Rank: Super forum user 
|
Below are extracts from the HSE website on the topic of stress. It states that the HSE inspector could issue an improvement notice. My question is could there be an improvement notice issued to an employer, not for causing stress to an employee, but to member(s) of the public. Before anyone asks, no this is not an actual circumstance it is purely hypothetical. My initial thought was that they could if they wanted. Obviously a member of the public could pursue a civil claim, but if an organisation continued to cause people undue stress could they also fall foul of Criminal law?
What would be your view?
Legal Position
Employers have duties under the “Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations,” 1999, to assess the risk of stress-related ill health arising from work activities and under the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974, to take measures to control that risk
Enforcement
HSE has issued improvement notices in respect of work related stress where employers have failed to assess the risk of work related stress in the workplace or where having carried out a risk assessment they have failed take adequate steps to address those risks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Ever been made redundant? Very stressful. Can't see how an IN could fix that!
My view? A bit of a daft notion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
The bottom line is that occupational stress is poorly regulated. Indeed, I cannot recall a prosecution for stress or any other related ill health matters. Claims for work related stress are dealt via the civil law and specifically the tort of negligence. The HSE appear content to allow civil law to be the driver, where only the most extreme cases ever get to court - the tip of the iceberg.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
The answer to the hypothetical question is, I guess, a hypothetical yes.
Ray makes an interesting point, that despite there being some quite high profile stress related civil cases, non of them seem to have spurred the HSE into action on the enforcement side of things. It remains very much a hidden 'problem', and in many organisations an accepted and acceptable 'problem'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
As far as I can recall the highest profile enforcement action for stress was the Improvement Notice issued to West Dorset NHS Trust back in 2003. At the time this was noted as only the 4th IN issued in relation to stress.
As regards civil action for stress there, in reality, very few claims. It is pretty hard to bring a claim and a great deal rests/revolves around what the employer knew, had the employee made their employer aware of their problems, had there been attempts to sort out matters, relieve employee of excessive workload etc etc. This is all pretty hard for an employee to prove let alone someone who is not an employee.
And remember that the Walker case wasn't really about stress! Employee had gone off with stress. A planned return to work had been agreed including additional support. Employee returned to work but planned/promised help appeared but was then taken away and put on other duties. Second absence with stress due to excessive workload. One could say that the nub of the negligence was failure by employer to do what they said they would!
Phil
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Yes redundant twice and although there is no good way, there definitely are some wrong ways. From Rays comments I’m getting they could but will not, which seems par for the course. The question came up from a conversation with a friend over the young lady who won against the government over the issue of working for nothing in a shop. From that other people sanctioned being able to claim back losses and if they could claim for stress, from the effect of having no money to live on. I said it would be a civil claim ( but then decided to look closer). From my own point of view being unemployed, although happy enough to stand up for myself, I have witnessed others who are not and seem very stressed by the process (which seems deliberate), even I sometimes feel intimidated knowing I have done nothing wrong.
The conversation went onto general company’s and organisations who deliberately make some things stressful, refunds, putting things right etc, knowing that most people would not want more stress standing up for their rights. Even if there was a civil claim then it would be one person at a time and would not stop the ethos. If enforcement notices were issued would this have a longer term effect?
Hence my question was not about employees, but those that are not employees. I think most people would not want to claim for being put under undue stress, but simply would not want the stress in the first place. This is what H&S is about isn’t it, prevention rather than redress.
Thank you for your views so far
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Chris
Stress is a notoriously difficult ailment by which to gain compensation even for an employee who has suffered. Those who are not employees will have almost nil chance. Following the Walker conjoined CA case there are a number of different tests which have to be satisfied before a judge will find in favour of the claimant.
Incidentally, the Walker case turned on the fact that the employer was forewarned of the previous stress which resulted in sickness absence, even though the employer had promised to reduce and monitor the workload, they did not. It is the element of being forewarned, or at least, being aware of the stress which an employee is suffering which is the kernel of a successful claim for occupational stress.
The only redress in criminal law for a non-employee pursuant to HSWA would be a s3 offence. Once again the chances of the regulator enforcing s3 for stress must be as rare as rocking horse...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Ray
Sorry I should have said that I was familiar with the Walker case and agree completely with your post. Even If someone is suffering from stress my view is that all factors of their life is probably contributed. Though in the conversation I noted before I think if anyone is told they have to live with no money for the next 3 months or more for a sanction, it would not take a genius to work out they will become very stressed.
So in theory it seems they have the power hypothetically, reality is they would not use it. I still feel individual compensation claims would struggle to be successful as you say and not change the ethos. I guess there are more pressing issues in the world than this.
Thanks for everyone’s interest and input.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.