Work expert Acas today launches its first guide to tackle the last taboo in business – mental illness at work.

It is a fast-growing problem, particularly with workers becoming increasingly concerned about their futures in the economic downturn, and costs Britain more than £30billion every year in lost production.

Acas chief executive John Taylor said: “The stumbling block at the moment is that many employers and managers shy away from dealing with mental illness at work because it can be hard to pin down and it is a very sensitive matter to deal with.

“People tend not to want to talk about mental illness because they think it is something disturbing that it is easier to avoid.

“But we all need to develop a new way of looking at mental health and break down the taboo. There needs to be a willingness to discuss mental health and a culture where employers understand it and try to help their employees recover from mental illness.

“Our mental well-being is as much a part of health as our physical health. And we need to take into consideration that one in four of us will suffer a mental health problem at some point in our lives.”

The step-by-step guide shows employers and managers how to:

• Spot early the signs of mental ill-health;
• Raise awareness of mental health issues among managers and staff;
• Develop a culture where an employee feels comfortable disclosing their condition;
• Approach an employee who may have a mental health condition;
• Try to help them cope with it or overcome it so they can work effectively again.

It also explains how to be aware of patterns of behaviour, build a rapport with an employee, talk to them in a range of scenarios, and what practical steps can be taken.

Mr Taylor added: “Managers are not expected to become professional counsellors. They should start by handling mental ill-health in the same way they would a physical illness by focusing on good communication, becoming aware of the issues and empathising.”

The key for managers is to identify factors they can control and those they cannot.

“Managers can control workloads, work variety and relationships, communication and bullying, and strategies for the employee to cope at work, and they may be able to have some influence over financial rewards, status, sense of purpose and levels of stress.

“But there can be circumstances outside an employer’s control, such as childhood experiences, family relationships, addiction problems and bereavement. However, an employer, by creating a supportive environment at work where people feel able to disclose their problems, can help them address their issues and remain productive at work.

“Also, there may be times when an employer will need to refer an employee to outside, specialist sources for help and advice.”

Acas has compiled the guide with NHS agency Workways, which specialises in advising on dealing with mental ill-health at work.

Another mental health organisation, charity the Centre for Mental Health, says a total of 91 million work days are lost to mental ill-health every year. But the lost days account for only half the £30billion cost of reduced productivity, with the rest taken up by employees turning up for work when unwell and not performing at their best.

The Government’s Department of Health estimates that one in four people will suffer a mental health problem, while a new government-funded study says almost one in three workers now suffer anxiety or panic attacks due to work pressures.

Another survey by Europe’s largest development body for professionals, the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, and healthcare insurance company Simplyhealth found that stress is now the number one cause of long-term absence.

The guide comes during the Time To Change campaign run by charities Mind and Rethink to end the stigma of mental ill-health. The campaign is backed by the Government and runs until March, 2015

Editor adds:  The use of an independent, impartial third party to facilitate conversations around mental ill-health at work can enable organisations and staff to address “the last taboo in business” in a timely, speedy and effective way.

(Source: Clore Social Leadership Programme)

Penelope Gibbs worked with ACEVO on her research project.  This is an analysis of the dynamics of the most critical relationship in charities.  ”A marriage made in heaven?  The relationship between Chairs and Chief Executives in charities” was based on in depth interviews with Chairs and Chief Executives in a variety of organisations.  The report analyses what makes for a good relationship, and common causes of conflict. Penelope also makes recommendations for how individuals and umbrella bodies could strengthen Chair/Chief Executive relationships.

