David A Evans is a specialist in Executive and Workplace Mediation, with over 30 years’ experience in employee relations, HR leadership, and OD driven commercial transformation roles. Formerly a Managing Director in Accenture he has in recent times been Managing Director of The Diversity & Innovation Company which helps business leaders broaden their diversity of thought. In Place of Strife has a dedicated panel of specialists in Workplace Mediation: David A Evans, Liz Rivers and Felicity Steadman. They each have over 30 years’ commercial experience and can be appointed at www.mediate.co.uk.

Using Workplace Mediation to help resolve mental health absence cases.

As an HR Lead do you know the cost of mental health absence cases to your organisation, and would you like to make a significant contribution to your organisation by reducing the length and cost of long term mental health sickness cases, as well as improving the way you deal with your employees?

Mind, the mental health charity, reports that 1 in 4 people suffer from a mental health problem. There is evidence to suspect that reported statistics may understate the issue as a 2018 Accenture survey reports that within the workplace just 1 in 5 employees (22%) said they would be open with colleagues about mental health issues.

When it comes to the issue of cost the statistics are shocking. Research by the Centre Forum Commission found that mental health problems cost UK employers £26 billion each year, averaging £1,035 per employee. The Thriving at Work report revealed that over 300,000 people with long-term mental health problems lose their jobs each year. This is a staggering loss of talent and productivity from organisations, and given the rate at which mental health issues are increasing in the workplace the current approach of removing employees rather than supporting them to return to work is not sustainable.

It is time for HR to deploy a new mechanism to help address the epidemic of mental health related absence in UK business.

Having spent over 30 years in HR I know the pressures on HR professionals to resolve cases quickly whilst working within the considerable legal constraints of the Equality Act. Conventional HR wisdom is that HR must protect the organisation by being seen to rigidly stick to the policies and procedures, fearful of providing the one fleck of black sand on the otherwise golden sand beach for an employment lawyer to spot.

This results in HR taking a formal, procedural, and essentially defensive approach to absence linked to mental health issues, for example requiring employees to raise a formal Grievance when they have concerns about how they are being treated during their absence. Yet employees who go on long term mental health sickness are often literally not in the right state of mind for rigid processes and resolving issues by working through concerns and problems in long meetings, or working through lengthy, stressful, and energy sapping procedures such as a Grievance investigation.

Anecdotal evidence from employees who have been on mental health related long term sickness is that when they raise a concern, for example about how a line manager has been dealing with them, or the actions they need the employer to take in order to reduce stress triggers the response from HR is bureaucratic – needing to be seen to stick rigidly to the rules in order to provide a legally defensive audit trail of treating the employee fairly. This in turn amplifies employee concern in an environment when employees can often be in a state of heightened sensitivity to perceived threats, for example due to anxiety. Employees report that a rigid and bureaucratic approach from HR is more likely to drive them into the arms of an employment lawyer, which in turn begets an even more cautious and procedural response from HR.

What is the alternative?

In the general management of cases it is possible for HR to manage these types of cases fairly, sensitively, proactively and robustly. When mental health absence cases have progressed to the long term sick stage HR need to be able to operate flexibly, yet protect the organisation at the same time. As well as following the ACAS guidance on dealing with mental health absence cases HR should now think seriously about using Workplace Mediation to explore and agree the right way to overcome issues that emerge during the absence, and to set the frame work for a return to work. The issues often relate to how the organisation will communicate with and support the employee with a view to bringing them back to work with reasonable adjustments.

The issues that can be challenging for HR, such as employees not wanting to be contacted, not wanting to have meetings in the office, not wanting to have to raise a formal Grievance in order to register a concern about how they are being treated, or wanting to bring their partner or mother to a meeting can all be dealt with through the flexible yet legally supportive mechanism of Workplace Mediation.

Workplace Mediation provides several advantages to HR leads who are dealing with mental health absence cases. Mediation can provide the most flexible mechanism to explore the issues and find a suitable way forward, which will reduce the employee’s concerns, reduce emotion and generate good will – all vital factors in reducing the pressure on employees and encouraging an earlier resolution of the case. Mediation also provides the legally recognised framework to protect the employer while issues are explored flexibly and resolved.

The other great advantage for HR is that you can be the company’s representative in the room with the employee and the mediator, thus addressing two of HR’s main concerns about Workplace Mediation – not being involved in the actual discussions and the fear of not receiving a report out of the mediation process due to the parties wanting to keep the process confidential. HR can be in the room and can explore creative approaches to help the employee, while protecting the employer, and if the mediation is not successful there is nothing lost from the employer’s perspective.

Mediation delivered in a flexible way, for example in short bursts as required through the duration of the employee’s absence, can provide a safe context for employees to air their concerns, and facilitate the right solution at each stage of the employee’s recovery.

If a case ultimately ends in litigation an Employment Tribunal will not criticise an employer that has tried to do the right thing, been seen to treat its employee fairly and with respect, and tried to reduce the chance and costs of a bitter legal battle.

Enlightened HR professionals will realise that Workplace Mediation could be a very clever way of reducing cost and preventing loss of talent to the organisation. You will be able to save on sickpay, loss of productivity, termination costs, and resultant re-recruitment costs.

Be brave, grab the bull by the horns, and go and give your CEO the good news today!

www.mediate.co.uk

‍