What Are The Latest Trends In Women's...
Shopping & Style2 mins ago
Employer's Duties
13 Answers
If you as an employer know or ought reasonably to know that your employee is having a mental breakdown what should you do?
If that employee has already resigned but still in their notice period?
What if that employee then goes on to commit a crime whilst mentally disturbed?
What if that employee leaves your employment and then goes on to give all their money away and becomes homeless?
What if that employee is never able to work again?
What if that employee goes on to commit suicide?
What if you knew for some length of time that this was a risk?
What if you suspected that you might in some way be responsible for the mental breakdown in the first place?
If that employee has already resigned but still in their notice period?
What if that employee then goes on to commit a crime whilst mentally disturbed?
What if that employee leaves your employment and then goes on to give all their money away and becomes homeless?
What if that employee is never able to work again?
What if that employee goes on to commit suicide?
What if you knew for some length of time that this was a risk?
What if you suspected that you might in some way be responsible for the mental breakdown in the first place?
Answers
1 to 13 of 13
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by OrionLondon. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
This is at the interface of employment law and being a decent human. So while Woofgang's answer is possibly still legal in the UK in many sectors, it would also in many organisations leave the employer wide open to litigation.
The core of the argument is that in a just society, employer's have a duty of care towards those they employ. It doesn't matter whether you find this idea repugnant or great, but observation of societies where this ideal is in action point to better conditions for all. Eg see:
http://
Now, if you subscribe to one extreme, then a 'failing' employee should be kicked out on their arris without a backward glance.
But in the last decade or so the number of organisations in UK and USA being taken to the cleaners afterwards for failing in their duty of care has risen.
Doubtless the newly-mandated UK government will put paid to that and insist on Cratchit-type submission becoming the norm.
But I don't think a decent human being would want to be the cause of turmoil and misery in another's life. Would they?
The core of the argument is that in a just society, employer's have a duty of care towards those they employ. It doesn't matter whether you find this idea repugnant or great, but observation of societies where this ideal is in action point to better conditions for all. Eg see:
http://
Now, if you subscribe to one extreme, then a 'failing' employee should be kicked out on their arris without a backward glance.
But in the last decade or so the number of organisations in UK and USA being taken to the cleaners afterwards for failing in their duty of care has risen.
Doubtless the newly-mandated UK government will put paid to that and insist on Cratchit-type submission becoming the norm.
But I don't think a decent human being would want to be the cause of turmoil and misery in another's life. Would they?
ok I admit to being somewhat flippant in the first reply. as a (retired) manager here's what I actually would have done.
First of all what do you mean by "ought to know" or "ought reasonably to know"?
1. If you are saying that the employee's work standard has deteriorated then, as a good manager, one would carefully investigate this, including referral to occy health if appropriate. If you are talking about employee's private life then it is not the business of the employer and in fact employers are debarred from taking this into account unless it involves things like drug or alcohol use that affect work, or behaviour which is seriously illegal such as weapons ownership or child abuse.
2. If the employee is in their notice period then the employer can take even less action. The employee's private life is not their business.
3. If the employer suspects that the employee is intending to commit crime then they might approach the police.
4. If the employee gives all their money away and becomes homeless, how is that the responsibility of the (soon to be ex?) employer.
ditto 5 and 6
7. I would suggest that at most, the job circumstances would only be partially responsible for a breakdown. This excepts, of course work for MI5 and other such agencies where the work might involve extreme danger. Even then I understand that the recruitment process is stringent as is the ongoing evaluation process.
Under "normal" employment circumstances, employers, like everyone else, are very limited about what they can do in such a situation, unless the employee actually asks for help (they can be prompted to do so.) and gives some kind of explanation as to why. Its the same situation as the worried neighbour of the old lady. Adults are deemed to have a right to privacy and the mental capacity to run their own lives. Even the duty of care of an employer to an employee is only valid with the permission and agreement of the employee and I have known of situations where that duty of care has resulted in the termination of that employees employment in order to prevent them behaving in ways that put their own safety and life at risk.
