Safety with Health and Welfare at Work Act - Essay Example

Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005 Ireland’s employment laws are sophisticated and modern. This has been proved by the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005. This act represents the advancement of Ireland in the areas of occupational health and safety laws. The fundamental objective of the Act is to prevent accidents, illnesses and dangerous incidents at the workplace. The act imposes very heavy penalties on those employees who frequently violate the provisions of the law relating to safety and health matters. The fundamental responsibilities and obligations of the directors and managers of organizations are contained in Section 80 of this Act1. It is the fundamental responsibility of the employers to provide safety and health for workers. Section 80 requires an evidence based approach, while providing safety to workers. Furthermore, it mandates that no person in the organization should influence its health and safety measures in a manner that violates the law. Moreover, that organization should neither authorize nor consent to such offences. Any such breach of the law renders both the infringer and the organization liable to face prosecution2. If there is a breach of the law, then it will be assumed that the organization had authorized its directors to take such decisions. The law assumes negligence by the directors until and unless the contrary is proved. Every employer is duty bound to provide the necessary help and support in ensuring the safety, health and welfare of their employees. There are two categories of offenses under this Act. First, the breach of serious matters of the law; and second, the much more serious offenses, which are covered in the health and safety laws. The penalty for these offenses is to be limited to € 3,000 and or imprisonment up to two years. The offender would have to pay the costs and expenditure of the prosecution3. The employer has to provide a safety arrangement system under these new provisions and identify activities like bullying, harassment and stress in the workplace, in advance. The 2005 Act also provides enforcement strategies to curb such activities. For instance, the enforcing authority can direct the employer to improve the conditions at the workplace, if it is ascertained that the employer imposes unbearable stress on his employees. Chapter 2 of the Part 2 of the Act 2005 requires certain general duties and obligations from employees. These duties can apply to persons working under the control of their landlords. The latest duty of employees is to submit to any relevant intoxication test conducted by the enforcing authorities4. Employees, while abiding with safety and health laws, should not consume intoxicating substances at the workplace. They should undergo intoxication testing, and abstain from improper conduct or behaviour. Employees should wear protective outfits at work, if required by that working environment. They should cooperate with their employers and desist from activities that could place them or the other employees at risk. The Act provides two situations in which intoxication testing is to be carried out. First, if any employee is found to be under the influence of drugs or drink, which could endanger him or the other employees. Second, if an employee is working at a safety – intensive job, which requires a medical examination that determines the fitness of the employee to carry out that task5. The problem of stress is complex and has objective and subjective components. Psychological stress is an individual experience, which can be influenced by motivation and personality. Stress can be due to external forces and personal interaction with other individuals6. Stress can be displayed through short – term and long – term impulses. It’s after effects can be disastrous. Short – term stress may have temporary psychological and physiological effects, whereas long – term stress can be more damaging. As such stress can be inimical to humans7. Stress related workplace risk is a difficult task to deal with. Work Positive is easy to implement and even local organizations can create a positive work environment. It encourages employers to recognize the problem areas in their workplace. After that they are given the key outcomes in similar case studies. After eliciting the necessary solutions from these case studies, employers are asked to develop solutions for their workplace. In this process the employees and their representatives are to be permitted to participate8. The new concept of Work Positive provides a comprehensive risk management process. It scrutinizes all the major casual factors that arise in workplace, due to stress; and attempts to integrate risk assessment with workplace stress. It also suggests the requirements to prevent accidents and illness at work and follows the principles laid down by the Health, Safety and Welfare at Work Act 2005 and the Management of Health and Safety at Work (NI) Regulations 20009. In sixty to eighty percent of personal injuries cases, it was found that stress had been the principal cause. Workplace related injuries result from the stress imposed by the job on an employee. Stress prone employees have shown a negative trend in their performance. They are also vulnerable to direct effects of stress, such as being more prone to injuries10. In Walker v. Northumberland county Council the legal implications of stress and its associated phenomenon, which resulted in personal injuries were examined. In this case, the judge opined that the employer had a duty of care that could be extended from physical injury to the psychological trauma of an employee. Furthermore, the employer has to provide a reasonable level of safety in the workplace. The employer is also expected to take all reasonable steps to protect an employee from workplace dangers11. In several cases the courts in Ireland and the UK have given certain guidance to employers to provide a safe working environment for their employees. In one case an employee, Helen Green sued her employee the Deutsche Bank on the grounds that the latter had failed to protect her from bullying and discriminatory treatment from her colleagues. The London High Court ruled that the employer the Deutsche Bank had failed to initiate measures to protect its employee from such behaviour. In Quigley v Complex Tooling and Moulding, the Irish High Court held that the employer was responsible for the stress experienced by the plaintiff Quigley by workplace bullying. The Court had awarded a compensation of €75,000 to the plaintiff towards the psychological injury sustained by him, and for the failure of the employer to prevent bullying in the workplace12. In McGrath v Trintech, the plaintiff claimed damages for injuries caused to his person, as a result of occupational stress. However the court turned down his petition stating that the Safety, Health & Welfare at Work Act only covers psychiatric health and psychological injuries13. In Maher v Jabil, the plaintiff claimed damages for stress resulting from over work. The court opined that the plaintiff had suffered personal injury due to such stress at his workplace. The court held that the employer is expected to safeguard his employees from workplace stress including bullying and harassment. The employer had to anticipate such risk and take adequate preventive measures14. With the advent of the 2005 Act, there has been an increased emphasis on attaining improved standards in safety and health, by concentrating on the required general duties and schedules to be adhered to by the employer. This act clearly specifies the responsibilities of the employers, employees and other related parties like those who design the workplace, and those who devise or supply the necessary working apparatus or tools. It also provides for reinforcing enforcement, so as to bring about a greater amount of deterrence. Bibliography 1. A. Ian Glendon, Sharon Clarke, Eugene F. McKenna, 2006. Human Safety And Risk Management. Published 2006 CRC Press. ISBN 0849330904. 2. Christian Campbell, 2006. International Liability of Corporate Directors. Published 2006 by Lulu.com. 372 pages. ISBN 1847281192. 3. Main Provision of the Safety Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005. 01/07/2005. Retrieved 28 February 2008 from http://www.entemp.ie/press/2005/20050701c.htm 4. McGrath v. Trintech, (Unreported High Court, 29th October 2004) 5. Maher v Jabil Global Services Ltd, High Ct, 12 May 2005 6. Quigley v Complex Tooling & Moulding (2005) IEHC 71. 7. The Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005 Update. Retrieved 28 February 2008 from http://www.claruspress.ie/tort%20journal%20issue%201/art6_safety%20health_vol1_iss1.pdf 8. Work Positive. Retrieved 28 February 2008 from http://www.hsa.ie/eng/Work_Safely/Workplace_Health/Work_Positive/#1 Read More