In a new initiative GPs were asked to provide 'fit notes' as opposed to 'sick notes'. Such notes were intended to help an employer understand what adjustments could be made in order to bring an individual back into the workforce. Unfortunately their research has suggested that these notes have not been as successful as anticipated. One of the major reasons the initiative has failed has been due to GPs having such a far removed view of the workplace these individuals often come from. This means that the advice given is often useless. Mind have suggested that employers wishing to reasonably benefit from the initiative should make an effort to first have a discussion with the employee and or GP before the GP makes his notes so that they can set some reasonable boundaries.
Worryingly, the government has proposed to remove the tax free status of some work programmes aimed at helping maintain good mental health such as counselling services. If this is the case it will mean a lot of services will not continue to be run due to the cost. However the report wasn't all gloom and it did highlight that smaller employers often share a closer relationship with their staff which had a positive affect on metal health and job satisfaction. Even with that in mind, however, it is still advisable that firms make an effort to conduct regular health reviews and to ensure any findings are acted upon. This is a preventative measure and can save costs further down the line. They provided the example of a phone company who recently found itself liable for the biggest sexual harassment damages for some time. It was asked to pay £290,000 to a former telesales operator who suffered such severe depression because of harassment that she may never be able to work in a high pressure sales environment again. Perhaps this could have been preventable had more communication and initiatives to conduct regular health checks been in place.
Furthermore, when considering how to act on findings from such initiatives an employer should consider that an adjustment is a reasonable one to make whether it has a “real” or “good” prospect of success or not. This highlights the need to act and not just perform empty exercises in view of 'ticking a box'. The employer needs to be seen to act in these circumstances.
The implications of the Equality Act means it could be deemed discrimination if an employee is dismissed when reasonable adjustments could have been made to their role that would have prevented it. It is also easy to indirectly discriminate against someone with a mental disability. A company which disciplines all staff who take too many sick days, for example, might indirectly discriminate against someone who has been told to take time off to treat stress and depression. Although the strict measures apply to everyone, they arguably make employment impossible for the disabled employee.
The way to tackle such risks is to create a culture where employees feel like they can talk to their employers. Better communication will result in more credible measures taken to help that employee and are more likely to prevent any legal action further down the line or the need for an employee to leave the company at all.