The relationship between Chair and Chief Executive is a pivotal one for any charity. The Chair manages the board and the Chief Executive, as in many public and private sector organisations. But charity Chairs are volunteers, and their Chief Executives are usually employees, with no seat on the board. Much of the interaction between Chair and Chief Executive takes place in private, with others only learning of tensions when they break out in open conflict. Disputes at the Poetry Society, Amnesty and the Royal Institution have hit the headlines, but how many relationship breakdowns never do? Penelope Gibbs, Clore Social Fellow, set out to discover more about the dynamics of the Chair/ Chief Executive relationship though interviewing eight on each side. Where the relationship worked well, the individuals negotiated roles and responsibilities, challenged and accepted challenge, and respected each other. But tales of destructive conflict, incompetence and breakdown were also common. In this research report, Penelope describes the relationship between Chairs and Chief Executives using their testimony, and suggests how common problems could be resolved.

View the report at http://www.cloresocialleadership.org.uk/penelope-gibbs

Editor adds:  A revealing and candid look at a key relationship in any organisation.  However, Penelope misses the opportunity to stress how valuable the involvement of an independent, impartial, third party (otherwise known as a “mediator”) can be in enabling chairs and CEOs to resolve their differences in a constructive and creative way.  For more about support for leaders in developing confidence and competence in working with conflict click here.

Most people are still afraid to disclose a mental health problem to their employer.
Mind and CIPD urge employers to get staff talking about mental health issues in 2012 as economic woes conspire to create the perfect ingredients for a surge in mental ill health

The issue of mental ill health is still being swept under the carpet in most workplaces, with just four in ten employees saying they would feel confident to disclose a mental health problem to their employer. That’s according to the latest research by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD), published today to coincide with the launch of a new guide to help more employers to manage and support mental health at work, which has been developed by CIPD and leading mental health charity Mind.

The survey of 2,000 people in employment in the UK* reveals that despite more than a quarter (26%) of employees having experienced a mental health problem while in employment, too few employers are taking positive steps to manage this increasingly business critical issue. Just 25% of respondents say their organisation encourages staff to talk openly about mental health problems and only 37% say their employer supports employees with mental health problems well.

The guide, Managing and supporting mental health at work – disclosure tools for managers, will help employers ensure that how they manage people supports their mental wellbeing and resilience, and also encourage more employees to talk about any mental health issues they may be facing at an early stage.

Ben Willmott, CIPD Head of Public Policy, comments: “Managing mental health at work is central to good business performance. Stress is the number one cause of long-term sickness absence, but it is not just time lost to absence which impacts on the bottom line. Our survey highlights that the majority of people with poor mental health continue to attend work and report that it can impact on their ability to concentrate, make good decisions and provide effective customer service. It is estimated that this presenteeism costs UK businesses £15.1 billion** per year in reduced productivity, while mental health related sickness absence costs £8.4 billion**.

“The guidance underlines that managing and supporting mental health at work is integral to good people management. To a large degree this is about how managers interact with staff on a day to day basis and the extent to which they build working relationships based on mutual trust and confidence, for example, by managing workloads effectively and providing appropriate feedback, coaching and support where necessary.

“Managers are the eyes and ears of organisations, so need to be equipped with the knowledge and confidence to enable them to pick up on the early warning signs and intervene where employees are struggling. Mental ill health is usually caused by a complex interaction between pressures at work and at home, so increasing worries about debt, home repossession and job insecurity, as the economy continues to remain depressed, may well lead to a surge in mental ill health.”

Mind Chief Executive Paul Farmer said: “This research shows that there is still a long way to go until workers feel able to discuss their mental health openly in work, enabling them to get the support they need. With 1 in 4 people surveyed having experienced mental ill health, this is an issue that will touch almost every workplace in the country.

“Supporting staff through a difficult period does not have to cost the earth and can have huge benefits for any organisation. This new guide provides advice for managers to help them foster an environment where staff can feel comfortable to disclose a mental health problem, and simple information to support their employees through any period of mental ill health to help their recovery.”

