Posted By David J Bristow Hello Simon Interesting question you pose – 1. Should a record be made, if so in what form? You may wish to record the discussions you have had with this person and attach to their personnel file, a simple typed A4 sheet I think would be in order with all relevant details on: 2. How should we proceed? Well how would you proceed if the person were to admit too drugs or a drink problem. Do you have a policy to cover these “self harm” items (for want of a better word). 3. Do we have any obligations in the eyes of the law? I think so, what about vicarious liability, to say that this person could harm someone else or another employee in his or her attempt to self harm at work, duty of care to all! Perhaps you could recommend to this person that they see a doctor (company) or his/her GP or you contact a self help group locally and find out if they can recommend a councilor that may be able to help and monitor and record the situation. Self harm as we all know) is a cry for help and could lead to the ultimate if this person does not get help and help quickly. Lastly, surely we have a moral duty of care that we owe to all – whose conscience is this person’s fate going to affect if nothing is done! Don’t wait for to many replies to your tread, act now before it’s too late. Hope this help – regards David B

Posted By Lance Morgan Reference to she or her in my reply applies equally to he or him.

Posted By Nick House John although this could be an option, there is also potential for the employee to then sue the employer for unfair dismissal, citing the fact that the company did little/ nothing to find the root cause of the problem, and assist in aiding the employee to deal with these problems (at least whilst in the workplace). Tenuous I know, but with the state of our judicial system of late, anything is possible if you have a smart enough lawyer/ barrister. Also, looking at the bigger picture, what effect would this approach have on the employee in question. Surely this could easily compound the person's (depression)? If they then went that one step further, who would want that on their conscience, when a little compassion and groundwork could so easily achieve a satisfactory end result?

Posted By Lance Morgan These people have little enough self esteem and as a result some resort to self harm. Sacking them could just tip them over the edge.

Posted By john ridley I thought my previous comment would generate an understandable response and thankyou to all those who have contributed, as it widens the voice of opinion for Simon. I do like to see lateral perspectives regarding H&S issues as is provides a much wider forum of communication and expertise. Ok from the outset let me say I do symphasise with this "self abuser" but let us look at this very objectively. Simon has not made it clear exactly how big his organisation is or indeed what it does. Lets assume it is a small business really struggling to survive in a world where the emphasis of sympathy appears to be biased more towards the employee. The employer is struggling to keep his business afloat, keep his people in employment whilst contributing to the state tax system, which supports the welfare system. This system exists for everyone to use including this individual. If an employer can effectively avoid it, he is unlikley to want to incur the costs of addressing this issue himself in a manner that I am sure most would prefer e.g ocupational/medical referral etc. Don't forget this is not work related. The employer also has a responsibility to his other employees and this person is showing sings of psychological disorder, so all employees must be protected not just the individual suffering the condition. Imagine the chaos if a serious incident occured and this person had been allowed to continue working alongside others with this issue being known and therefore "foreseen" in the eyes of the legal and insurance professions. Nick has mentioned in his response that morally this is incomprehensible and of course I suspect all of us would agree with this. However, is it really the responsibility of the employer to deal with a non related work issue or should it perhaps be more appropriately addressed to the welfare state, which the employer has already contributed to? Again let me emphasise that this is a non related work issue, so is asking the employer to deal with it fair, just and reasonable, which our legal system is supposed to aspire to? Surely this is the true "bigger picture" Of course the issue could go to industrial tribunal but it is hardly likely to succeed against a background of evidence to show that the employee was sacked for gross misconduct in that they had failed to take reasonable care of themseleves and others through their acts or ommissions. This "rule" should be documented in the internal procedures of the company, dare I say it the "health & safety Policy" amongst others. OK there is a very strong moral argument here but in the cold light of commercial operations, the only input that makes every business organisations survive and prosper is profit despite all the legal and moral imperatives surrounding it. A successful industrial base provides the UK with the benefit of Welfare State which we all value and cherish. Placing the emphasis on the employer for a non related work issue just seems quite unfair to me. So in response to Simon, of course you may not wish to deal with this issue in the way I suggest and I would totally understand this, but I think this person can be sacked after going through all the correct disciplinary procedures and the problem then effectivelt transfers to the welfare state e.g. NHS medical/social workers. This would avoid incurring the direct costs yourself particularly as your organisation has already contributed to the state tax system. or am I wrong? John

Posted By john ridley Thanks for the response Adrian. I knew my contribution would generate a response because what I was suggesting was an unusual safety approach and would be deemed very controversial. The point I was trying to make is that as safety professionals I think we must provide all the possible solutions to a problem for our employers. Too often I think we adopt the usual approach of supporting the "injured party" and constantly fail to see the general effects on the business, which effects everyone. If I was faced with this problem myself, I would not necessarily recommend to my employer that they take this option but in the end, I feel it is an option that is worthy of consideration. You mention the DDA in your reply to me but I feel this person would not be categorised as disabled, so DDA would not apply. However, my knowledge regarding DDA is not extensive so I could be wrong. Any comments.......