First of all what do you mean by "ought to know" or "ought reasonably to know"?
1. If you are saying that the employee's work standard has deteriorated then, as a good manager, one would carefully investigate this, including referral to occy health if appropriate. If you are talking about employee's private life then it is not the business of the employer and in fact employers are debarred from taking this into account unless it involves things like drug or alcohol use that affect work, or behaviour which is seriously illegal such as weapons ownership or child abuse.
2. If the employee is in their notice period then the employer can take even less action. The employee's private life is not their business.
3. If the employer suspects that the employee is intending to commit crime then they might approach the police.
4. If the employee gives all their money away and becomes homeless, how is that the responsibility of the (soon to be ex?) employer.
ditto 5 and 6
7. I would suggest that at most, the job circumstances would only be partially responsible for a breakdown. This excepts, of course work for MI5 and other such agencies where the work might involve extreme danger. Even then I understand that the recruitment process is stringent as is the ongoing evaluation process.
Under "normal" employment circumstances, employers, like everyone else, are very limited about what they can do in such a situation, unless the employee actually asks for help (they can be prompted to do so.) and gives some kind of explanation as to why. Its the same situation as the worried neighbour of the old lady. Adults are deemed to have a right to privacy and the mental capacity to run their own lives. Even the duty of care of an employer to an employee is only valid with the permission and agreement of the employee and I have known of situations where that duty of care has resulted in the termination of that employees employment in order to prevent them behaving in ways that put their own safety and life at risk.
OK thanks for the answers, here are some more specifics what do you think, this is a real life case which has happened to someone I know:
i. Whilst working for a company employee experience high levels of stress at work
ii. Employee brings this to the attention of the HR director
iii. Employer brings in occupational health psychologist
iv. Employee tells a director of employer about problems at work
v. Director tells employee to see doctor and consider taking medication
vi. Employee sees doctor and takes medication, and returns to work
vii. Employee tells occupational health of diagnosis and treatment
viii. Employer stops occupational health meetings
ix. Further intense period of stress at work
x. Doctor’s notes show that stress is cause of mental illness
xi. Employee shows signs of change in behaviour that is noticed by employees and directors of the company
xii. Employee has a complete breakdown
xiii. Employee resigns and refuses to work notice
xiv. Employee shows signs of severe mental disturbance at a meeting with directors who take no action
xv. Employee leaves and has no job and loses all money gambling
xvi. Employee recovers from mental illness and realises illness caused gambling
xvii. Employee considers cause of illness down to employer
i. Whilst working for a company employee experience high levels of stress at work
ii. Employee brings this to the attention of the HR director
iii. Employer brings in occupational health psychologist
iv. Employee tells a director of employer about problems at work
v. Director tells employee to see doctor and consider taking medication
vi. Employee sees doctor and takes medication, and returns to work
vii. Employee tells occupational health of diagnosis and treatment
viii. Employer stops occupational health meetings
ix. Further intense period of stress at work
x. Doctor’s notes show that stress is cause of mental illness
xi. Employee shows signs of change in behaviour that is noticed by employees and directors of the company
xii. Employee has a complete breakdown
xiii. Employee resigns and refuses to work notice
xiv. Employee shows signs of severe mental disturbance at a meeting with directors who take no action
xv. Employee leaves and has no job and loses all money gambling
xvi. Employee recovers from mental illness and realises illness caused gambling
xvii. Employee considers cause of illness down to employer
OK I will do my best. These are my thoughts and opinion as a retired NHS manager and clinician. First of all, can we separate a stress related breakdown (external cause, could happen to anybody) from a mental illness which is like any other illness. It may be triggered or exacerbated by work related stress but won't be caused by it.
i. Whilst working for a company employee experience high levels of stress at work
Are there other people doing the same job? Are they all as stressed? Are any others of them ill?
ii. Employee brings this to the attention of the HR director
iii. Employer brings in occupational health psychologist
What did the occy health psychologist say?