Other findings:
• Women are significantly more likely to report experiencing a mental health problem while in employment (31%) than men (22%).
• In all, 25% of respondents say their current mental health is moderate (21%) or poor (4%) compared to 41% that describe their mental health as good and 33% that say it is very good.
• Nearly two thirds of employees with poor mental health say that this is the result of a combination of problems at work and outside work in their personal life. Just 15% of respondents with poor mental health say this is due to work alone and 20% say their problems are solely down to problems outside work in their personal lives.
• Just over a third of respondents say their employer supports employees with mental health problems well. In contrast 21% of workers say their employer does not support mental health at work well, while 31% do not know what support is available, suggesting poor communication is part of the problem.
• People working in the voluntary sector (39%) and public sector (37%) are significantly more likely than those in the private sector (23%) to say they have experienced a mental health problem while in employment.
• Those respondents who report they have experienced mental health problems while in employment in the past are much less likely to say that their current mental health is good.

*Employee Outlook – Focus on Mental health in the workplace (2011)

** Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health (2007).

Editor adds:  Yet more evidence of the need to provide training for managers in particular in handling difficult conversations.

Fit notes act as prompt to quality workplace conversations about sickness absence between managers and employees but not yet improving absence levels, says CIPD and Simplyhealth

The introduction of the ‘fit note’ to replace the ‘sick note’ has provided the nudge needed for managers to open up important conversations with their staff and discuss the best way to help get individuals back to work. More than half of employers (52%) agree that the introduction of the fit note has enabled line managers to prompt conversations about absence and health issues with their staff, according to newly released findings from the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD)/Simplyhealth Absence Management survey.

These findings follow the publication of recommendations from the Government-commissioned independent review into sickness absence, which highlights the importance of helping employees that are off work sick to make supported and phased returns to work – for example, with the help of a new Independent Assessment Service.

Just under a third of the organisations (31%) questioned in the CIPD/Simplyhealth survey agreed that the fit note helps line managers to manage absence more effectively. The vast majority of employers (87%) have used the fit note in their organisations, however its use was less common in smaller businesses of less than 50 employees (54%).

Less encouragingly, the survey suggests employers remain unconvinced that the fit note has yet had much impact in helping to reduce levels of employee sickness absence. Just one in ten respondents (11%) said the fit note had reduced absence in their organisation. And with the same number of employers believing the fit note is being used effectively by GPs, there is clearly a disconnect between employers’ needs and current outcomes.

Dr Jill Miller, CIPD Adviser, says: “Our research reveals the value fit notes can have in promoting good quality conversations between managers and their employees, which has a positive impact on the management of absence. However, the survey suggests the fit note has yet to have a real impact on reducing absence levels. This is perhaps not surprising considering the culture change needed by GPs, employers and employees to ensure that a phased return-to-work is more frequently regarded as a positive and integral part of employees’ rehabilitation and recovery.

“We are seeing some positive reviews of the fit note from GPs, but employers do not share such a warm view at present. GPs and employers need to work from the same page, promoting what is best for the individual employee’s health and well-being, but also what makes sense for the business. Employees too need to be more forthcoming and willing to enter these discussions. Policy makers, however, should not be discouraged as it may well take five years or so before the fit note is consistently used effectively and viewed more favourably by GPs, employers and employees, to support early and lasting returns to work.”

Gill Phipps, HR spokesperson for Simplyhealth, comments: “We and the CIPD are keen to hear the Government’s response to the recommendations from the recent Sickness Absence Review. Helping people get back into work following illness or prolonged sickness absence is beneficial for both the employee and the employer. Quality support and training are vital for initiatives to properly embed and become successful within our organisations.”

Editor adds: See Mediation at Work’s training in Handling Difficult Conversations

Proposals for greater use of conciliation, mediation and simplifying compromise agreements are all welcome, but on measures like ‘protected conversations’ the Government needs to be extremely wary of unintended consequences that could add complexity for businesses where they crave simplicity. That’s according to the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD), which also warns that failings in management and leadership are hitting UK productivity and economic growth far harder than ‘red tape’.

