メンタルヘルス最新事情

かつて、精神的な課題を抱える従業員は、会社のお荷物として毛嫌いされる存在でした。しかし、過労による社員の自殺が大きな社会問題となってきて、会社側の責任が裁判所で争われる例が増えて来ました。平成12年には、過労による社員の自殺について、最高裁が会社の責任を認めた判決を出しました。

一方、従業員の側からすると、精神科への通院や薬剤名などに関する情報は、会社に最も知られたくない個人情報です。つまり、従業員からの自己申告を会社側が期待できないともいえるでしょう。

加えて、最近では、「新型うつ」といった鬱病とサボリとの境界がはっきりしないと言われるようなものもあり、精神疾患の深刻さが外から見ただけでは容易にわからないこともあります。いずれにせよ初期段階で適切な措置を取ることが肝要です。

労働に関わる判例の流れからすると、従業員個人の問題だと放置することはできません。最近の判例は、雇用主の安全配慮義務として、メンタル面でも相当高度な注意義務を果たすように要求しています。

従業員からの申告がなくとも、その様な積極的な申告が難しいことを踏まえて、過重な業務が続く中で、体調の悪化がみてとれる時には、必要に応じて、作業の転換や業務を軽減せよといった判断が出されています。場合によっては、休職を命じて、業務の遅滞や不的確な作業による損害を食い止めるといった発想も必要だと思います。

会社の対策としては、上司は部下の変化に常に相当な関心を持って見守り、変化に応じては、迅速に対応できるようにしておくことです。つまり、相談できるような体制を設け、ケースによっては、医師による面談指導を受けさせるなど、本人が「気づく」機会を促すことです。

今国会では、労働安全衛生法の改正が議論されており、改正されれば、来年度末までに、雇用主の「ストレスチェック」が義務化される見込みです。反対意見もあって、希望者だけが対象ということになりそうですが、50人以上の事業場では、面談指導を希望する申し出があれば、医師による指導の機会を提供しなければなりません。指導を受けたいという管理職は６割、非管理職は５割を越えるという報告もあります。

厚労省の作成した「労働者の心の健康の保持増進のための指針」には、管理監督者の見るべきポイントが列挙されています。

〈中部経済新聞　「中経論壇」平成26年７月１日掲載　池田桂子　〉

 

The latest situation concerning about Mental health

 

In the past, an employee who suffered from a mental illness or disease was thought to be a troublemaker and one who was typically disliked in the company. However, recently the some employees have committed suicide caused from overwork and those cases have become and recognized as a serious social problem, the responsibility of the company has brought accusations in a few courts. So in 2000, one case with regard to a suicide of an employee due to overwork, was heard in the Supreme Court and has been recognized as having a punitive responsibility of the company now in Japan.

 

From the point of view of an employee, such information about the his/her name being mentioned as an employee who is or is about to visit a psychiatrist is personal and  confidential and that they do not want that information made public or known to the company. In other words, it may be said that the company cannot expect to receive any form of a report or information from the employee.

 

In addition, there may be some rather unclear boundaries between what may seem to be an employee just being lazy or one suffering from depression and perhaps a “new depression” which is not clear and difficult to judge from a layman’s point of view. It is not easily known as to the seriousness of mental illness if one exists. It is important to take appropriate action at an early stage in any case.

 

Judging from the main stream of some of the cases related to labor, you will not be able to be in a position to understand the real problems of individual employees, as far as a safety consideration and the obligation of employers. A recent court case is requesting that a high level of due diligence and obligation within that mentality favors on the side of the employer.

 

Without a declaration from an employee, it becomes difficult for an employer to understand the real issues and be aggressive, if certain types of work should be  continued by an employee, when the deterioration of his/her physical condition can be seen, and if necessary,  have the work either reduced or shifted to another acceptable form of work. In some cases, I think the company needs to change their policy and for example, the company should order a leave of absence, and stem the damage caused by inaccurate work or a delay of business.

 

As a measure of responsibility to the company, management should watch an employee with a considerable amount of interest at all times, and to change their subordinates, in accordance with a change if it should become necessary. Management should be proactive and should be able to respond quickly. In other words, by providing a system that allows consultations, and in some cases subjecting an employee to a formal medical interview and with the guidance of a physician,  promote him/her with a “notice” of the opportunity for mental health intervention and cure.

 

In the current Diet session, amendments to the Occupational Safety and Health Act has been discussed, it is expected that if it is amended, by the end of next fiscal year.        The employer “stress check” is mandatory. With a partly dissenting opinion, it is likely that only a person who wants that subject would have it available, however in businesses with more than 50 people, if there is an offer to an employee who wishes to be interviewed for guidance,the employer will have to provide the opportunity of that guidance by a physician . There is also a report that the management wants to receive t guidance is roughly 60%, and non-management positions are more than 50%.

 

The “Guidelines for the maintenance and promotion of the mental health of workers” which was created by the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, the points to watch the managers and supervisors have been listed.

 

<Keiko Ikeda published July 1, 2014 Chubu Keizai newspaper “medium through Tribune” Heisei