Psychosocial risk in a night-shift distribution centre after a serious near miss
A distribution centre employs 300 staff, 120 on nights. Turnover in the night pick team is 38%; sickness absence is 9%, double the site average. A new 'productivity league table' is displayed at the shift start; the bottom three pickers are moved to unloading. Two forklift near misses occurred in the same aisle in three weeks; both drivers said they were 'rushing to hit the target'. A team leader has been accused of shouting at staff and ignoring break requests. A 24-year-old picker collapsed at work and was signed off with work-related stress. The site's only wellbeing intervention is a poster campaign and an employee assistance programme telephone line. The safety manager wants to investigate the collapse as an individual health issue.
1. Explain why treating the collapse as an individual health issue is likely to be inadequate, and how psychosocial hazards should be assessed at the organisational level.
Read the worked answer
Why individual treatment is inadequate The collapse is a sentinel event. The worker's stress may be personal, but the context is a 38% turnover, 9% absence, a public league table, rushed forklift driving and a shouting team leader. Treating it only as an individual health issue ignores the organisational causes and leaves the hazard in place for 120 night workers.
Organisational assessment
- Use a psychosocial risk assessment covering demands, control, support, relationships, role and change.
- Triangulate data: turnover, absence, exit interviews, near misses, grievance and disciplinary records, and a confidential survey.
- Hold focus groups with night staff and union or safety representatives; ask what makes work stressful and what would change it.
- Map the findings to work design, not personality. The league table and break refusal are management controls that can be changed.
2. Design an investigation into the two forklift near misses that tests whether work design and management contributed.
Read the worked answer
Investigation design
- Use a systems approach, not a blame hunt. Interview both drivers separately and anonymously if needed, plus the team leader, dispatchers and pickers.
- Build a timeline for each near miss: workload, target pressure, staffing, break times, aisle layout, lighting, blind spots, training and maintenance.
- Compare the league table's effect on behaviour: do drivers report rushing? Are targets achievable with the layout and vehicle speeds?
- Review the two near misses for common causes; if both occurred in the same aisle, inspect the layout and traffic management.
- Check whether the team leader's behaviour is a symptom of pressure from above.
- Report findings with causal factors and recommendations; preserve confidentiality and avoid disciplinary use of interview notes.
3. Recommend a 6-month plan, including indicators, to reduce psychosocial risk and evaluate whether the EAP is sufficient.
Read the worked answer
6-month plan
- 0-1 month: pause the league table or remove punitive consequences; review break scheduling; brief managers on respectful conduct; offer confidential support.
- 1-3 months: run a confidential psychosocial survey; hold focus groups; train supervisors in mental health and conflict; set up a joint action group with workers.
- 3-6 months: redesign targets to include safety and quality; introduce fair overtime and shift allocation; provide a quiet break space; review grievance handling.
- Evaluate: track turnover, absence, near-miss reports, survey scores, grievances and exit interviews. Set targets for response times, not just low absence.
Is the EAP enough? No. An EAP is a support and reactive control. It does not remove the league table, excessive demands or poor supervision. It can be part of the package, but primary controls must change work design.