Law of Employment - Case Study Example

In the year of 2001, Ahmed began his employment with Copes Garden Conservatories. Being that he was very diligent in all of his duties, he was gradually promoted, until he reached the position of regional manager, which demanded a great deal of his time and energy. Though he was embraced by his company, and though he was excited about his position, he soon began to dislike the stress he was placed under, such as the stress of being on the road on an almost constant basis. Not to mention, he had to deal with overwhelming loads of paperwork. To make matters worse, he was upset that he was not able to spend more time with his wife, who was expecting their son, who was their firstborn child. In October of 2008, Ahmed went to see his general practitioner, who advised him to take a three week leave, as he was suffering from mental and physical exhaustion. Ahmed's situation became more dismal because upon his return to work, his line manager increased his workload by making him responsible for Eastern Scotland and Northeastern England. When Ahmed explained that the position would be too overwhelming for him and that he did not wish to accept it, his line manager informed him that if he did not accept his new responsibilities, he would be out of a job. Reluctantly, Ahmed took on the responsibilities because he could not afford to lose his job; however, it was not too long before he realized that he was unable to handle matters. Ahmed again visited his doctor, who advised him to take a four week recuperation period, as he was suffering from severe stress and anxiety. Ahmed did just that, and when he returned to work in early January 2009, his request was granted to have a lower position, so long as his salary was reduced. Ahmed's request was not granted in a way that he thought, as he was now reduced to receiving commission only wages and he was subjected to massive workplace bullying. Not to mention, he was constantly hounded by higher ups to close sales. When Ahmed could take it any longer, he resigned in April 2009. Now, Ahmed wishes to bring damage claims against his employer for psychiatric injury, as a result of the stress he has suffered from being expected to do too much at work, as well as for the bullying and lack of support on the part of his employer. Should Ahmed pursue action against his employer, he has a very good chance of winning the case for a number of reasons. For one, Ahmed's employer violated the UK Health and Safety at Work Act of 1974 in at least two ways. According to a government website that explains the Health and Safety at Work Act in detail, it states that this legislation is enforced to insure that the workplace remains safe for employees. This law requires that an employee is to be provided with a safe work place, as well as a safe work system, meaning that the work environment is to be free of health hazards, and considerations need to be taken of how the job is affecting the health of the employee (HSE, 2010). One way that Ahmed's employer violated this particular act is that he failed to provide him with a safe and healthy work environment. Ahmed was subjected to extremely stressful work conditions, and when Ahmed asked for a reprieve from his line manager, as he asked for a lower and less stressful position in the company, his job security was threatened because his line manager told him that he either stuck with the position that he had or he would have no job at all. Afraid for losing his employment, he did the best that he could to stick with his position, until it made him ill. It seemed that the higher ups cared only about what Ahmed could do for the company. They neglected to care about how the workload was affecting his health, despite Ahmed making this known on not one but two occasions. As a result of making his concerns known, he was subjected to workplace bullying in two ways. One way that this was the case was that he was bullied into sticking with his position, despite how it was affecting his health in that he was threatened by his managers. Another way that he was subjected to workplace bullying was that when his request was finally granted to give him a lower position, he was not only bullied and mistreated on a constant basis by his managers to close sales, he was bullied by workmates, and no action was taken on the part of the managers, meaning that Ahmed received no protection. Both cases of bullying were a violation of mutual trust and confidence, as Ahmed was to be provided a safe work system that promised necessary protection, and this was not given to him. The second way that Ahmed's employers violated the Health and Safety at Work Act is that the conditions that Ahmed was placed under caused him to become physically ill. The workload was so extraneous that Ahmed's health began to fail twice, causing him to lose wages, as he had to take long absences from work. Nothing was ever done to rectify this situation, which is also another violation of mutual trust and confidence, as Ahmed trusted in his employers to provide him with a work environment that is free of health hazards, and his employers failed to do this. According to an article titled "What is Stress and Why Should Employers Worry about it," stress is a real problem, and it can cause a