Night-shift automation, supervisor conflict and return to work
A distribution centre employs 80 warehouse staff on 12-hour shifts, including a night shift of 20. A new automated picking system was installed eight weeks ago. Pick rates are displayed on a board, and night staff say the system 'times every movement'. Two night-shift workers have raised grievances about a supervisor who calls them 'slow'; one has been off for six weeks with anxiety and is due to return. Sickness absence is 8.5%, and agency use has doubled. The site has an EAP, a stress policy and a well-used gym, but no stress risk assessment. The operations manager proposes mandatory resilience training for all night staff and a wellbeing champion on each shift, arguing that 'the system is here to stay and people need to adapt'.
1. Critique the proposed resilience training and wellbeing champions, and outline a primary, secondary and tertiary intervention package.
Read the worked answer
Critique: resilience training is a secondary, individual intervention; it may help coping but does not remove the automated pace, visible pick-rate board or supervisor behaviour. Mandatory training can feel like blaming staff. Wellbeing champions are useful for signposting and reducing stigma but are not a substitute for risk control; they need boundaries and support. The operations manager's 'adapt' framing is a judgement error because the system and its targets are the hazard. Primary controls: review pick-rate targets and the public display of individual rates; set clear standards for supervisors so that 'slow' labels are not used; consult on system design and break recovery; review 12-hour night shifts. Secondary: voluntary resilience and manager training, peer support, EAP. Tertiary: return-to-work plan, adjustments and OH. Sequence primary controls first, then support. Pilot and evaluate rather than rolling out training as the solution.
2. Develop a return-to-work plan for the worker with anxiety, addressing confidentiality and legal duties.
Read the worked answer
Plan: contact the worker before return; offer OH and a confidential meeting; agree a phased return, for example reduced hours or day shifts for two weeks, then review; identify adjustments such as avoiding the supervisor in question, a mentor, written tasks, regular breaks and a quiet space; agree review dates. Legal: the Equality Act 2010 may apply if the anxiety is long-term and substantial; make reasonable adjustments and do not discriminate. Data protection: keep medical information need-to-know; do not announce the reason for adjustments; agree what colleagues will be told. HSE: risk-assess the individual and the night shift generally. Do not mandate EAP. If the worker does not want OH, document alternatives and monitor. Manage the supervisor separately if the grievance is upheld; do not return the worker to the same behaviour without action. Review at two, four and eight weeks.
3. How would you evaluate the intervention package at six and twelve months?
Read the worked answer
Use baseline and follow-up measures: absence, both short and long term; turnover; agency use; grievances; aggregate EAP uptake; pick rate and quality to check there is no production detriment; break compliance; and a short anonymous survey on demands, control, support and relationships. At six months, check implementation fidelity: were targets changed, supervisors trained, rota adjusted and the return-to-work plan followed? Look for early signals. At twelve months, compare with baseline and with a comparison shift if available, and run focus groups. Avoid evaluating only by absence, which is confounded by seasonality and reporting behaviour. Include leading indicators such as the percentage of supervisors trained, the percentage of staff consulted and the number of adjustments made. Report to the safety committee and revise the action plan. If there is no improvement, re-examine the primary controls rather than adding more resilience training.