Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Admin  
#1 Posted : 17 June 2009 13:52:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By AM In a nutshell One of our employees have just recently returned to work after being off for about 6 months. Mr XX was managing a rather large part of a project without the appropriate training, experience or assistance. Despite sn management being aware of this and numerous request for an assistant or Senior Manager no-one was ever appointed. Colleagues from other parts of the company and country stepped in occasionally but not enough to ease the workload on Mr XX. As a result Mr XX finally suffered a major nervous break down and a failed suicide attempt. In term of possible litigation where do we stand and how can we do things differently
Admin  
#2 Posted : 17 June 2009 14:27:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Stuff4blokes AM, this has similarities to a high-profile case in the City where a stressed employee returned to find no change, became ill again and eventually won damages of £7 figures. If your organisation fails to address the issues the costs could be very high, for the employee, their family, for colleagues and for the employer. What is the cause(s) of the stress? Simple overwork may be compounded by a variety of other factors. You mention support, insufficient training but have you considered bullying, unrealistic targets, intellectual or physical inability to do the job, out-of-work issues... and focussing on the individual is probably less effective than looking at the wider issues. The approach to this should be multi-disciplinary, including not only H&S but also HR, Occ health, operational management, colleagues and senior management. Good luck.
Admin  
#3 Posted : 17 June 2009 14:33:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By AM Stuff4blokes, Thanks for your reponse. I'll ping you an email with more details
Admin  
#4 Posted : 17 June 2009 14:47:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By martinw Hi AM drop me a mail too. I have a list of cases which should prove useful(too big for a forum entry) Cheers Martin
Admin  
#5 Posted : 17 June 2009 14:57:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By safetyamateur From what you've posted here, AM, it seems like you've already identified the issues related to this individual. From the HSE's Management Standards, they appear to be Demand and Support issues. Whatever you can do to improve these would help others avoid this situation but there's another four standards which you should look at too. In addition, are you sure there was no non-work-related stress that featured in this case?
Admin  
#6 Posted : 17 June 2009 15:06:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Raymond Rapp Civil law is changing quite quickly in this particular field and is a 'slippery slope'. Nevertheless, liability will only arise where the employer was aware or should have been aware that a problem exists. Clearly, in the precis provided, the employer is aware. The principle case in this field is Walker v Northumberland County Council [1995] IRLR 35. Another significant case is Hatton v Sutherland [2002] 2 All ER 1 (CA), a conjoined Court of Appeal hearing where 16 propositions plus caveats were decided in order to provide clarity and consistency in stress related cases for circuit judges. Finally, the notion that tertiary controls such as counselling will discharge an employer's duty of care has also been challenged.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.