9.08.2018

Stressful‽ Mental Health Risks in Performance Management

Employers are often met with complaints of bullying and stress as soon as performance management commences.

On occasion, these complaints appear less than genuine.  Sometimes, however, an employee has a very real health issue, and the employer needs to take this seriously.  The Employment Court recently considered what steps an employer must take to manage an employee’s mental health issues in the context of a legitimate performance improvement process (PIP), in order to discharge its obligations under the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 (HSWA).

In FGH v RST, Ms H worked for RST, a government organisation processing applications and reviewing applications, known as approval work.  Ms H had attention-deficient disorder (ADD) and suffered from an anxiety disorder which affected her work performance and her ability to cope with performance management.  Ms H raised a disadvantage personal grievance on the basis that her employer had failed to provide a safe work environment while dealing with her performance issues.  Ms H claimed that she was bullied and that RST failed to sufficiently investigate those allegations.  The Employment Relations Authority dismissed this grievance.  Ms H challenged that decision in the Court.

DateEvent
2012Ms H commences permanent employment.  Performance was satisfactory.
2013Ms H undergoes a PIP in June, which lead to a warning in October, and another PIP in November.
2014Performance improves, and was again satisfactory.
May 2015Performance concerns arise again. Ms H’s manager, Ms Badham commences another PIP.  Ms Julian takes over from Ms Badham as temporary team leader.  Ms Badham was aware that Ms H had trouble sleeping and focusing on tasks and that she was on medication to treat anxiety, but did not pass this information to Ms Julian.
July 2015Ms Julian concerned that Ms H is not complying with the action plan and decides to limit her duties and her eligibility for overtime work.  In response, Ms H informs Ms Julian that she suffers from Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD).  Ms Julian then seeks advice from EAP around how to manage an employee with ADD.
September 2015Ms H has meeting with management (Mr H attends as support).  She says she is unhappy in her role, is not sleeping and fears she will “crack” or fall ill from the pressure of the process.
Early October 2015Ms H certified as medically unfit to work.  Management are again told that Ms H is suffering from lack of sleep and that the stress and anxiety from the way she was being managed are impacting her health.  Mr H also raises with management health and safety concerns emphasising that all employees were entitled to a safe workplace.
Mid-October 2015There is a formal mediation to address performance management concerns and Ms H’s stress caused by lack of clear timeframes and encouragement as to her progress.  It is agreed that: Ms H would be placed on a three-month formal performance improvement plan; she would recommence approval work at that time; and upon successful completion of one month of performance management, Ms H would again be eligible for overtime.  It was recorded in the plan that Ms H was receiving treatment for an anxiety disorder.
Early 2016

Ms H’s anxiety and stress was not alleviated over the seven month period.  Ms H felt confused about what was expected from her, the steps in the process, and her time for achieving them.  She felt micromanaged and unsupported by management, particularly by her manager Ms Julian.

Ms H raised a disadvantage grievance.

What the Court found

 The Court held that from at least July 2015, RST were required to manage Ms H’s ADD and anxiety disorder as far as is reasonably practicable. 

RST argued that it took all reasonable and practicable steps in relation to Ms H’s anxiety around the performance management process itself and the impact of her ADD on her work performance.  In relation to the performance management process RST took a number of steps, including extending Ms H’s time for responding to steps in the process; providing discussion points ahead of meetings; and postponing and reprioritising meetings to suit Ms H’s needs.

To improve Ms H’s work performance and manage her ADD and anxiety, Ms H was: offered  EAP counselling; allowed time to attend the gym; provided support from business coaches; and allowed to move desks and to spend time on another floor when needed.

The Court agreed that these were genuine and reasonable steps to reduce Ms H’s work related stress BUT that they were not sufficient to discharge RST’s statutory and contractual obligations.  The Court did not doubt that the managers genuinely believed these were all fair steps, but, even with these steps, Ms H continued displaying obvious signs of heightened anxiety.  The Court concluded that RST management believed Ms H’s reactions to, and inability to cope with, the process stemmed from fact she didn’t like being performance-managed when in reality her actions (such as absenteeism and outbursts) were symptoms of her anxiety disorder. 

