SBHA stress audit

Share this article
Have your say

Following the publication of a letter from an employee of the Scottish Borders Housing Association (SBHA) (4 May), I would like to point out that the vast majority of the 188-strong staff had not been made aware of any letter being sent to The Scotsman, and it is not a realistic
representation of the workforce.

As a Health and Safety representative, I was approached by staff members concerned about the health and wellbeing of staff.

Unite, the union, approached SBHA management in June 2012 and asked for a stress audit to be carried out. As SBHA management were negative in their approach to our request, we informed human resources that we would carry out our own stress audit.

After guidance from our hired consultant, we arranged for all staff to attend briefings in which we would explain how we were carrying out the survey.

All staff received information through e-mails and one-to-one communication. Anyone insisting they did not receive a formal invitation to attend briefings or respond to e-mails were either not interested or simply just did not bother; all staff were given the opportunity to participate.

A minority of office staff turned up for briefings, which suggests the internal e-mail
system is working. On that note, some of the staff who did turn up were part of the group that signed the letter sent to you declaring themselves unaware of any stress audit. Another one of the chosen nine is fairly high up in human resources; this concerns us, as we briefed human resources of our intentions.

I would also like to add that in engaging in our survey, we had no co-operation or encouragement from management, bearing in mind that stress audits are a legal requirement.

The consultant engaged in the survey also suggested that the response was a fair return for an unofficial survey; this satisfies the justification for publishing the report.

The survey and report were designed so that no person would be named or known to anyone analysing or involved in the survey, and that any report would not name or recognise any participants.

This part of the report was carried out with particular emphasis on anonymous participation. Looking at the contents of the report, we find no names mentioned, nor have we found any direction towards naming any individuals in the report.

Again, the statements made by the chosen nine suggests 
concern in their deliberations.

J G Wilson

SBHA employee