iv. Employee tells a director of employer about problems at work
v. Director tells employee to see doctor and consider taking medication
vi. Employee sees doctor and takes medication, and returns to work at
What kind of doctor? any doctor? occy health doctor? what did the doctor say? what meds?
vii. Employee tells occupational health of diagnosis and treatment
What did occy health say?
viii. Employer stops occupational health meetings
For what reason, what did occy health say?
ix. Further intense period of stress at work
Did anyone else go off sick?
x. Doctor’s notes show that stress is cause of mental illness
What exactly did the doctor's notes say? I would be amazed if the notes stated that work stress alone has caused a mental illness, although it might have been stated that it triggered that breakdown. What kind of doctor?
xi. Employee shows signs of change in behaviour that is noticed by employees and directors of the company.
How do you know this? what did the company do about it? How do you know it was noticed?
xii. Employee has a complete breakdown
xiii. Employee resigns and refuses to work notice
xiv. Employee shows signs of severe mental disturbance at a meeting with directors who take no action
To be fair, they might have thought that not taking action was a good thing. The action that they might have needed to take if they had noticed anything would have been a suspension.
xv. Employee leaves and has no job and loses all money gambling
xvi. Employee recovers from mental illness and realises illness caused gambling
work stress might have precipitated gambling abuse but again, unlikely to have caused it
xvii. Employee considers cause of illness down to employer
On what grounds?
So that you understand where I am coming from, I am a retired NHS clinician and manager. I used to manage a team, see patients and was also involved in the disciplinary process and in complaint investigation. Just about my whole working life for one reason or anther I was looking for facts and proof.
What precisely does the employee want now?
i. Whilst working for a company employee experience high levels of stress at work
Are there other people doing the same job? Are they all as stressed? Are any others of them ill?
ii. Employee brings this to the attention of the HR director
iii. Employer brings in occupational health psychologist
What did the occy health psychologist say?
iv. Employee tells a director of employer about problems at work
v. Director tells employee to see doctor and consider taking medication
vi. Employee sees doctor and takes medication, and returns to work at
What kind of doctor? any doctor? occy health doctor? what did the doctor say? what meds?
vii. Employee tells occupational health of diagnosis and treatment
What did occy health say?
viii. Employer stops occupational health meetings
For what reason, what did occy health say?
ix. Further intense period of stress at work
Did anyone else go off sick?
x. Doctor’s notes show that stress is cause of mental illness
What exactly did the doctor's notes say? I would be amazed if the notes stated that work stress alone has caused a mental illness, although it might have been stated that it triggered that breakdown. What kind of doctor?
xi. Employee shows signs of change in behaviour that is noticed by employees and directors of the company.
How do you know this? what did the company do about it? How do you know it was noticed?
xii. Employee has a complete breakdown
xiii. Employee resigns and refuses to work notice
xiv. Employee shows signs of severe mental disturbance at a meeting with directors who take no action
To be fair, they might have thought that not taking action was a good thing. The action that they might have needed to take if they had noticed anything would have been a suspension.
xv. Employee leaves and has no job and loses all money gambling
xvi. Employee recovers from mental illness and realises illness caused gambling
work stress might have precipitated gambling abuse but again, unlikely to have caused it
xvii. Employee considers cause of illness down to employer
On what grounds?
So that you understand where I am coming from, I am a retired NHS clinician and manager. I used to manage a team, see patients and was also involved in the disciplinary process and in complaint investigation. Just about my whole working life for one reason or anther I was looking for facts and proof.
What precisely does the employee want now?
Woofie, I appreciate that in your professional role you've exerted considerable power over people's working lives - which means their lives. I think I know the answer, but in that period did you ever reflect on what you'd brought about, and wondered if it was the fairest of treatment for the recipient?
Being in charge, and defending an organisation, isn't always - or even often - the same as supporting fair play.
NHS managers as a group haven't been noted for being harbingers of employee welfare - although I'm sure you were in your time.