Responding to the package of employment law changes announced by Business Secretary Vince Cable this morning, Ben Willmott, Head of Public Policy at the CIPD, said: “Genuine proposals to simplify employment law and reform the employment tribunal system are welcome – but where it comes to ‘protected conversations’ the Government needs to beware the spectre of unintended consequences.

“Plans to ensure that all claims go to Acas to be offered conciliation before going to an employment tribunal are sensible and will help reduce claimant numbers, as will plans to simplify the use of compromise agreements and to encourage greater use of mediation.

“However, proposals to introduce some form of ‘protected conversation’ to allow employers to discuss issues like retirement and poor performance without fear of a tribunal claim, while well meant, are likely to actually increase confusion among employers, add to red tape and generate additional legal disputes. By offering false comfort, the Government risks creating a field day for employment lawyers and a nightmare for businesses.

“In the same way, the increase in the unfair dismissal qualification period from one year to two years is a poor policy call. There is no evidence that it will have any significant impact on reducing the number of employment tribunal claims or support the labour market in anyway. Both these measures risk making excuses for poor managers – who will cost firms far more in the form of demotivated, unproductive workers than they will in tribunals.

“Failings in management and leadership that hit UK productivity and leave us lagging our international competitors are a far greater brake on growth than UK employment law, and the legally fraught idea of creating notionally ‘protected’ conversations and increasing to two years the period in which employees are not covered by unfair dismissal law, risk making a bad problem worse.”

Minister for employment relations Edward Davey last night commended the “fantastic work” of the organisations shortlisted for Personnel Today’s new award for Innovation in Dispute Resolution in a speech at the ceremony.

The award, sponsored by mediation services provider TCM, was presented to East Sussex County Council for a mediation programme that reduced the number of formal disputes by 47% and also reduced the cost of resolving conflict within the organisation.

Davey stressed the importance of mediation in tackling workplace disputes, an area that the Government announced yesterday it would be looking to improve. As part of a raft of employment law reforms, the Government intends to require all employment disputes to go to Acas for pre-claim mediation before proceeding to tribunal.

Additionally, the Government announced that it will be piloting two mediation schemes, one within the retail sector in which larger employers will share mediation expertise with small businesses, and another that will create regional mediation networks to provide mediation training to representatives from small local employers.

“It is this idea of mediation that I want to talk about, because I’m passionate about it,” Davey explained last night. “I believe we can really change the whole culture if we get this right.”

Davey, who presented the Innovation in Dispute Resolution award, said that he was delighted to see a new award recognising achievements in this area.

“I particularly noted in the shortlist for that new prize the fantastic work that is already going on in many businesses to try to cut the costs of going to law by managing disputes far more effectively. I believe we can build on their best practice, learn from it and begin to change the culture in our society.

“I want to thank you, as key professionals in our economy trying to deal with these issues, for the leadership you are showing. I hope you will note the way that we want to take policy in this area and I hope next year there will be even more examples of how you are sorting out disputes without having to involve lawyers.”

Robert Holden was at the forefront of ‘Happiness’ research. Here, he reflects on how that topic – initially laughed off the agenda – has gained credibility and explains why happiness is important.

When I set up The Happiness Project, in 1994, the original goal was simple: talk happiness. In my training in psychology, philosophy and psychotherapy my teachers didn’t talk about happiness. We focused solely on the causes of unhappiness. This didn’t feel right to me. After all, how can you know what the causes are if you do not know what happiness is?

My goal, then, was to stimulate a conversation, so as to deepen our appreciation of what happiness is, its benefits, what enables it, and what blocks it. One conversation I focused on was the question of whether happiness is learned and whether it can be taught. To investigate this further, I created an eight-week happiness programme (which still runs today) called Be Happy.

Today happiness is a much more popular conversation than when The Happiness Project began. We are all talking more about happiness than ever before. The conversation is alive and well. Universities, hospitals, economists and governments publish new studies on happiness every week. So, what we have learned? And where does this conversation about happiness need to go next?

