Posted By David P. Johnson I would suggest you contact the ACAS helpine, they will be able to advise on the situation as a ponit of law.

Posted By Frank Hallett Hi Jim, 1st, let me say that I consider Keirans comments are extremely pertinant! 2nd, you don't identify what the individuals job is for you. There is an assumption that they drive for you, but it needs to be confirmed before making any statements based upon the information given. If they do drive, is it the same sort of driving? Day-work, shift, spread shift etc? Assuming that you are the individuals principal employer, and that they aren't self-employed or agency; the onus is upon you to prove the assertions that you make and also to identify, rectify and subsequently manage the causes of the alleged stress. Incidentally, somewhere in your Contracts of Employment you should have some clauses that deal with work activities outside of your undertaking and how you require the employee to inform you of such activity and how you will impose conditions to ensure that your activities aren't unduly put at risk. Frank Hallett

Posted By Kieran J Duignan In relation to Lorraine's profession 'I'm confused'..... That's a healthy response, Lorraine: you're in touch with reality! The situation is confusing till you say, 'What sort of evidence are we talking about?' Right, we start with that fact that the g.p. advises on the basis of his medical knowledge. James, or another employer's agent, has reason to question the validity of the g.p.'s advice - but unless he does so on the basis of, read my words carefully, scientifically-defensible evidence, he's on a hiding to, well, loadsa trouble. While there are no absolutes here, I've already indicated one major source of learning by observing a medic with expertise in occupational medicine far, far beyond that of your 'normal' g.p. Interestingly, this guy was very chary about assessing stress and prefered to follow the guidance of chartered psychologists. My own confidence in my methodology is based on feedback from courts. On one occasion I was cross-examined about my evidence in a case involving an intricate case involving occupational stress, the court report stated: 'Mr Duignan's mastery and expertise were self-evident...' and similar observations. This week, my evidence to a court in the USA was accepted without reservation, probably (in my opinion) because I included a clear explanation of the methods used and a rationale for the assessment and recommendations. It's not all smoke and mirrors. Honest.