What's ethically / morally right, and what an organisation may do, can be two different things.
Being in charge, and defending an organisation, isn't always - or even often - the same as supporting fair play.
NHS managers as a group haven't been noted for being harbingers of employee welfare - although I'm sure you were in your time.
What's ethically / morally right, and what an organisation may do, can be two different things.
Actually yes, we did have to consider the wellbeing of the employee too, even the pains in the *** and the idle so and so's; which in my experience were considerably less common that ordinary sensible honest people. We did this because we were nice people too, but also because the NHS Unions were (are) there to see to the interests of the employee.
Personally I spent more time defending staff than I ever did defending the organisation.
Finally please keep in mind that any department or company can only carry so much absence for whatever reason. There comes a point where that absence will impact other staff who are also entitled to protection.
Anyway back to the OP. As I said. Facts, what are needed are facts.
Personally I spent more time defending staff than I ever did defending the organisation.
Finally please keep in mind that any department or company can only carry so much absence for whatever reason. There comes a point where that absence will impact other staff who are also entitled to protection.
Anyway back to the OP. As I said. Facts, what are needed are facts.
Thanks, I'll try and give more detail:
i. Yes everyone is stressed, some have been ill, everyone hiding it because the company is not one where stress is looked at well
iii. Occupational health psychologist gives advice on thinking patterns, general chat
iv. Employee sees psychiatrist, put on an SNRI (anti-depressant)
vii. Occy health says, never heard of that particular medication
viii. Nope, just stopped. Employee suspects that it was because company was making redundancies at the time and preferred employee to get so ill as to resign rather than having to help her get better
ix. This employee was leading the team so bore most of the stress
x. Doctor’s notes show that stress is cause of mental illness amongst other things but specifically notes that the work stresses are "exceptional and unusual circumstances"
xi. Other staff have said that they could see it coming and recount examples of particular change of character
xii. Employee has a complete breakdown
xiii. Employee resigns and refuses to work notice
xiv. Suspension would have been a good thing, resulting in time off work and recovery.
xv. Stress caused loss of illness and loss of job, loss of job led to gambling in time off work
xvii. Employer was on notice of difficulties and foreseeable harm
Employee wants advice on whether to pursue claim against former employer.
i. Yes everyone is stressed, some have been ill, everyone hiding it because the company is not one where stress is looked at well
iii. Occupational health psychologist gives advice on thinking patterns, general chat
iv. Employee sees psychiatrist, put on an SNRI (anti-depressant)
vii. Occy health says, never heard of that particular medication
viii. Nope, just stopped. Employee suspects that it was because company was making redundancies at the time and preferred employee to get so ill as to resign rather than having to help her get better
ix. This employee was leading the team so bore most of the stress
x. Doctor’s notes show that stress is cause of mental illness amongst other things but specifically notes that the work stresses are "exceptional and unusual circumstances"
xi. Other staff have said that they could see it coming and recount examples of particular change of character
xii. Employee has a complete breakdown
xiii. Employee resigns and refuses to work notice
xiv. Suspension would have been a good thing, resulting in time off work and recovery.
xv. Stress caused loss of illness and loss of job, loss of job led to gambling in time off work
xvii. Employer was on notice of difficulties and foreseeable harm
Employee wants advice on whether to pursue claim against former employer.
employers are not responsible for making their employees seek and maintain regular medical assistance for psychiatric problems (they may have to provide some services for unwell people in their employ, though) - this is down to the individual, their nearest relative and possibly the police (under a section 136) or an AMPH (a social worker or practitioner under a section 135) to assess or detain an individual under the mental health act and enforce treatment (but only in some certain circumstances).
