Tags |
|
|
Links |
|
|
Write You - Stress At Work Claims - An Employer's Guide To Avoiding The Pitfalls
Man is a rational being. He has the most developed brain among all species. However, in spite of all this, man is foremost governed by his emotions. It is said, man is ruled by the heart more than his mind. And these emotions, more often than not, play a huge role in man’s investments too. This is the sole reason, say, why the same person at one time might want to invest in the stock market, while at another time might find the same too much of a risk.Emotions often also control the company one is investing in. Generally brand loyalties come into the picture here too. Example, if someone prefers purchasing his sportswear from Nike, he may want to invest in its stocks t
10. The employer will only be in breach of duty if he has failed to take the steps which are reasonable in the circumstances, bearing in mind the magnitude of the risk of harm occurring, the gravity of the harm which may occur, the costs and practicability of preventing it, and the justifications for running the risk.
11. The size and scope of the employer's operation, its resources and the demands it faces are relevant in deciding what is reasonable (rather like the test for unfair dismissal); these include the interests of other employees and the need to treat them fairly, for example, in any redistribution of duties.
12. An employer can only be reasonably expected to take steps which are likely to do some good: the court is likely to need expert evidence on this (probably from a Consultant Psychiatrist or Occupational Health Consultant).
13. An employer who offers a conf
VERY LITTLE -- other than breathing, eating and the need for some basic necessities like going to the restroom every day.You know that Bill Gates and Donald Trump are billionaires. Most likely, you never heardof Bill Bartmann. Let me tell you, he is also a billionaire -- just like Bill Gates and Donald Trump.What do they have in COMMON?All of them know the secret of their success resides deep inside their minds.What do they KNOW that YOU DON'T know?Same answer: all of them know the secret of their success resides deep inside their minds.They are NOT like most people when they embark to make money.When most people dec
The question for employment/personal injury lawyers is when will an employer be liable for a psychiatric illness that is induced by workplace stress? The answer in legal terms is no different to the question of liability for any other injury: when the risk of injury, in this case a psychiatric illness, is foreseeable. Was it foreseeable that this particular employee would suffer a psychiatric illness and not just work-related stress?
SUTHERLAND v HATTON: THE 16 POINT PLAN
2. In Sutherland v Hatton 2002 IRLR 263 the Court of Appeal laid down guidelines as to how courts should deal with negligence claims made against employers by employees with psychiatric injuries.
3. The Court of Appeal stated that an employer will escape liability for an employee's psychiatric injury unless it was reasonably foreseeable that the employee in question would suffer such an injury as a result of occupational stress. That of course is not a new principle.
4. The Court made it very clear that there are no occupations which are so intrinsically stressful that psychiatric injury is always reasonably foreseeable.
5. In the view of the Court the answer to the question of foreseeability will depend upon the relationship between the particular demands of a job and the particular characteristics of the employee concerned. Foreseeability is whether this kind of harm to this particular employee was reasonably foreseeable i.e. injury to health attributable to stress at work. The Court therefore set out and listed a number of factors which were relevant to the issue of foreseeability and these factors were split into two groups.
6. The first group related to the demands of the job and included the following considerations:-
• The nature and extent of the work done by the employee;
• Whether the employee's workload is much greater than is normal for the kind of job which he or she performs;
• Whether the employee's work is particularly intellectually or emotionally demanding;
• Whether demands being made of the employee are unreasonable when compared with the demands made of others in comparable jobs;
• Whether there are signs that others doing the same job are suffering harmful levels of stress;
• Whether there is an abnormal level of sickness absenteeism in the employees job or department.
7. The second group of factors reflected the view of the Court of Appeal that the most important question centres on what the employer knew, or ought reasonably to have known, about the circumstances of the individual employee in question. The Court stated that the following factors might be relevant:
• Whether there are signs from the employee of impending harm to health;
• Whether the employee has a particular problem or vulnerability;
• Whether the employee has already suffered from illness attributable to stress at work;
• Whether there have recently been frequent or prolonged absences that are uncharacteristic of the employee and whether there is reason to think that these are attributable to stress at work.
FACE VALUE
8. An employer will be entitled to assume that an employee can cope with the normal pressures of a job unless the employer knows of something specific about the job or the individual concerned that should make the employer consider the issue of psychiatric injury. The employer is not obliged to make intrusive enquiries and is generally entitled to take what he is told by his employees at face value.
DUTY TO TAKE REASONABLE STEPS
9. A duty to take steps only arises where signs that an employee might suffer psychiatric illness from stress at work are plain enough that any reasonable employer would realise that he should act.
10. The employer will only be in breach of duty if he has failed to take the steps which are reasonable in the circumstances, bearing in mind the magnitude of the risk of harm occurring, the gravity of the harm which may occur, the costs and practicability of preventing it, and the justifications for running the risk.
11. The size and scope of the employer's operation, its resources and the demands it faces are relevant in deciding what is reasonable (rather like the test for unfair dismissal); these include the interests of other employees and the need to treat them fairly, for example, in any redistribution of duties.