Let’s start with what happiness researchers refer to as ‘static happiness’. In a recent US study, it was found that when people in the 1940s were asked, “How happy are you?” the average score was 7.5 out of 10, whereas today the average score is 7.4 out of 10. In other words, in spite of all the ‘progress’ we appear to have made in the last 50 years or so, our happiness levels have remained mostly static. This tells me we need more conversations to clarify what real happiness is. For instance, we need to discern between pleasure, satisfaction and joy; and on my eight-week happiness programme we always begin by asking people, “What is your definition of a happy life?” and, “Are you living it?”

Happiness researchers have also found that most of us are only semi-happy. In 2006, I participated in a BBC documentary called The Happiness Formula. It reported, “the proportion of people saying they are ‘very happy’ has fallen from 52% in 1957 to just 36% today.” Clearly, research like this is questioning our most basic assumptions about what happiness is, and what we think will make us happy. That’s a good thing. An honest inquiry into happiness is an opportunity to rethink your life. It is one of the gifts of happiness.

Do you really know what makes you happy? This is the question both psychologists and economists are asking now. The evidence suggests we do not know. For instance, many of us believe that more money will make us happier. Some money does help, especially to cover the basics of food, rent, clothing, etc. After that, the correlation between more money and greater happiness is vague. Martin Seligman, former president of the American Psychology Association, and one of the founders of the Positive Psychology movement, concludes most forcibly: “The change in purchasing power over the last half century in the wealthy nations carries the same message: real purchasing power has more than doubled in the United States, France and Japan, but life satisfaction has changed not a whit.”

An inquiry into happiness challenges you to rethink everything. For example, almost everyone agrees with the idea that if their life circumstances improve, their levels of happiness will increase. This is the basis for almost every political and economic strategy the world over. And yet scientific research into happiness tells us this is wrong. New Zealand researcher Richard Kammann reports, “Objective life circumstances have a negligible role to play in a theory of happiness.” The same research concludes that your attitude and personal choices have a far greater influence on your happiness levels.

Another popular theory is that a better education will make our children happier. This has resulted in more tests for preschool children, more focus on regular exams, and more money spent on private education. Surely this increases happiness? “Sorry, Mom and Dad, neither education nor, for that matter, a high IQ paves the road to happiness,” states Claudia Wallis, who compiled a report called The New Science of Happiness for TIME magazine.

Happiness challenges us to rethink what is a “better education” for our children. I support the idea of happiness lessons for children at school, as pioneered at Wellington College by psychologist Nick Baylis and college Master Anthony Seldon [read his thoughts on this important topic in his article Stillness in Schools]. One opposing argument for happiness lessons at school is that children should not be “taught” happiness, but that they should be allowed to think about happiness for themselves. However, this is precisely the aim of these happiness lessons. The approach is inquiry, not dictation.

People who attend my happiness programme are always telling me, “I wish I’d learned this at school.” It’s time then for more conversations about happiness in school, and at home with our children. I encourage all my students and clients to talk more about happiness with their families. Why? Because one of the ways we evolve is through conversation. Drawing happiness with our children or talking about happiness with our partner helps us to clarify things, to heal, to come together, and ultimately to live a happier life.

And now, even governments and politicians want to talk about happiness. In Britain, David Cameron has commissioned a new survey called Measuring National Well-being. A new organisation called Action for Happiness [see what founder Richard Layard says about this new movement in his article A Better Way of Life] is working closely with the government to help create better social change in society. Again, some people are concerned that governments should not “tell us” how to be happy. I agree with this, but I don’t think governments are trying to tell us. Like us, they are simply trying to understand what happiness is, and how we can be happier.

In my latest book, Be Happy, I have written: “Your definition of happiness will influence every significant decision in your life.” It is essential, therefore, that individuals and governments alike keep happiness on the agenda because, more than ever before, humanity needs a better understanding of happiness. We have learned so much, about atoms and galaxies and other things, but we still do not understand ourselves very well; we still go to war too often, and there is still too much suffering.

