Posted By Descarte Ok its not a UK case, however it does raise an important and often over-looked issue of general job insecurity in the modern climate and insecurity in contract and temporary working. "A court ruled Tuesday that an employer should compensate for the death of a female non-regular worker caused by stress from job insecurity." http://www.koreatimes.co...n/2009/09/113_51081.html Temporary workers are often seen as a cheaper, hassle free resource as companies can have limited responsabilities for holiday, sickness, pension etc and are able extend short term contracts till they are no longer required or terminate at short notice. If this outcome / ruling were to occur in the UK, could this have a knock on effect to the percieved benefit / risk of employing temporary contract workers? Sorry for the post of a random news story, but hopefully this one has a ounce more H+S relevence than the usual ones. Des

Posted By Raymond Rapp I recall a similar ruling recently in the UK where the court ruled in favour of the defendant. Anyway, I can't bring myself to agree with the ruling, tragic though the outcome was. Yes, employers do take advantage of more relaxed rules for temporary workers. It is not the fault of the employer. God knows they have enough restrictions as it is. Rather, it is the law, if any fault should be apportioned. Ray

Posted By Kieran J Duignan Des Look not to Korea but simply look at the record of your own education and training in relation to your own workplace as you consider the relevance of the issue you raise. The issue you raise effectively underlines the significance of two kinds of concerns relevant to practice of occupational safety and health, for 'job insecurity' is not the only hazard relevant to intolerable work-related stress beyond the capabilities of many employees. One is the quality of risk assessment; a recent court case involved Cheltenham Council and a former chief executive who allegedly concealed information about a previous history of depression prior to her appointment. After her departure from her post, she won litigation about her settlement but at a substantial cost. The other question concerns the quality of assessment of risks at the stage of appointment. What proporation of OSH practitioners are competent to assess the stress-resilience of applicants and to advise on compliance with fair discrimination in cases where questions arise about stress-frailty? What instruments would you use to advise management about risks in these areas? Recall the case in Intel in Swindon where the employer rejected the pleas of an overstressed employee (supported by her line manager) no less than 14 times, before the drama was brought to a close by her attempted suicide. The court reports provide no record of the advice of safety and health practitioners in this instance (but repeatedly recount the failure of HR to give due weight to the pleas of the stressed-out employee). When are OSH practitioners going to learn to adequately address the relevant work-related stress issues in the UK and Ireland, before they comment on those in Korea?

Posted By Jim999 Very relevant to H & S particularly in the UK where Employers duty of care extends to Mental health e.g. The employer may be using the threat of redundancy as a coercive tool to increase productivity or reduce sick rates. This would have a detrimental impact on the mental health of the employees and as we all know stress is a major cause of 'heart attacks' Something H@S professionals should keep an eye on particularly in the current economic climate.