Agreements on work-related stress under scrutiny

In April the Labour Ministry presented the findings from an analysis of more than 234 work-related stress agreements to the Advisory Council on Working Conditions (COCT). The requirement for companies to put in place an agreement on stress at work dates from 2009, when the then Minister for Labour, Xavier Darcos, announced that companies with more than 1,000 employees must address the issue urgently, given the recent spate of suicides in France Telecom and other companies. The findings of the analysis show that to date only 50%of companies were either drawing up a plan of action or negotiating an agreement and that few of the signed agreements contain a clear plan to achieve concrete outcomes.

Background

The Directorate General of Labour (DGT) in the French Ministry for Labour, Employment and Health has analysed 234 agreements on stress at work, covering more than one million employees, half of whom are employed in the service sector.

It presented its findings (in French, 402Kb PDF) on 19 April to the Advisory Council on Working Conditions (COCT).

The research reveals that despite the number of agreements signed within a short period of time, there are not many agreements which contain a clear commitment to achieve concrete outcomes, or that specify the terms of the company’s intentions.

Four out of five signed agreements simply either set out a proposed methodology and define the process for diagnosing problems in the workplace or assess psychosocial risks and indicate the various actors who should play a role in preventing these risks.

In 70% of cases, the signed agreements set out the methodology and include the draft of the implementation of an action plan within the company.

Role of indicators

In the preparatory phase, indicators play a role in 49% of the agreements, and most are either indicators relating to the implementation of the agreement (84%) or to evaluate the health of workers (75%). The report notes the ‘substantial work of the negotiators’ in reaching these agreements and says that most include indicators intended to identify the presence of psychosocial risks at work, regardless of the type of economic activity carried out by the company.

In relation to psychosocial risks, the four most influential factors identified in agreements are:

• work-life balance arrangements, workload and time pressure (65%);

• industrial relations (61%);

• emotional demands, such as for those workers dealing with the public or the management of antisocial behaviour (50%);

• the support employers can offer workers affected by change in the workplace (49%).

Areas for action

The report notes that while agreements identify psychosocial risks, they do not spell out what action needs to be taken by the social partners. As concrete and tangible measures will only arise from the analysis of the indicators in companies, none of the agreements contain a complete programme for preventing psychosocial risks but merely define general areas where action needs to be taken.

According to the analysis, the training of managerial staff is the main priority identified (87% of agreements), followed by organisation of work (60%) and support for workers experiencing change in the workplace (46%).

The report also notes that the process of communication with employees is rarely mentioned in the agreements. Indeed, only 24% of agreements outline some form of communication process. Soliciting the views of employees, through interviews, questionnaires or group discussions, is similarly overlooked.

Yet, according to the authors, each employee should be asked individually to contribute their views on this issue in their workplace in a company-wide process.

Procedure

Rather than using pre-existing and legally constituted bodies, nine out of ten of these agreements establish specific ad hoc steering groups that are separate from other legal actors such as trade union representatives. This means that generally companies don’t use pre-existing and legally constituted bodies such as, for example, committees for hygiene, safety and working conditions (CHSCT). These are used as the steering body in less than 10% of cases.

Using ad hoc committees for drawing up such agreements means that:

• the relationship between the legal and ad hoc bodies is rarely defined or organised;

• there is little information given on the way these bodies operate;

• there is no system for evaluating their work, unless a system for monitoring health or stress is also established (as in 19% of agreements).

The report estimates that the most successful agreements have been concluded by firms which:

• have a tradition of social dialogue;

• have a strong commitment from the CEO or the board of directors;

• have a history of undertaking previous initiatives to improve occupational health (before the emergency plan was initiated by the Ministry of Labour, Employment and Health);

• have a pragmatic approach, taking into account the activity of the company.

In conclusion, the report calls on the different industrial sectors to play a strategic role, as they may already have systems in place for exploring and observing employee health and risk prevention. They may also have experience of providing information, education, exchange of views and support, particularly in the financing of training on psychosocial risk prevention.

Views of trade union and employer organisations

Minister for Labour, Employment and Health Xavier Bertrand noted that 600 agreements, or action plans, already exist in large companies. He considers this initial assessment encouraging and welcomes the ‘strong involvement’ of social partners.

However he has asked the Director General of Labour to write to companies with more than 1,000 employees, who have not yet initiated negotiations or action plans, to urge them to do so, and to mobilise joint committees to boost company-wide bargaining, in order to support SMEs in this process.

Jean-François Naton of the General Confederation of Labour (CGT) commented:

It's a step [in the right direction], as for so long there has been a denial of corporate risks. But the right to speak must now be given to more employees. Dialogue must be carried out by the union representatives, otherwise we will set up discussion forums.

The French Confederation of Professional and Managerial Staff – General Confederation of Professional and Managerial Staff (CFE-CGC) has said that stress should be recognised as an ‘occupational disease’. It also questioned the establishment of new committees to draw up and monitor these agreements, and the effect they would have on social dialogue. If 65% of the agreements have established a monitoring committee, this means companies will rely on the new body rather than the central works council or the Hygiene and Safety committee (CHSCT). This, the union said, is ‘a manipulative concept of social dialogue, which bypasses the committee on health and safety working conditions’.

The French Democratic Confederation of Labour (CFDT) said quantitative questionnaires, set up to question employees, have limitations. ‘If 10, 15 or 30% of employees say they are stressed, how do we interpret these numbers?’ asked CFDT official Laurence Théry.

Commentary

In February 2010 the Minister for Labour, Employment and Health, Xavier Bertrand, insisted in a speech to the Advisory Council on Working Conditions (COCT) that companies had a ‘social responsibility’ and said he believed in ‘the emergence of a French model in this field’, adding that even if many signed agreements are only ‘cosmetic’, the situation in France was changing.

But the report claims that despite progress in this area, there is much to be done in the future. The number of signed agreements is low and enthusiasm for this subject in French companies is not particularly high as very few businesses consider this initiative to be an important challenge.

Hélène Tissandier, HERA