I remain deeply committed to talking about happiness. Why? Because I believe that happiness is our true nature (it is the natural state of our Unconditioned Self), and for that reason happiness brings out the best in us, both individually and collectively. Happiness research has found a strong link between happiness and altruism, for instance. In a recent study by a Charities Commission, it was reported that the highest predictor of generous giving is not your income level: it’s your happiness level.

Good things come from real happiness. Happier people make better choices, which is good for society and the planet. Your happiness is a gift to the world. I believe this with all my heart.

For more about Robert Holden’s eight-week happiness programme, visit: www.happiness.co.uk

Robert Holden is director of The Happiness Project. His latest book, Be Happy, is published by Hay House.

“And when it comes to making it easier to employ people, we are going to get to grips with some of the rules and regulations designed to protect employees, but which are actually stopping people getting jobs in the first place.

Too often a criticism of regulation and bureaucracy is confused with an attack on the rights of employees. It’s seen as some sort of choice.

Either we’re on the side of business or on the side of the people; backing management or backing employees. In other words, too many people think you strip away the rights of employees in order to give businesses an easier life.

This couldn’t be further from the truth. We want businesses to create jobs.

But if employers are so concerned about the prospect of being taken to tribunal that they don’t feel they can have frank conversations with their employees many companies just won’t feel able to create those jobs in the first place.

One businessman said he didn’t have the time or the money to go through the hassle of removing people in the UK – so he hires in the US. Another said “I don’t care if the UK’s processes are more flexible than most European countries. That’s like saying we’re better than Italy at cricket. The real competition is the US and Asia.”

That’s why I want to deregulate and cut back on bureaucracy. Not simply to help business but to create fair, simple processes that are good for business and good for employees too.

So we will be consulting on the introduction of protected conversations, so a boss and an employee feel able to sit down together and have a frank conversation – at either’s request. And we’re going to help address employers’ fears of a tribunal by increasing the qualifying period for unfair dismissal claims from one year to two years from next April.

This means anyone taking on a new employee can now be confident that they have two years to get the relationship right, rather than just one. And if things aren’t working out then they can end the relationship without being sued for unfair dismissal.

We’re also proposing to introduce fees for individuals who want to bring cases to employment tribunals, meaning that potential claimants are much less likely to pursue this option unless the employer has a genuine case to answer.”

http://www.number10.gov.uk/news/prime-ministers-speech-on-exporting-and-growth/

Nick Clegg pledges ‘protected conversations’ as part of Government’s red-tape reform

Employers will be able to challenge unproductive staff or advise them to consider retirement without worrying about the threat of legal action under plans emerging from the Government.

Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg unveiled new measures designed to reduce bureaucracy and restrict inspection for businesses, including the notion of “protected conversations” which would not be eligible for use in tribunals.

“Employers tell us they’re afraid to have frank discussions with staff for fear of those exchanges being used against them unfairly, should a dispute end up at tribunal,” he said. “We want to give them the confidence to be open about performance, about retirement with their employees.”

The move was welcomed by the CBI, which has long called for the introduction of protected conversations as a means of resolving disputes informally.

Neil Carberry, director for employment at the CBI, said: “Employment laws should set a necessary minimum standard in the workplace, but they can get in the way of open and frank communication between employees and employers.

“Protected conversations would provide a safe mechanism which builds confidence in management and helps businesses make better decisions. In countries like France, these enable employers to discuss issues openly with staff without fear of a tribunal.”

Clegg said that the Government would introduce a major package of employment law including reform to the tribunal system this autumn.

A wider report produced by venture capitalist Adrian Beecroft, which was leaked to the Daily Telegraph, hints at further changes, calling for the abolition of the concept of unfair dismissal altogether and the introduction of “compensated, no-fault dismissals”.