Ultimately, the Court concluded that RST used a routine performance management process, and then disciplinary processes, to control Ms H’s adverse behaviour arising from her ADD condition and anxiety.  The Court held that a fair and reasonable employer in RST’s position would have requested further medical information and assisted Ms H in obtaining this, not simply expected Ms H to provide medical evidence. 

Lessons

 While the judgment is not entirely clear, the Court appears to be indicating that the employer’s focus first should have been on understanding Ms H’s mental health issue rather than (or before) running or continuing a standard performance management process and managing the stress as a natural consequence of the process.

Where mental health issues are known to the employer, or suspected, the employer will need to try and get to the bottom of the issue, which may include requesting the employee to undergo a medical examination (at the employer’s cost), and then determining the employee’s fitness or capacity to perform work duties.  If the employer is able to identify or clarify any mental health issues and then is able to provide some measures to mitigate the situation, this may also resolve or help prevent any performance issues.

Performance management processes require sensitivity and clear, effective management.  While employees may feel scrutinised and singled out, reasonable management actions delivered in a reasonable way do not amount to workplace bullying.  However, where mental health issues are, or become apparent, the standard imposed on employers by HSWA is onerous.  Measures taken to manage risks to an employee’s health must be tailored for the circumstances and situation of the employee.

Do you need expert legal advice?
Contact the expert team at Hesketh Henry.
Kerry
Media contact - Kerry Browne
Please contact Kerry with any media enquiries and with any questions related to marketing or sponsorships on +64 9 375 8747 or via email.

Related Articles / Insights & Opinion

Clarity on Liquidated Damages following Termination
The United Kingdom Supreme Court in Triple Point Technology Inc v PTT Public Company Ltd [2021] UKSC 29 has clarified the operation of liquidated damages clauses in the event of termination.  The dec...
Is your will in draft form?  High Court refuses to exercise its discretionary power to validate a draft will notwithstanding beneficiaries’ consent
The High Court’s recent decision in Re: An application to validate the will of Olive Ruby Piper [2021] NZHC 534 serves as a valuable reminder to make sure that your estate planning documents are...
16.09.2021 Posted in Family & Trust Wills Estates
New Fair Trading Act provisions spark need to review small trade contracts
The Fair Trading Amendment Bill received Royal Assent on 16 August 2021 and is now the Fair Trading Amendment Act 2021 (Amendment Act).  The Amendment Act amends the Fair Trading Act 1986 (FTA), with...
Employment Relations Authority Finds Dismissal of Unvaccinated Border Worker to be Justified
On 1 September 2021, The Employment Relations Authority (Authority) determined in GF v New Zealand Customs Service [2021] NZERA 382, that the New Zealand Customs Service (Customs) was justified in its...
10.09.2021 Posted in Business Advice & COVID-19 & Employment
AML/CFT guidance with the High Court’s decision in Reserve Bank of New Zealand and TSB Bank Limited
On 31 August 2021, the High Court of Wellington released its decision on the Reserve Bank of New Zealand v TSB Bank Limited.
09.09.2021 Posted in AML/CFT & Banking and Finance
Supreme Court asserts Employment Relations Authority exclusive jurisdiction
The Supreme Court has recently issued a significant judgment clarifying that the Employment Relations Authority (Authority) has exclusive jurisdiction over claims arising in a “work context”. In d...
09.09.2021 Posted in Business Advice & Employment
How much does one truly deserve?
A critical analysis of the New Zealand and Australian High Courts' approach to quantum meruit claims within the construction industry
06.09.2021 Posted in Construction & Regulatory
Send us an enquiry
For expert legal advice, please complete the form below or call us on (09) 375 8700.
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
-->