbeing', with stress partly caused by managers.

The findings are contained with a new Council report which "recognised that there is likely to be an impact on the health and wellbeing of our employees as the organisation changes in response to fiscal challenges, with limited resources available and our directly employed workforce being reduced."

The report adds that "As services are redesigned and reconfigured, new ways of working are introduced leading to changes to job roles with associated skills and development needs identified. It is likely that there will be an increase in workload and concerns about job security are high."

The impact is stark, with the number of people going off work at Salford Council well above the national average. Across the public sector nationally, an average 7.9 days are lost per year for every employee taking time off work. At Salford Council the rate is 9.8.

The Council report notes that "mental illness is the main causal factor for the number of working days lost due to absenteeism". It's backed by figures showing that, in June 2012, 18,237 days were lost due to people taking time off with stress, anxiety and depression at Salford Council. In June 2014 it had shot up to 20,085 days, despite there being 9% less staff.

The Council response is its new Workforce Health and Wellbeing Strategy to `manage' absences through `interventions' and `people management effectiveness'. As well as `investing in staff health and wellbeing' and `encouraging our staff to be active and healthy'; and, of course, setting up a Workforce Health and Wellbeing Steering Group, there's also going to be new draconian rules for those who take time off work and might be "causing operational difficulties"...

The new rules are part of a Management of Employee Absence document which states that, if the absence of a member of staff shows `cause for concern', they will be subjected to a Stage One – Notice To Improve. This will involve a meeting between the employee and their manager (who might have caused the stressed time off in the first place) to `discuss the employee's absence'..."This is not a disciplinary interview" the document, er, stresses "although the employee should be advised of the right to be accompanied by a representative or colleague."

At this Stage One meeting, an employee may have the frighteners put on them with a `notice of improvement' for a period of six months but if there are still bouts of absence, the process moves onto Stage Two, where they are given a further six months to `improve' their health, before moving to Stage Three where they will be handed a letter "informing them of the consequences of failing to improve their absence record i.e. a formal hearing which could result in dismissal".

If that doesn't force employees back to work on a regular basis, they can be sacked. `Reasonable dismissal' can be carried out where "The level of absence is consistently above the required/acceptable level and seems likely to remain so" or "There are no, or insufficient signs of improvement despite discussions and written confirmation of expectations and consequences"; or "The effect of the absence on the performance, effectiveness and viability of the service makes the situation intolerable"; and when "A thorough investigation has taken place, and all individual circumstances and factors have reasonably been considered".

The document explains: "It can be anticipated that some employees may be upset that their sickness absence is being questioned, but it should be explained that this is part of the council's agreed procedure on monitoring absence and is part of wider employee health and wellbeing arrangements...

"It should also be noted that when dealing with long term sickness absence this can
be distressing for the employee concerned" it adds "and contact between the manager and employee should therefore be handled sensitively."

Given that almost one third of Council staff who filled in the original survey had `difficulties with their mental wellbeing' and that "Managers were identified as a source of stress for some employees and support for others" it's all going to be a bit of a lottery as to how `sensitive' this process is...

..."With people at the heart of everything we do, the city council is committed to ensuring that staff at all levels feel valued, by ensuring their contribution is recognised" insists the Workforce Health and Wellbeing Strategy, in something that might have been plucked from George Orwell's 1984.