Over the course of the current indicative ballot on Pay, we have fielded a number of questions and received communications from members to suggest that the 2025-2026 Probation pay offer, along with the recent and highly critical report by the Public Accounts Committee represents another important reason why staff feel unappreciated and undervalued by their employer as they try to cope with an operational crisis within the Probation service. It is also claimed that this is an additional cause of stress.
What Napo is doing now
Napo is taking these views seriously, and we are currently exploring potential avenues by which members may be able to formalise their concerns around their well-being alongside the already existing foreseeability notices that can be submitted to the employer (visit the Napo Health and safety page for template). We are also working with our sister unions to consider how we might attract the interest of the Health and Safety Executive on this matter.
Pay, wellbeing and workplace safety
The debate that is developing is essentially about the impact that the sub-standard pay offer that is currently being considered by members, can have on the health, safety and well-being of staff.
It has been suggested that the announcements by the employer, (since the pay offer was released on 19th January) to the effect that the offer is ‘good’ and ‘fair’ has had a seriously detrimental impact to staff morale and is adding to the high levels of stress already being experienced by many members due to excessive workloads.
Financial pressure as a health and safety issue
Napo has received representations from members suggesting that the current pay offer would present a real-terms reduction in income, resulting in increased financial pressure, stress, fatigue and reduced wellbeing. Work-related stress is a recognised occupational hazard under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, and that where financial strain additionally arises from their employment conditions, it becomes a legitimate health and safety matter.
The employer’s legal duty of care
It has always been the case that the employer has a duty of care for the well-being of staff under health and safety legislation (Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974), and must ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of employees. This includes their mental as well as physical health. This duty is reinforced by the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, which require employers to assess risks to employees’ health and safety and to implement appropriate preventive and protective measures.
In roles requiring sustained concentration, professional judgement, emotional regulation and risk management, the impact of financial stress presents foreseeable risks, including impaired decision-making, increased sickness absence, burnout and operational error. Such outcomes suggest that the employer has a duty under Regulation 3 of the Management Regulations to assess foreseeable risks, including those arising from psychosocial stressors.
Considering all of this, it’s entirely understandable that some members are linking the organisational messaging from their employer which frames a below-inflation pay settlement as a positive outcome, as undermining their psychological safety, trust and engagement. The corollary being that this may exacerbate work-related stress and is inconsistent with the HSE Management Standards in this regard. These require employers to address demands and support organisational change in a way that protects employee wellbeing.
While pay levels themselves are of course not directly governed by health and safety legislation, its being suggested by some of our members that the effects of inadequate pay on staff wellbeing, safety and operational resilience fall squarely within the employer’s statutory responsibilities to protect welfare and to manage foreseeable harm.
Napo reserves its position
While we seek expert advice on the foregoing, Napo reserves its position in respect of any failure by the employer to adequately assess, record or mitigate the health and safety risks arising from pay-related as well as workstress. This includes the right to pursue the matter through formal Health & Safety governance structures, regulatory engagement, and any other appropriate mechanisms should foreseeable risks to staff wellbeing and safety not be properly addressed.
We are hugely grateful for the contributions from members on this important issue and we will issue more news as soon as we can.
Meanwhile, we urge all members to vote in the current pay ballot and make your voice heard!
2 responses
Thank you for standing up for us.
This is an urgent health and safety issue. Probation staff are already in crisis, and senior leaders are actively making this worse through gaslighting and misinformation.
The impact is real and harmful. Many of us are professionally trained to recognise these behaviours, yet never expected to have to call them out in our own employer. This situation is unsustainable and dangerous.
I think there should be a survey on how many of us are having to take medication for anxiety and depression (which we have to pay for of course!) caused by work, as in my experience it’s most of us!