|
|
|
|
The Employer's Legal Duties with regard to Work-Related Stress
The
Public Order Act 1986, Disability Discrimination Act 1995, The Employment Rights
Act 1996, The Prevention of Harassment Act 1997, and The Working Hours Directive
1998 are examples of other Acts which can be involved in the management of
stress in the workplace. It is important to remember that both employer and employee have duty of care responsibilities. Although the employer holds the primary duty of care it is recognised in law that an employer cannot carry out his duties properly without the co-operation and the assistance of the workforce. Landmark Cases Not
taking action can result in costly litigation as the two high profile cases
below illustrate:
 In 1999 Beverley Lancaster
was awarded more than £67,000 compensation by Birmingham City Council. This is
believed to be the first time that an employer has accepted liability in a UK
court for personal injury caused by work related stress.
Since these cases there has been a steady increase in stress related claims. In January 2000 compensation payments soared even higher with two settlements in excess of £200,000. Then in May 2000 a teacher who had experienced a nervous breakdown as a result of stress at work received a record £300,000. In February 2002 The Court
of Appeal overturned three stress cases in an attempt to establish a consistent
framework across the legal system for dealing with stress-related personal
injury claims. Among
the guidelines put forward by the Appeal Court judges were the statements that
employers are: This ruling had a mixed reception. Some believed it could lull employers into a false sense of security and others that it had not emphasised the necessity for risk assessment by employers. Since
the Court of Appeal ruling other cases have occurred demonstrating that the
courts do, in fact, expect employers to exercise in favour of an employee who is
known to be prone to stress-related illness.
In the case of Morris Young v The Post Office in 2002, the court found
that the Post Office had been negligent by not taking sufficient trouble to
monitor that an employee, who had suffered two breakdowns, was not exposed to
conditions, which he found stressful.
The Post Office had mainly relied on the employee telling them that he
was still finding problems at work after his return.
The court found that this was not an acceptable excuse and ruled that
although he had not been heard complaining about stress, it was plainly
foreseeable that there was a risk of recurrence upon his return to work. To
obtain current HSE guidance on work-related stress contact: HSE
Books, P.O. Box 1999, Sudbury, SuffolkCO10 2WA.
Tel: 01787 881165, Fax: 01787 313995, Website: www.hsebooks.co.uk
To contact us for more information about how employers can tackle stress in the workplace please click on the post box below....
|
|
Send mail to stressip@aol.com with
questions or comments about this web site.
|
John
Walker, a
Entitled to take what an employee says at face value in most circumstances
