This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Student Number: 6243745 Module Code: MANM004 Module Organiser: Mrs Caswell, Lynda- Jane Word Count: 1000 (10% +/-) Actual Word Count: 1100
......................... 3 Principle of the law for stress related illness ............................ 6 Conclusion ........................... 3 Application of law .. 3 Legal issues....................................................................................................................... 7 Bibliography ...... 8 2 ........................................................................................... 6 Recommendation ............................................Table of Contents Introduction ..............................................
Mean while Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 is the existing law dealing with this subject. there is no precise legislation. 3 . Employment Rights act 1996. 2009). allows employee suffering from stress and anxiety due to negligence to show fundamental breach of contract and claim constructive dismissal (Legislation. Gov. People with mental problems are also covered with the Equality Act 2010. Later it will build the conclusion and recommendation to Whitakers Fine Wines limited from not being open to legal actions from Adam.Introduction This assignment discusses the scenario on stress related illness. Principle of the law for stress related illness In the section of stress. Legal issues This case shows the right of Adam to claim breach of duty of care under the legislation of negligence in common law. 2010).d).. Furthermore it also reflects breach of HASWA and implied terms of contract. Now Adam can also claim a cover under the legislation of Disability in Equality ACT 2010. It offers them range of services like Flexible working and financial benefits (odi. safety and welfare of their employees (Unison..dwp. In order to guide Whitakers Fine Wines limited in the situation where one of their employee Mr Adam has been diagnosed from „anxiety and depression‟. n. This assignment will analyse the legal issues in this case study and than discuss in detail the principle of law and application of it. it compel employers to ensure the health.
2011). the common law of negligence protecting employees by requiring terms to protect employees from reasonable exposure to foreseeable danger. but there are several authorities that can be used as guidance. C. Breach of this duty of care may lead to civil action in the civil courts and tribunal and/or criminal prosecution in criminal courts (Hesni. 2012). 2011. Concept of duty of care is a legislation of particular significance in a contract of employment.. the common law has developed the implied duties to protect employees during the performance of the contract” (Lockton.j. safety and welfare of his employees. 2011). Breach of this duty is possibly taken as a repudiatory breach of contract..Additionally Management of Health and Safety at Work regulations (NI) 2000 (as amended) implies duties on employers to assess risk to health. While statutes discussed above are to prevent the injury in first place and if breached than creates criminal liability not civil. D. 2012). this is the duty for employer ensuring the health. p66). The case of Donoghue v Stevenson  AC 562 has derived.. 2009). it is also decoded under implied terms of contract (Lockton. This implies for providing safe system to work in order to prevent psychiatric or physical injuries (hseni. common law of negligence is to provide compensation to the employee (Lockton.B.. Key principle of common law is. “In addition to statute. the duty of care owed by employer to his employees as individuals (Andrew.. Though there are no specific legislations on stress related injuries. 4 .
In the same case it was also established that in determining what is reasonable. However. imposition of liability got restricted and it was stated that there must be exist basic indication of forthcoming harm arising from stress. Although it also states that reaffirmation of contract will be considered. In Walker V Northumberland County Council  IRLR 35.In Johnstone v Bloomsbury Area Health Authority  ICR 269 Browne Wilkinson LJ argued that there should be reasonable interpretation of express terms of contract by the employer. the most important authority was established when Hale LJ issued 11 points guidelines on stress claim. that once an employee had raised concerns on stress. It was also established that employer will only be liable for breach of the duty if he fails to take reasonable steps to overcome the risk of ill-health in Sutherland v Hatton  EWCA Civ 76. if employee continues his job after making a complaint and “may” looses the right to treat himself as discharged. it was established that. employer 5 . p72). for imposing liability. Cost to employer for overcoming the situation in relation to intensity of the injury and size of risk would be the deciding factor. In the same case under the appeal of Barber V Somerest County Council. 2011. employer‟s failure in reducing unreasonable load of work resulting stress may be presumed as fundamental breach of contract. emphasising more importantly to foreseeability of the injury. Intel Corporation UK LTD V Daw  EWCA CIV 70 lays a guidance. It allows employee to claim for damages following constructive dismissal. While StuartSmith LJ took step ahead and stated: “the express term relating to hours was subject to the implied duty of the employer to take reasonable care to ensure the health and safety of the employees” (Lockton.