12. An employer can only be reasonably expected to take steps which are likely to do some good: the court is likely to need expert evidence on this (probably from a Consultant Psychiatrist or Occupational Health Consultant).
13. An employer who offers a confi
Business coaching is conducted primarily to have a competitive advantage in the market. Most companies that opt for business coaching already have high revenues. Most established businesses find it a worthwhile investment for increasing productivity, management efficiency, and income. It can be very effective in proprietary businesses, especially when the management is planning to expand, achieve yearly objectives, or sort out day-to-day problems.Business coaching is meant for businesses that are growing at a very rapid rate. Fast growing businesses need to constantly recruit new employees and arrange for the required amount of capital for expansion. This can very oft
4. The Court made it very clear that there are no occupations which are so intrinsically stressful that psychiatric injury is always reasonably foreseeable.
5. In the view of the Court the answer to the question of foreseeability will depend upon the relationship between the particular demands of a job and the particular characteristics of the employee concerned. Foreseeability is whether this kind of harm to this particular employee was reasonably foreseeable i.e. injury to health attributable to stress at work. The Court therefore set out and listed a number of factors which were relevant to the issue of foreseeability and these factors were split into two groups.
6. The first group related to the demands of the job and included the following considerations:-
• The nature and extent of the work done by the employee;
• Whether the employee's workload is much greater than is normal for the kind of job which he or she performs;
• Whether the employee's work is particularly intellectually or emotionally demanding;
• Whether demands being made of the employee are unreasonable when compared with the demands made of others in comparable jobs;
• Whether there are signs that others doing the same job are suffering harmful levels of stress;
• Whether there is an abnormal level of sickness absenteeism in the employees job or department.
7. The second group of factors reflected the view of the Court of Appeal that the most important question centres on what the employer knew, or ought reasonably to have known, about the circumstances of the individual employee in question. The Court stated that the following factors might be relevant:
• Whether there are signs from the employee of impending harm to health;
• Whether the employee has a particular problem or vulnerability;
• Whether the employee has already suffered from illness attributable to stress at work;
• Whether there have recently been frequent or prolonged absences that are uncharacteristic of the employee and whether there is reason to think that these are attributable to stress at work.
FACE VALUE
8. An employer will be entitled to assume that an employee can cope with the normal pressures of a job unless the employer knows of something specific about the job or the individual concerned that should make the employer consider the issue of psychiatric injury. The employer is not obliged to make intrusive enquiries and is generally entitled to take what he is told by his employees at face value.
DUTY TO TAKE REASONABLE STEPS
9. A duty to take steps only arises where signs that an employee might suffer psychiatric illness from stress at work are plain enough that any reasonable employer would realise that he should act.
10. The employer will only be in breach of duty if he has failed to take the steps which are reasonable in the circumstances, bearing in mind the magnitude of the risk of harm occurring, the gravity of the harm which may occur, the costs and practicability of preventing it, and the justifications for running the risk.
11. The size and scope of the employer's operation, its resources and the demands it faces are relevant in deciding what is reasonable (rather like the test for unfair dismissal); these include the interests of other employees and the need to treat them fairly, for example, in any redistribution of duties.
12. An employer can only be reasonably expected to take steps which are likely to do some good: the court is likely to need expert evidence on this (probably from a Consultant Psychiatrist or Occupational Health Consultant).
13. An employer who offers a conf
Ok......., today we are going to talk about something most readers are concerned about. If I have extra money, where should I put my money? Mutual fund or unit trusts is always a popular option among beginners.What is actually mutual fund? American uses mutual fund but a lot of Asian countries such as Malaysia and Singapore, our people here call it unit trusts.Actually the concept is simple, a co-operation or company with a few what they claim themselves as " expert investors" set up a fund where you put your hard earned money, they promise they would invest these monies for you in stock market, bond , property or even money market. They are supposed to help you
• Whether the employee's workload is much greater than is normal for the kind of job which he or she performs;
• Whether the employee's work is particularly intellectually or emotionally demanding;
• Whether demands being made of the employee are unreasonable when compared with the demands made of others in comparable jobs;
• Whether there are signs that others doing the same job are suffering harmful levels of stress;
• Whether there is an abnormal level of sickness absenteeism in the employees job or department.
7. The second group of factors reflected the view of the Court of Appeal that the most important question centres on what the employer knew, or ought reasonably to have known, about the circumstances of the individual employee in question. The Court stated that the following factors might be relevant:
• Whether there are signs from the employee of impending harm to health;
• Whether the employee has a particular problem or vulnerability;
• Whether the employee has already suffered from illness attributable to stress at work;
• Whether there have recently been frequent or prolonged absences that are uncharacteristic of the employee and whether there is reason to think that these are attributable to stress at work.
FACE VALUE
8. An employer will be entitled to assume that an employee can cope with the normal pressures of a job unless the employer knows of something specific about the job or the individual concerned that should make the employer consider the issue of psychiatric injury. The employer is not obliged to make intrusive enquiries and is generally entitled to take what he is told by his employees at face value.
