Workplace Stress and Labor Law in the United Kingdom

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Main Discussion
Conclusion
References

Introduction

In this case, we learn that Alan is suffering from devastation because of an accident that occurred at work. This has caused him a lot of stress and therefore, he finds it hard to cope with his employer and fellow employees. The United Kingdom has no discrete law that directly addresses stress at the workplace. This does not however mean that nothing can be done when such a case arises because some laws and regulations can be used to make sure that stress-related cases are handled appropriately. In this paper, we will look at the possible avenues that may be available to Alan in tackling his problem.

Main Discussion

Every employer has a contractual obligation with his or her employees. The employer, therefore, must make sure that employees are under good care. Every workplace should have a properly constituted consultation framework through which the customs and practices of the business are examined to ensure that employers do not execute changes and impose conditions that may affect employees’ well-being.

The business world nowadays calls on all employers to employ work policies that are family-friendly, policies that recognize that all workers need a proper balance between their work and their life in all the levels of employment. These policies will also act as mechanisms to ensure that those employers who violate the workplace rights of their employees face appropriate disciplinary measures (Work stress, 2011, p. 1).

Alan complains that his fellow workers are fond of bullying him. This is harassment that is prohibited by law. There are many legislations that government such as unethical business practices. For instance, the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act of 1974 stipulates that intentional harassment of an employee by his fellow employees or even employer is a criminal offense (Work stress, 2011, p. 1).

To clearly understand whether Alan was harassed or not, we have to understand what it means by harassment. Harassment is simply defined as the unwanted cause of action that an individual pursues against another person violating his or her dignity and causing distress or alarm. When related to the employment environment, harassment can be any action that leads to intimidation, hostility, humiliation, and degradation of an employee’s dignity from fellow workers or the employer. This is punishable under the law especially when those accused may have used insulting or abusive language. This is precisely the same as Alan’s case.

His co-workers use insulting and abusing language when referring to him. It is an insult to call someone a codger basher as the other employees have done to Alan. This is intentional harassment and that is meant to intimidate and humiliate Alan. Mr. Philip. Being Alan’s manager and aware of Alan’s condition should have taken necessary measures to prevent this from happening (Stress & Law, 2011, p. 8).

Alan should also know that the law gives protection to people from any form of discrimination. Many laws have been enacted to protect people against discrimination. Among them, we have the Protection from Harassment Act of 1997(Work stress, 2011, p. 1) that outlaws any form of personal harassment. If there is any form of harassment in the workplace that may cause an employee to be stressed, then an employer can be held “vicariously liable” for the actions of his or her employees who are accused of bullying another employee even if the employer was not aware of the actions. In this case, Alan has alerted his employer but no steps have been taken.

Alan is, therefore, under the law to sue his employer who is vicariously liable for the harassment being done on him. This has, however, not helped Alan because his manager has not taken any measures. This has seen Alan endure working under stressful conditions (Stress at Work, 2007, p. 1).

These stressful working conditions have led to a deterioration in Alan’s physical and mental health to the extent that he is acting strangely. His employer is no longer listening to him, he is no longer taken seriously and even his complaints are just brushed aside.

This is discrimination basing on his health condition. The 1996 Disability Discrimination Act provides the rights for people with conditions like those of Alan. It stipulates that it is against the law for anyone to discriminate against others in employment because of their disability. Disability in this case means any mental or physical harm that has an untoward effect on an individual’s ability to function normally. Discrimination, bullying, and name-calling have stressed Alan disturbing his mental functioning (Cox et.al. 2006, 19)

Mr. Philip cannot use his mood to dismiss Alan just like that. After all, Alan’s condition was brought about by his negligence to Alan’s concerns. Alan has a right under the Employment Protection Act of 1978 to retain his job. Alan should, therefore, address his grievances to the Employment Tribunal because he is being unfairly dismissed. Mr. Philip knows very well that it is the bullying from his co-workers that has led to Alan’s condition. Laws in the United Kingdom require employers to take good care of their employees.

Mr. Philip should know better about this, and therefore, is culpable in Alan’s case. Instead of handling Alan according to his present needs, he goes ahead to treat him just like the other employees, ignoring his concerns in the process. When things get out of hand, Mr. Philips fires Alan and insults him by calling him gay. It seems that Mr. Philip is not aware of the Health, Safety, and Welfare Act of 1974.

Employers have a duty under section 2 of this Act to make sure that employees work under healthy and safe conditions that will promote their welfare. There is also the “Reporting of Injuries, Diseases or Dangerous Occurrences Regulations, commonly referred to in short as RIDDOR 95. These regulations give employees a right to report to their employers in all cases that may pose danger to them. These include bullying and harassment as in Alan’s case. Alan has done what he is supposed to do, report them to his employer. However, no action has been taken, meaning that Alan should sue the employer for negligence (Mathews, n.d., p. 1).

We are told that all these problems originated from an accident that Alan caused. However, we are not told the nature of the accident. Despite this, the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations of 1999 calls upon all employers to carry out a risk assessment on health and safety issues in the workplace to ensure that employees work in safe conditions. They are also obligated to provide their employees with information on the possible risks and how to avoid them.