6 . Application of law Mr Adam can claim negligence of duty under the legislation of common law. ERA 1996 and Management of Health and safety at work regulations. reinstated the obligation towards employer of being liable for just not to design but to implement less stressful working environment. This enables him to claim constructive dismissal and claim for damages. that after raising concerns over extra workload. Adam may successfully claim breach of statutes and implied terms. but he didn‟t which can be regarded as chosen to reaffirm the contract and he may looses the right to treat himself as discharged. Following earlier authorities. key points made in the case of Dickens v O2 PLC  IRLR 58. In this case judgement.must keep reviewing the situation in order to take immediate actions to prevent illness. It “may” also be said that. after raising concerns Adam should have left at once. Following Sutherland v Hatton case decision. Conclusion In conclusion it is difficult to foresee the court‟s judgement. decision of Young v The Post office  was the first one made by court of Appeal. for which he could be entitled to compensation. are also significant as it held employers liable to take action as soon as they are reported for stress. his employers are in breach of implied terms. Employers were liable to provide safe system to work. Conversely employer‟s can argue on the foreseeability clause for stress. Adam can stress. Moreover he can also clam breach of HASWA.
7 . Recommendation On recommendations. Whitakers can also refer to the stress management guidance in this case and for future provided by the CIPD: Implement a policy on working time period Implement a process assessing causes for stress and potential risk.However Whitakers should stress on the foreseeability clause of Sutherland case. Ensure that above process is in accordance to the HSE Management standard guidance Design individual action plan after agreeing with the employee affected. must create flexible and less stressful working environment. flexible working hours and/or compensation. 2010). Whitakers should consult Mr Adam reassuring him to provide safe working environment. (CIPD. If necessary than he can also be offered compensation for the period he did Collin‟s work and for the period he is signed off to work. By taking Adam in confidence Whitakers. Furthermore they also should offer him counselling and stress management programmes. Possible solutions include Counselling.
Available at: http://www. [Online]. 2012. [Online]. 8th Revised Edition.related stress What the law says. Available at: http://www.pdf [Accessed at 2nd of November 2012].uk/acrobat/18596. 2010.equalityhumanrights. Equality Act 2010 Guidance. 2009. UNISON.org. Employment Law. Odi (Office for Disability Issues). Work.gov. Cipd. Available at: http://www. [Online]. Mental health is your business. Palgrave Macmillan Equalityhumanrights.unison.pdf [Accessed at 2nd of November 2012].gov. [Online].com/uploaded_files/Wales/bkmental_health_ is_your_business_-_guidance. 2012.dwp. [Online].legislation. Routledge. 4th Revised edition. Employment Rights Act 1996. Nutcases Employment Law. Stress Management Toolkit Section 1 The Business Case.uk/NR/rdonlyres/1B504994-F40F-4801-B93D8FA4DE73E1FD/0/5233Stress_and_Law_guide. Key Cases: Employment Law.pdf [Accessed at 2nd of November 2012]. [Online].uk/ukpga/1996/18/contents [Accessed at 2nd November 2012]. Sweet & Maxwell.gov. 2010.UK.gov. Guidance for developing a work policy. Statute cited Common Law of Negligence Equality Act 2010 Employment Rights Act 1996 8 .uk/docs/wor/new/ea-guide. 2008. Hseni. n. Deborah Lockton.co.Bibliography Andrew C Bell. 2011.hseni. Chris Turner. Available at: http://odi.d. 2010. Available at: http://www. 2012 Edittion.uk/stress_management_toolkit_section_1__the_business_case. Available at: http://www.pdf [Accessed at 1st November 2012].cipd.pdf [Accessed at 1st November 2012] Legislation. Stress at work.
Nutcases Employment Law. Young v The Post Office  EWCA CIV 661 Source of cases Andrew C Bell. 4th Revised edition. Routledge. Barber v Somerest County Council  UKHL 13 2. All [Online] Available at: http://www. Key Cases: Employment Law. Johnstone v Bloomsburry Area Health Authority  ICR 269 6. 2012 Edittion. Cases cited 1.lexisnexis.com/uk/legal/ [Accessed 1st – 8th November 2012] 9 . Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations (Nl) 2000 (as amended). Sweet & Maxwell. Intel Corporation UK LTD V Daw  EWCA Civ 70 5. Walker v Northumberland County Council  IRLR 35 7. Chris Turner. Sutherland v Hatton  ECWA CIV 76 8. Donoghue v Stevenson  Ac 562 3. 2010. 2012. Dickens v O2 PLC  IRLR 58 4.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.