myriad of mental and physical problems and injuries that can severely affect one's quality of life (Workplace Law Group, 2007). Because stress can cause a myriad of troublesome problems, employers are instructed to minimize such stress for their employees. They must do what is necessary to provide a safe environment for their workers (Workplace Law Group, 2008A). When the employers manage their work environments properly, this can promote success, as well as healthier and happier employees (Workplace Law Group, 2008B). It is important that employers do all that they can to see to it that their workers are not subjected to unnecessary amounts of stress, and they are given the necessary support that they need (Workplace Law Group, 2004). Failure to do this leaves these employers vulnerable for having damage claims against them, especially if the employees can prove that this is the case (Workplace Law Group, 2008C) and (Industrial Injuries Advisory Council, 2010). And no doubt, they will receive due compensation for the damages brought on by the hostile and stressful work environment (Workplace Law Group, 2008D). While there is currently no specific law or specific acts to directly control stress in the workplace, the relationship between the employer and employee is governed by law, by both the law of contract, as well as tourt. This means that if the employer fails to control the situation, he has not only breached his contract with his employee, he has been negligent of his duties. In such a contract, the employer is responsible for the care of the employee while at work. This means that he is to be mindful of his overall safety, and one way that this is done is through controlling stress in the workplace, so it does not have negative effects on the employee's physical and mental health. Failure to fulfill these duties subject the employer to criminal prosecution in the criminal courts or civil action to be taken against him in civil courts and tribunals (Matthews, 2010) Being that Ahmed has, indeed been subjected to immense stress at work, and his employers refused to control the environment, Ahmed can, indeed, take action and be compensated for it. There are a great number of cases that show that this is the case. In the case of Walker v Northumberland County Council [1995], something very similar to Ahmed's situation occurred. Walker, a social worker responsible for handling child abuse cases began to feel that his workload was too much for him to handle. Like Ahmed, he went to his employer and asked for a restructuring of his duties. His employer denied this to him, and he suffered a mental breakdown as a result. Walker's case against the county council "Established the precedent that an employer can be held liable for mental injury to an employee caused by work-related stress." (Health and Safety Case Law, 1995). Furthermore, this case shows us that the employer can be held liable for "Breach of its duty of care in failing to take reasonable steps to avoid exposing the employee to a health endangering workload." (Health and Safety case Law, 1995). A similar case involved a teacher who was forced into early retirement due to illness caused by her workload and the employer's refusal to alleviate it. In the case of Benson v. Wirral Metropolitan Borough, this teacher reported to her employer that she felt her workload was too stressful to her, and the employer turned a deaf ear to her. Due to the negligence on the part of the employer, she received a 47,000 settlement out of court for the damages (Society of Stress Managers, 2007). In the case of Gilbert v. The Department of Corrections, the correctional officer was awarded NZ$1 million for the damages caused by an excessive workload. He brought this problem to his employer's attention, however, nothing was done to reduce the load and see to it that proper support was provided in order to insure a suitable work environment. This corrections officer was forced to work under horrendous work conditions, such as working under lack of management and unsafe work conditions. The officer was awarded due to his employer breaching his contract (Bully Online, 2010A). In the case of Howell v. Newport County Borough Council, a teacher of twenty-four years experience was awarded 254,362 because her career was ruined by stress. Numerous times, this teacher went to her employer and asked for the support that she needed in order to do her job effectively, however, none was provided. The conditions actually got worse, as a nursery nurse was removed from her classroom, and eight special needs students were placed with her, out of which one was severely disturbed (morpheuspd, 2010). In the case of Lancaster v. Birmingham City Council, we learn that there are ramifications for each and every stressful work situation. Lancaster was forced to transfer to a higher position, and she never received the support and training that was promised to her. This, in turn, caused significant stress, hence the reason her damages were awarded (CSP.org, 1999). In the case of Lister and others v. Hesley Hall [2001 IRLR 472; HL] we learn that an employer can be held liable for the acts of his employees, especially criminal ones. While there was no real criminal activity in the case of Ahmed, there was activity, nonetheless, that