THE LAW OF HEALTH AND SAFETY AT WORK Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1750 words

THE LAW OF HEALTH AND prophylactic AT WORK - Essay ExampleAccording to the pabulum of the common law, employers are required to vindication the physical and psychological health of their employees. They are also required to provide a safe carcass of work, safe means of access, plant and equipment, and fellow employees. Furthermore, employees have to be protected from unnecessary risk of soil (Mcilroy, 2000). This duty of care is an implied obligation in a contract of occupation. It had been the extant practice to permit employees to form of address compensation from their employers if they were injured at the workplace, due to the negligence of the latter. The courts have commenced to grant compensation for psychological injuries caused by employers. In order to succeed in a claim for psychiatric injury, the applicant has to hold trustworthy psychological damage presence of a causal link between the psychiatric injury and his employment and that the psychiatric injury had bee n previseable by the employer (Mcilroy, 2000). Moreover, the applicant must submit expert opinion to establish psychiatric illness, in order to claim compensation. Stress in employment, gradually erodes the health of employees, and reduces self-esteem, confidence, and other abilities. such(prenominal) employees are less likely to claim compensation from their employers (Mcilroy, 2000). ... The Employment Protection operation 1975 (Employment Protection Act (c. 71), 1975) provides rights related to time off, and these have been included in the Employment Rights Act 1996 (Employment Rights Act (c. 18), 1996). A hardly a(prenominal) of these rights provide employees with paid time off and the other rights allow employees to avail themselves of unpaid time off. Specifically, office 50(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, requires the duration of time off and pertinent factors to be of a reasonable nature. This was all the way discernible in the Employment Appellate Tribunals decis ion in Borders Regional Council v Maule, wherein the former emphasised that there was to be a balance between the needs of the employer and the rights of the employee (Borders Regional Council v Maule, 1993). Health and Safety at Work It is to be examined, whether the corporate law firm, is in breach of the provisions of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act of 1974. In instances involving work related stress an employee can initiate legal action against his employer in the County Court or High Court, or guard to an Employment Tribunal. The first ruling regarding negligence arose in Walker v Northumberland County Council. In this case, it was held that it was reasonable to foresee risk of psychiatric injury, if the concerned employee had already undergone a nervous breakdown. All the same, this was not to be construed to think that an employer could continue to subject an employee to excessive stress, until the latter suffered a stress related injury. In Garratt v capital of the United Kingdom Borough of Camden, the Court of Appeal opined that a significant proportion of the population underwent nervous breakdowns and depression, and that quite a few of these individuals were