According to the newspaper, the report reads: “The rules both make it difficult to prove that someone deserves to be dismissed, and demand a process for doing so which is so lengthy and complex that it is hard to implement.

“This makes it too easy for employees to claim they have been unfairly treated and to gain significant compensation.”

These suggestions were backed by the British Chambers of Commerce (BCC), which said that the fear of tribunals was stopping employers from taking on staff and preventing businesses from growing.

John Longworth, director general of the BCC, said: “This new dismissal route will bring confidence to employers and boost productivity in the workplace, which is good for employers, employees and the economy.

“Ministers must act to bring forward Adrian Beecroft’s recommendation of compensated, no-fault dismissal without delay, at the autumn statement.”

Last week, reports suggested that the Beecroft review might also propose scaling back other employee rights such as maternity and paternity leave and the right to request flexible working.

But Mike Emmott, employee relations adviser at the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, warned that this would make little difference and could be counterproductive for employers and employees alike.

“The argument that the way to get Britain back to work is to water down rights to maternity and paternity leave, to limit the right to request flexible working and to make it easier to dismiss workers without good cause is highly questionable,” he said. “None of these would make any meaningful difference to unemployment.

“They would be more likely to harm the prospects of UK plc by fostering precisely the kind of crude and outdated attitudes to employment relationships that will put employees off going the extra mile.”

The Government is currently considering the findings of the Beecroft report but a spokesperson told the BBC that it was “unlikely it would go further” on unfair dismissal than the plans outlined by Clegg.

Abolition of retirement age leaves less opportunity for young workers, say employers

One-fifth of employers say that they will have less capacity to hire young workers once the default retirement age (DRA) is phased out.

According to previews of a report to be published next month by international law firm Norton Rose, nearly half of employers believe that the abolition of the DRA will have a negative impact on their business, with 22% citing the biggest practical impact being a reduced capacity to take on younger staff.

This comes as the latest labour market statistics from the Office for National Statistics revealed that youth unemployment rose by 78,000 over the quarter to July 2011 to reach 973,000.

Transitional arrangements for the removal of the DRA came into force on 6 April 2011, meaning that employers could no longer issue new notifications of retirement using the DRA unless they could objectively justify it as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

Of the 125 employers surveyed, 11% had taken, or were considering taking, legal advice on whether or not they could continue to enforce retirement, and 10% were looking at encouraging retirement by offering a financial package.

Paul Griffin, London head of employment at Norton Rose, believes that too many employers are trying to tackle the changes with “blunt solutions”.

Griffin told Personnel Today: “Employers have clearly got to be thinking of their retirement agenda and they’ve got to decide how they can encourage people to make choices based on their career. The wrong approach, the blunt approach, is to target those who are 55 to 65 and say ‘how about retirement for you?’.”

He added that employers should make sure that all staff are aware of options such as flexible working, changing job roles or working part time, so that they can make an informed choices about their retirement.

The report also found that three-quarters of employers admitted they had not given their line managers any additional training on how to approach the scrapping of the DRA.

Griffin warned that this could cause problems if an age discrimination case was taken to tribunal in relation to the abolition of the DRA.

“A lot of people may not actually know, or they may have forgotten, that there’s no such thing as retirement at 65 anymore, and if you’re not actually training people then they’re going to approach these situations as they did before,” he said.

“The legal issue is that, in relation to any sort of discrimination case, the first thing a tribunal will ask the manager is ‘have you received training in this particular area?’ and, if the answer is no, then the employer will be on the back foot.”

……………………

Editor adds….  There’s a clear need for employers to consider what kind of training managers need to enable them to handle sensitive and potentially difficult conversations, more often than not, with people who are significantly older than themselves and may have different values, beliefs and expectations.  Whilst Mediation at Work’s training in Handling Difficult Conversations is relevant to all situations, it can be adapted to support managers handling conversations about retirement in particular.