was not dealt with, and the employers in this case can also be held liable (Disclaw Publishing, 2001). On top of the psychiatric injury and physical illness that was caused to Ahmed, as well as physical illness, he was given unfair wages as a form of retaliation for not continuing to meet the demands of his employers. All Ahmed wanted to do was to simply do a job that was easy on his health and would tailor to his family situation. While one would expect salary to decrease a bit when dropping to a lower position, it was unnecessary at best for his entire salary to be taken away and for him to be paid commission only as a form of punishment. This was, indeed, failure to provide proper wages at best. The Trades Union Congress states that if wages are withheld from the employee, then employee can take appropriate action to insure that compensation is given (Trades Union Congress, 2010). Being that Ahmed was paid unfair wages as a form of punishment, and if he can prove that this is the case, he can, indeed, receive due compensation. As far as taking action on all of the issues is concerned, Job center Plus, which is a division of the Department of Work and Pensions, has a number of publications that will aid in the process of making the claim that is needed for the necessary compensation. The site also promises that it can aid its visitors into be knowledgeable about their rights and the workplace, as well as supply them with other helpful information that will be useful in protecting them (Job center Plus, 2010). Regarding the action that must be taken against the employer for the stress and physical damages caused by bullying, the document written by HR and Diversity Management LTD states that the employee is to alert his employer about what is going on in the workplace. Furthermore, he is to document it thoroughly, so it can be presented. Not to mention, doctor's visits are a spectacular form of documentation, as it is certification by a professional that the stress from the conditions at work has, indeed, caused health difficulties (HR and Diversity Management LTD, 2010). Along with the documentation that is needed, Bully Online states that the employee needs to write a letter upon leaving his job, should he be bullied out of work, stating that the reason that the employee is leaving is due to stress caused by bullying in the workplace. It is important to specify the exact reason for leaving because the employer can ruin the employee's chances of getting another job in the future due to giving him a bad reference (Bully Online, 2010B). In the case of spring v. Corinium and Guardian Assurance (1994), spring was awarded 70,000 in damages because the employer wrote up a false reference that caused a significant amount of damages. This case demonstrates to us what happens when an employer provides such references (Oxcheps.new.ox.ac.uk, 1994). So that this does not happen to Ahmed, as some will always try to break to law, Ahmed needs to create a paper trail for himself that will be rich in evidence (Bully Online, 2010). If Ahmed follows all of the procedures correctly, there is no reason why he should not be able to file damage claims against his employers. After all, there is plenty of evidence to support that he was treated wrongly, and being that there are numerous cases that he can reference, he has plenty of backing. Ahmed, indeed, deserves compensation for psychiatric injuries, as well as for physical illness. References Bully Online 2010A viewed 09, Jan., 2010, http://www.bullyeq.com/bol/action/caselaw.htm Bully online 2010B, viewed 09, Jan., 2010, http://www.bullyonline.org/action/action.htm CSP.org 1999, viewed 09, Jan., 2010, http://www.csp.org.uk/uploads/documents/csp_briefing_erus_hs01.pdf Disclaw Publishing 2001, viewed 09, Jan., 2010, http://www.emplaw.co.uk/.../2000irlr2002.htm HSE 2010, UK Government, viewed 09, Jan, 2010, http://www.hse.gov.uk/legislation/hswa.htm Peter Matthews 2010, Workplace Bullying Site, viewed 09, Jan., 2010, http://www.workplacebullying.co.uk/ Health and Safety Case Law 1995, viewed 09, Jan., 2010, http://www.safetyphoto.co.uk/.../walker_v_northumberland_county_c.htm HR & Diversity Management Ltd 2010, viewed 09, Jan., 2010, http://www.bullyingbusiness.co.uk Industrial Injuries Advisory council 2010, viewed 09, Jan., 2010, http://www.iiac.org.uk/ Job center plus 2010, department of Work and Pensions, viewed 09, Jan., 2010, http://www.jobcentreplus.gov.uk Orpheus 2010, viewed 09, Jan., 2010, http://www.morpheuspd.co.uk/morpheus-guide-to-stress.pdf oxcheps.new.ox.ac.uk1994, viewed 09, Jan., 2010, http://www. oxcheps.new.ox.ac.uk/casebook/Resources/SPRING_1%20DOC.pdf Society of Stress Managers 2007, Aerian Studios, viewed 09, Jan., 2010, http://www.manageyourstress.co.uk/worklegal.php Workplace Law Group 2004, viewed 09, Jan., 2010, Trades Union Congress 2010, viewed 08, Jan., 2010, http://www.tuc.org.uk Workplace Law Group 2007, Viewed 09, Jan., 2010, http://www.workplacelaw.net Workplace Law Group 2008A viewed 09, Jan., 2010, http://www.workplacelaw.net Workplace Law Group 2008B viewed 09, Jan., 2010, http://www.workplacelaw.net Workplace Law Group 2008C, viewed 09, Jan., 2010, http://www.workplacelaw.net Workplace Law Group 2008D, viewed 09, Jan., 2010, http://www.workplacelaw.net Read More