DUTY TO TAKE REASONABLE STEPS
9. A duty to take steps only arises where signs that an employee might suffer psychiatric illness from stress at work are plain enough that any reasonable employer would realise that he should act.
10. The employer will only be in breach of duty if he has failed to take the steps which are reasonable in the circumstances, bearing in mind the magnitude of the risk of harm occurring, the gravity of the harm which may occur, the costs and practicability of preventing it, and the justifications for running the risk.
11. The size and scope of the employer's operation, its resources and the demands it faces are relevant in deciding what is reasonable (rather like the test for unfair dismissal); these include the interests of other employees and the need to treat them fairly, for example, in any redistribution of duties.
12. An employer can only be reasonably expected to take steps which are likely to do some good: the court is likely to need expert evidence on this (probably from a Consultant Psychiatrist or Occupational Health Consultant).
13. An employer who offers a conf
Stock Research and Home Depot are in the news again. This is a result of the firing of the CEO, Bob Nardelli, and what a story it is. You have to step back for a moment and think about any company’s history that you are doing stock research on. You must have an understanding of the company’s history. As a professional investor, when I think of a company’s history, I am more concerned about corporate culture than just about anything else. History shows that a great corporate culture will produce great results. The opposite is true as well.I was involved with Home Depot in the beginning. I watched and almost participated in the original private placement for the company
• Whether the employee has a particular problem or vulnerability;
• Whether the employee has already suffered from illness attributable to stress at work;
• Whether there have recently been frequent or prolonged absences that are uncharacteristic of the employee and whether there is reason to think that these are attributable to stress at work.
FACE VALUE
8. An employer will be entitled to assume that an employee can cope with the normal pressures of a job unless the employer knows of something specific about the job or the individual concerned that should make the employer consider the issue of psychiatric injury. The employer is not obliged to make intrusive enquiries and is generally entitled to take what he is told by his employees at face value.
DUTY TO TAKE REASONABLE STEPS
9. A duty to take steps only arises where signs that an employee might suffer psychiatric illness from stress at work are plain enough that any reasonable employer would realise that he should act.
10. The employer will only be in breach of duty if he has failed to take the steps which are reasonable in the circumstances, bearing in mind the magnitude of the risk of harm occurring, the gravity of the harm which may occur, the costs and practicability of preventing it, and the justifications for running the risk.
11. The size and scope of the employer's operation, its resources and the demands it faces are relevant in deciding what is reasonable (rather like the test for unfair dismissal); these include the interests of other employees and the need to treat them fairly, for example, in any redistribution of duties.
12. An employer can only be reasonably expected to take steps which are likely to do some good: the court is likely to need expert evidence on this (probably from a Consultant Psychiatrist or Occupational Health Consultant).
13. An employer who offers a conf
Not many things can be as hard as having to declare yourself bankrupt, whether in a personal capacity or a business capacity. The Los Angeles bankruptcy system offers several ways of improving your situation after surviving bank.As a person or a business, filing bankruptcy is a big step in your financial life, in either circumstance it seems to demonstrate that you have no control over your financial state and by extension over your life. This is however something that is becoming a fact of life for a far greater number of people than most people would ever guess or even care to admit. The causes vary greatly from case to case, but the end result is always the same.nough that any reasonable employer would realise that he should act.
10. The employer will only be in breach of duty if he has failed to take the steps which are reasonable in the circumstances, bearing in mind the magnitude of the risk of harm occurring, the gravity of the harm which may occur, the costs and practicability of preventing it, and the justifications for running the risk.
11. The size and scope of the employer's operation, its resources and the demands it faces are relevant in deciding what is reasonable (rather like the test for unfair dismissal); these include the interests of other employees and the need to treat them fairly, for example, in any redistribution of duties.
12. An employer can only be reasonably expected to take steps which are likely to do some good: the court is likely to need expert evidence on this (probably from a Consultant Psychiatrist or Occupational Health Consultant).
13. An employer who offers a confidential advice service including counselling or treatment is unlikely to be found in breach of duty except where he has been placing unreasonable demands on an individual where the risk of psychiatric injury was clear.
14. One step an employer is not obliged to take, even where that step would be the only reasonable and effective one available, is to demote or dismiss an employee in order to remove him or her from a stressful situation. In the view of the Court an employer will not be in breach of duty simply by allowing a willing employee to continue in his or her job.
HTTP = HTML link (for blogs, profiles,phorums):
<a href="http://www.writeyou.net/article/127099/writeyou-Stress-At-Work-Claims--An-Employers-Guide-To-Avoiding-The-Pitfalls.html">Stress At Work Claims - An Employer's Guide To Avoiding The Pitfalls</a>
BB link (for phorums):
[url=http://www.writeyou.net/article/127099/writeyou-Stress-At-Work-Claims--An-Employers-Guide-To-Avoiding-The-Pitfalls.html]Stress At Work Claims - An Employer's Guide To Avoiding The Pitfalls[/url]
Related Articles:
Pivot Points For The Financial Markets
Bookmark it:
|