In this case, the accident may have been due to a failure on the part of the employer to do the above actions causing injury to Alan. After the accident, the employer knew that Alan was still at risk of being exposed to stressful conditions but went ahead to put him in the reach of other employees who saw it as a chance to bully him. Nothing was done to help Alan out of this situation even after complaining to his manager. This can be taken to be the negligence of which Alan has the right to apply for claims (Prospect, 2011, p. 1).

Alan should be thankful that there are Disputes Resolution Regulations through which he can process he complains. These regulations provide a legal procedure through which aggrieved workers like Alan can address their grievances. These regulations mandate employers to take the necessary steps to solve workplace disputes. In this case, the harassment and bullying should have been addressed through this procedure. If the employer fails to address the issue at hand through this procedure, as it has happened in Alan’s case then, Anan can forward his grievances to the employment tribunal.

These regulations also address issues to do with unfair, constructive, and wrongful dismissal where it stipulates that such cases should be resolved through local procedures of dispute resolution. The Employment Rights Act of 1996 states that every employee has a constitutional right not to be dismissed unfairly by his or her employer. Therefore, an employee is within the law to use against unfair dismissal so long as he has worked continuously with the employer for at least one year, and also the employee must have been dismissed. This fits into Alan’s case and therefore, he must apply against this dismissal (Disputes, 2009, p. 1).

Alan’s manager failed to provide a safe working place for him. Mr. Philip failed in his duty to take reasonable care of his employee. Under the foreseeability of injury clause, when an employer knows or is made aware that one of his employees is having some work problems, then he must work towards preventing any foreseeable risk of a future problem. Failure to take any steps, then the employer will be held liable for any foreseeable injury that may come about (Stress claims, 2008, p. 1).

In this case, Mr. Philip knew very well about Alan’s condition. Alan also went ahead to report to him about the bullying and harassment that was being done by the other employees. Mr. Philip just to Alan’s complaints lightly, an action that worsened his condition. By failing to take reasonable and appropriate steps to help Alan, Mr. Philip breached the duty of care as required by the law. We are told that Alan’s emotional well-being suffered, he lost weight and his behavior becomes strange.

This condition could have been avoided if the Manager had taken appropriate steps to safeguard Alan from harm. Tortuous liability principles also apply whereby an employer’s obligation to take care of his or her employees involves protecting the employees against emotional or physical harm (Day, 2009, p. 1).

Alan’s employer also failed in his duty to protect him against psychiatric injury. We have already seen that employers are under an obligation by law to act reasonably in providing safety in the workplace by putting place measures to protect employees from safety and health risks that are reasonably foreseeable. The accident in which Alan was involved called for necessary measures to help him work comfortably.

Moving him to a different working place was not enough. Furthermore, his complaints of being bullied and harassed made future harm to his health foreseeable. Failure by Mr. Philip to put in place safe and friendly working conditions or to give Alan the support he needed just shows how inappropriate he acted despite knowing that Alan had a pre-existing susceptibility. This is negligence, which is punishable under the law (Cox et.al., 2006, p. 14)

This is an issue that deals with work-related stress. Alan will be within his right under the law to sue his employer for negligence. He can also decide to apply for discrimination from his fellow workers or unfair dismissal by Mr. Philip to the Employment Tribunal. He can also make a personal injury claim either through a solicitor or if he’s in a trades union, he can use it to address his concerns. He should, however, know that there must be concrete evidence that his well-being was damaged by the conditions in which he was working (Cary and Cartwright, 1997, p. 56). He should also show that he raised his concerns to the employer, who failed to act upon them as required under his duty to take care of employees (Cox et.al., 2006, p. 14).

Conclusion

We have seen that employers have a contractual obligation to provide safe and friendly working conditions to their employees. To ensure that these obligations are adhered to, there are laws and regulations in place to guide both workers and their employers. In our case, Alan’s employers failed in their duty of care to see to it that Alan works in a friendly working environment. This caused psychological injury to Alan and instead of addressing the problem, Mr. Philip, Alan’s manager decides to sue. Alan has all the right as we have seen from the laws and regulations, to file a claim for harassment, negligence, and unfair dismissal.

References

Cary, S and Cartwright, C. (1997) Managing workplace stress. New York: Sage.

Cox et.al. (2006) Defining a case of work-related stress. Web.

Day, C. (2009) Work-related stress. Web.

Disputes. (2009) Resolving employment disputes. Web.

Mathews, P. (n.d.) Stress at Work – The Legal Implications. Web.

Prospect. (2011) Stress at work. Web.

Stress & Law. (n.d.) Work-related stress: What the law says. Web.

Stress at Work. (2007) Stress at Work. Web.

Stress claims. (2008) Work-related stress claims. Web.

Work stress. (2011) The law and work-related stress. Web.

Click Here To Order Now!

Workplace Stress and Labor Law in the United Kingdom

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)