Formal action for work addiction

[Presonus]

This should be an interest near-hypothetical situation, i could do with some opinions/advice.


There is a person who had a breakdown a few years ago, recovered and picked themselves up found a new career which they've been in for >3 years , whilst the issue was thought to be a singular event at the time the symptoms occasional recurs and ultimately has extremely recently been diagnosed with depression and anxiety and has a specific problem with regards to feeling isolated. Person has gone through CBT several times in the past for general anxiety but not found it helpful. User is currently on medication to see if that helps with more specialised CBT as an option - has taken advice from a professional who says this is likely to be long term. Symptoms generally harm relationships, user can be up, down, really friendly or the other way around but generally works really good, strong work ethic and in their current role are one of the stronger team members. User has their own side/weekend business but is no longer taking calls as they don't feel able, and has pretty much given up on activities.

The user does use their main job as a motivator to to try and pull through the day (normally they love this type of work) - though things at work do cause stress and the last year has seen a considerable amount of stress-inducing events. User also works on call so has a company phone, and has become so focused to work they habitually check their email or respond to messages sent to them even if its not their week on call. They will always jump in if needed, they say they dont mind as they crawl walls at home and have things going on there. The same user occasionally cancels leave because they can't stand being at home and need some purpose. So there's stuff to fix.

Work has been quite supportive initially, however due to a few run-ins where frustration has boiled over or things did get too much, the company is now taking a formal stance that they will check the users activity and if they interact with anyone or any system outside of work time, they'l take formal action against the user. The basis given for this is for their wellbeing.

The user is a bit concerned, in the past even their managers manager has called for and appreciated their help, there is no rule in company documentation or AUP's about this, though there is some scope for email and mobile devices for instance to be used for limited personal use.

The user actually agrees that unhealthy practices need to be addressed and has taken steps personally to try and make things better (self funding CBT for instance) , however is very sensitive and feels that since anyone else on his team is unrestricted and unmonitored (and others do log in overnight or at weekends ad-hoc to check on things or just do their own thing like training etc) he does feel that this a very punitive response. He also knows he habitually grabs his phone so he also now has the worry that simply pressing the finger on the phones fingerprint button or reading a teams message will be enough to get a warning from HR.

It's not the biggest issue, and checking the status of your email/teams doesn't actually harm anything - but it feels like the point is being lost in the message since both parties probably agree that things aren't so healthy - the employer insists the request is reasonable but has refused to put things in writing and given the formal action threat verbally, with the promise of a write up 'once advice has been taken'. (we presume this to be because of the known health issues)

What does the user want? Not legal action - just positive support until things normalise, not a wrecked career record, and ideally not to be treat differently from others with regards to action-consequence. They've worked very hard, have a great appraisal, great feedback (formally and documented) from colleagues recently, and feel that being singled out for a new 'rule' that won't be applied to others is going to double up current stresses or at least enforce more isolation. User has considered taking time off sick but is anxious again about just being isolated and escalating the stress (as said, things aren't always great at home).

Suspect it's a case of suck it up. Any thoughts appreciated?

[ULA]

An employer has a duty of care to all employees and I would suspect, on this basis of what you have said, they could potentially have a concern in regard to this individual's "down-time" from work.

My view would be that an occupational health referral might be a helpful process for both the individual and the employer, given that there are potential health issues involved.

[Presonus]

Thanks so much for replying, you've no idea how hard it has been to find a scenario that's remotely similar. I agree I think that's the angle they are coming from, and it's a bit of a difficult one because obviously if the above is the case it's good the employer wants to look after its staff. Not all employers do so thats a positive


The main concern from the employees side is the risk of becoming the bad guy, get entries put on his record and basically get marked etc (basically doesnt want the stigma of having comitted some kind of offense) when really at worst he's only done/doing things anyone on the team has the ability to do, more compulsively/frequently due to known problems but not actually done any harm, or impacted - in facrt with quite a few demonstrable examples where being observant of emails has opportunistically saved the day. Very comitted to work, has a great track record, on a good day is the instigator of the bulk of team banter - this will possibly ruin him.

I have no direct experience of OH but its worth a thought, is this something the OP would likely need to worry about in itself? a quick look and it seems like the HR of health

Though that said the size of organisation we are talking about almost certainly can do this so I am surprised nobody's actually mentioned it, even before the mention of formal action being taken there has been a lot of 1-2-1's with management on the struggles so not sure on that you'd have thought it would come up.

[ULA]

OH is often just seen for situations of where an employee is off long-term sick or when considering possible adjustments for a disabled employee. However there are also benefits of having a referral in situations like this, it may even assist the individual with understanding what support they may be able to access to assist them and what, if anything, the employer can do to assist the individual in a positive way.

[Presonus]

Again thanks for that, it has been mentioned and I don't think a referral is likely though (though I suppose can self refer)

what has been clarified through HR is that there is no direct policy breach from the actions of the user, there is no actual rule against these activities - HR have advised there is some kind of presumed agreement to not work extra from accepting contracted hours (though this seems a bit weak given the culture is that you are expected to work extra sometimes). I may be a bit confused here as it's a salaried role with expectation to work over on occasion as necessary, but there is a timesheet and you always just put the base hours in. So yeah, in a nutshell there is no actual direct policy breach at all.

The management seem surprised at the strength of the users intention to defend his position - there seems to have been some confusion as the user believed he would be subject to disciplinary steps should he fail to comply, the manager on the other hand tried to make the point they meant formal action (such as a warning). We had to make the point that the two amount to the same thing which was confirmed by another manager hence the concern.

So I think this is a case of an inexperienced manager trying to use a bit of clout to try and force someone into a healthier habbit, without actually realising the strength of what they were using as the consequence

Ultimately I don't think it would change much, as I do think the firm have concerns about overwork/burnout etc, the user doesn't really want to argue on the basis of this because quite frankly they could do to not be leaned on as much - they just don't want to be a bad guy or have their chances hurt in the organisation by having anything formal on their record just because they were over-dedicated.

I know it's not trial of the century