Who are they?
The Central Fisheries Board is a statutory body operating under the aegis of the Dept of Communications, Energy and Natural resources and was established under the Fisheries Act 1980. Its principal functions are to advise the Minister on policy relating to the conservation, protection, management, development and improvement of inland fisheries and sea angling, to co-ordinate and provide specialist and support services to the Regional Fisheries Boards and to advise the Minister on performance by the RFB of their functions.
No of employees 86 staff
Business Sector Public Sector Agency
Location Dublin and Roscrea, Ireland
What part of the organisation was chosen for this project?
For this project, all staff were included, divided into two groupings.
Why were these groups divided?
It was proposed that different stressors would affect indoor as opposed to outdoor staff so the staff were divided along that continuum for the Management Standards/ Work Positive audit so that it would provide a focus for employees in terms of profiling the work area (indoors) compared to the other area (outdoors)
How did they set about carrying out the Risk Assessment (from now on referred to as Work Positive)?
Stage one: a meeting was set up with the HSA Psychologist and Health and Safety executive/Access Officer. At this initial meeting in early August 2008, the working patterns of the organisation were discussed, the different staff groupings were agreed,(those working indoors in one group, those working mainly or completely outdoors being the other group) a plan was outlined, time line set out (Sept 08 – May 09) , potential actions suggested and possible outcomes explained. Staff were then consulted internally through the H&S Executive to get commitment. Posters and fliers were made visible in the coffee and leisure areas around the Dublin building so that staff would become more familiar with the Work Positive system and the intention to carry it out.
Presentations were then given by the HSA Psychologist at the HQ site over one morning – 2 sessions, all staff invited and at a Roscrea location – one session, all staff invited . Questionnaires had been printed, both categories set out, and they were distributed by the H&S Executive after the presentations and also individually to those who did not attend either session due to various reasons.
What happened next?
Stage two: the questionnaires were collected, indicating a return rate of 60%. The returned questionnaires were analysed by the HSA on behalf of the CFB using the newest (Nov 2008) UK organisational norms for the HSE Management Standards. Findings were then categorised for the 2 groups . Differences in the findings were noted and suggested interventions outlined on short PowerPoint presentation slides.
How were the findings fed back?
Stage three: involved hosting a presentation of the results to staff at the CFB HQ by the HSA Psychologist where results were explained and compared to other current results. The consultant to the project then took the session over and further explained the results for both groupings and their meaning. This session was repeated for a second group the same morning. Next steps were negotiated.
In order to tackle and further explore issues arising, further sessions were proposed (3) to be hosted on a monthly basis for the grouping indicating potential hazards. Some of these sessions were hosted over the coming months by the consultant to the project. However, there was less enthusiasm for further sessions from the group targeted for various reasons. Thus, the CFB indicated that these further focus groups would be hosted internally on an on-going basis.
Throughout, the tool and its results were explained in the context of the work environment. Results were explained as potential hazards, not as direct causes of stress. Letters were also disseminated with the results for those not present on that day they were delivered.
Was that the entire project completed?
No. At this stage, the Risk Assessment was completed and fed back. The next phase is the Control Measures, which involves reacting to the results of the audit in Actions.
What were the Actions?
Different follow-up actions were needed for one grouping only. The other group indicated no potential hazards currently.
1. Sessions were set up to focus group the findings. These were facilitated by the independent consultant to the public sector agency group (details under ‘professionals consulted for project)
2. A Risk Assessment/Control Measure map was developed for the CFB to provide a template for the coming 12 month period in order for issues highlighted to be addressed locally within teams and under line management.
3. A consultant-led education session on Role was held. Dealing with the low perceived clarity around role for some employees included identifying task and job demands as well as broader organisational roles and how they fit within CFB.
What worked well?
The Central Fisheries Board expressed an interest in becoming involved in the Work Positive programme in the summer of 2008. The board recognised that it did not have an adequate risk assessment to account for work related stress and wished to remedy this to ensure the psychological health of staff. Following consultation with senior management and trade unions the Health & Safety Executive formally accepted an invitation by the Health & safety Authority to participate in the Work Positive programme. That risk Assessment is now done - staff have attended four sessions with the HSA and two sessions with consultant Jerry Kelly. It is proposed that staff will attend three further in-house sessions early this year (2009) It was effective in that it identified the most vulnerable work group and highlighted issues for that group.
What was the main challenge to the success of Work Positive?
Staff buy in to the programme was an issue and so a high level of internal organisation is required in order, for instance, to ensure attendance at pre-arranged group sessions hosted by the facilitator. A very clear explanation of the process for everyone concerned would help.
What is the overall outcome of participation in the project?
The CFB has an up to date risk assessment done, records kept, all staff have increased self and environmental awareness, groups sessions were held and staff were involved. In terms of increasing the psychological health of employees, that is a further step which is on the agenda going forward.
