Prior to the Covid-19 pandemic, mental health issues were the most common causes of long-term sickness absence from the workplace in the UK. While we cannot yet determine the full impact of the pandemic on mental health, it’s safe to say that its effects will certainly outlive the pandemic itself.
Currently the direct health impacts of the Covid-19 virus range from mild cold-like symptoms through to debilitating illness, and worse. Long term after-effects include fatigue, shortness of breath, pain, insomnia, heart palpitations, mental and neurological conditions, and more.
Rippling further out we have the indirect consequences of the virus, health impacts associated with the lockdowns including reductions in exercise, an increase in alcohol consumption, fatigue, and a rise in musculoskeletal conditions.
In terms of mental health, many people became isolated from their social outlets and regular human interactions, have suffered loss and bereavement, either from Covid-19 or during its presence, preventing them from grieving or saying goodbye in the normal way, due to bans and restrictions on hospital/care home visits and funerals/wakes. Many continue to live in fear of contracting the virus or giving it to more vulnerable loved ones.
From an employee perspective, while some thrived on working from home, some found it challenging, citing loss of motivation, loneliness and anxiety.
Now that all restrictions are lifted in England, many are fearful of being back in the workplace while we are still in a pandemic, and having witnessed how dramatically things can change overnight, some have fears about job security and loss of income in the future.
How Can Employers Support Employees In A Full Return To The Workplace?
Employers have a duty of care to employees’ health and safety, including their wellbeing and mental health. Indeed, some mental health conditions are considered disabilities under the Equality Act 2010 and are therefore protected from discrimination.
However, it is prudent not to wait for employees to receive an official diagnosis of poor mental health to start putting support systems in place for those who need it (or may need it in the future). As we have often said, prevention is better than cure.
Actions to pursue include:
● Making wellbeing and mental health a regular topic of discussion at all levels of the business;
● Encouraging activities that support mental health (i.e.: exercise, healthy lifestyle, social connections, etc.);
● Arranging activities that raise mental health awareness in the workplace; and
● At a managerial level, discussing Covid-19’s potential impact on mental health, and establishing each manager’s responsibilities in supporting employees through mental health challenges.
You may have all of your employees back in the workplace at this point, or you may have some who continue to work remotely. Whatever their status, it is important that the above initiatives target ALL employees, regardless of their location.
What If Someone Doesn’t Want To Come Back?
It is inevitable that there will be some employees with genuine concerns over getting back to ‘normal’. Issues affecting mental health are not always exclusive to the individual – they can be triggered by the individual’s fears and concerns for, or commitments to others, outside of their work.
When met with an employee who is not comfortable returning to work, their concerns should be fully investigated (which is also vital for weeding out malingerers and opportunists), and wherever possible, reasonable adjustments made to accommodate them.
Case in Point…
In the case of Mr N Quelch vs Courtiers Support Services Ltd, Mr Quelch was dismissed from his job for gross misconduct after he refused to return to work.
Courtiers’ employees were working from home, until they were asked to return in July 2020. Mr Quelch refused to return due to concerns about putting his clinically vulnerable partner at risk. He was concerned that his workplace was not implementing Covid-19 safety measures properly, and this was at a time when the UK Government’s instruction to work from home if possible, was still in effect. Mr Quelch’s line manager was sensitive to his anxiety over returning and supported his request to continue working from home.
However, this request was rejected by the company. They also suggested that Mr Quelch live separately from his partner if he felt worried. Mr Quelch maintained his desire to continue to work from home.
He was subsequently placed on unpaid leave, access to his work systems was withdrawn, and disciplinary proceedings were started. He failed to attend a disciplinary hearing after his requests to have it take place over video call, and rescheduled to a date that his representative could join him, were both rejected.
His employer consequently dismissed him for failing to comply with the terms of his Contract of Employment.
Mr Quelch took his case to Tribunal, that found that Courtiers did not act in a ‘reasonable’ way, and “failed to show there was a potentially fair reason for dismissal and that both the sanction and the procedures followed by the respondent fell outside the range of reasonable responses open to a reasonable employer.”
In essence, the Tribunal found that Courtier’s actions were unjustified, given that Mr Quelch could work from home, without causing detrimental effects to the company. For these actions, along with the unauthorised deduction from Mr Quelch’s wages, and unreasonable failure to comply with the requirements of ACAS Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures, Courtiers was ordered to pay Mr Quelch £14,746.25 in compensation.
Conclusion
Everyone, on some level, has been affected by the pandemic-related events of the last 2 years. Our ‘Keep Calm and Carry On’ mentality has been stretched, often beyond return, and now much more focus needs to be placed upfront on supporting good mental health, and in learning to manage issues that could threaten our resiliency in the future.
Where employees experience anxiety over returning to work, an employer must consider each case on an individual basis, and accommodate them wherever possible.
Courtiers stated that their request to Mr Quelch was based on their concern that allowing him to remain at home would encourage other employees to make the same request. But in an unprecedented time in history, coloured by uncertainty and anxiety, blanket rules that fail to accommodate the individual worries and health concerns of employees, in favour of operational practicality, are no longer appropriate.