Employers are responsible for the amount of stress their employees are subject to and if there has been an accident or a failure of the management, HR or OH systems causing that period of stress/sickness while they remain a staff member in the company - but if an employee resigns, gambles, commits a crime, then that individual is culpable, not the employer (that would be like somebody committing murder and then blaming their gp because they have depression).
however, if an employee resigns when unwell and later recants that resignation, the company may be forced to reconsider that request to terminate their employment......and they could be taken to a tribunal and sued if they did contribute to the failing health of the employee for constructive dismissal, loss of earnings and/or damages.
he responsibility for (criminal) or personally damaging acts committed outside of the workplace (however mental health issues are caused) will be on the staff member, unless it occurred during work hours or related activities (which could still be very difficult to prove) and they did not have capacity at the time. all sorts of things happen at work which cause mental health difficulties.
for example, i have been bullied by my manager in my workplace, which made me very unwell last year and i attempted to kill myself as a result. i am in the process of making a complaint against the person responsible and examining whether the employer was aware of this issue and did nothing to stop it - but will only be able to take them through the tribunal process and sue them for damages. if i had committed a murder, for example, when i was severely depressed and psychotic, my employer would not be held responsible in any way (irrespective of causing the illnesses in the first place) - that would be mine alone, as well as all the personal, financial and social repercussions of the offence. if i did not have capacity at the time i killed the person, that would be taken into account by the cps deciding whether to prosecute me, how i decided to plead (not guilty by diminished responsibility), evidence presented in a trial, and in the sentencing by the judge at the end of the process.
basically, the employee may have been treated like crap by the employer, and can attempt to sue/take to tribunal because of that and attempt to cover their losses for that process......but any criminal fallout will be that person's responsibility alone, and would be taken into account when deciding the outcome of any criminal process. whether or not a person has capacity while all this is going on is pretty secondary. no employer would be made to make right the losses of gambling or reckless spending, for example - the person you are referring to will have to sort out the employment issues and criminal stuff separately......and suck up the consequences of their actions and learn from their mistakes, like everybody else.
Employers are responsible for the amount of stress their employees are subject to and if there has been an accident or a failure of the management, HR or OH systems causing that period of stress/sickness while they remain a staff member in the company - but if an employee resigns, gambles, commits a crime, then that individual is culpable, not the employer (that would be like somebody committing murder and then blaming their gp because they have depression).
however, if an employee resigns when unwell and later recants that resignation, the company may be forced to reconsider that request to terminate their employment......and they could be taken to a tribunal and sued if they did contribute to the failing health of the employee for constructive dismissal, loss of earnings and/or damages.
he responsibility for (criminal) or personally damaging acts committed outside of the workplace (however mental health issues are caused) will be on the staff member, unless it occurred during work hours or related activities (which could still be very difficult to prove) and they did not have capacity at the time. all sorts of things happen at work which cause mental health difficulties.
for example, i have been bullied by my manager in my workplace, which made me very unwell last year and i attempted to kill myself as a result. i am in the process of making a complaint against the person responsible and examining whether the employer was aware of this issue and did nothing to stop it - but will only be able to take them through the tribunal process and sue them for damages. if i had committed a murder, for example, when i was severely depressed and psychotic, my employer would not be held responsible in any way (irrespective of causing the illnesses in the first place) - that would be mine alone, as well as all the personal, financial and social repercussions of the offence. if i did not have capacity at the time i killed the person, that would be taken into account by the cps deciding whether to prosecute me, how i decided to plead (not guilty by diminished responsibility), evidence presented in a trial, and in the sentencing by the judge at the end of the process.
basically, the employee may have been treated like crap by the employer, and can attempt to sue/take to tribunal because of that and attempt to cover their losses for that process......but any criminal fallout will be that person's responsibility alone, and would be taken into account when deciding the outcome of any criminal process. whether or not a person has capacity while all this is going on is pretty secondary. no employer would be made to make right the losses of gambling or reckless spending, for example - the person you are referring to will have to sort out the employment issues and criminal stuff separately......and suck up the consequences of their actions and learn from their mistakes, like everybody else.
1 to 13 of 13
Latest Posts
News4 mins ago
Are We Heading Towards Another...
Politics5 mins ago
Crosswords19 mins ago
