留学生Law Essay [3]
论文作者:英语论文论文属性:作业 Assignment登出时间:2014-09-17编辑:zcm84984点击率:6994
论文字数:2541论文编号:org201409161252035718语种:中文 Chinese地区:美国价格:免费论文
关键词:留学生Law Essay工作压力法律责任Stress As Developed
摘要:本文是一篇美国留学生的Law Essay,主要分析工作压力产生的法律责任,“雇主隐含的义务不再仅仅是合理照顾员工的人身安全”,职业压力也在雇主应该照顾的义务范围内,它 “隐含在每一个雇佣合同中”。
To trigger a duty to take steps, the indications of impending harm to health arising from stress at work must be plain enough for any reasonable employer to realise that he should do something about it ”. [33] Proposition 8 states that “ the employer is only in breach of duty if he has failed to take the steps which are reasonable in the circumstances, bearing in mind magnitude of the risk of harm occurring, the gravity of the harm which may occur , the costs and practicability of preventing it , and the justifications for running the risk ”. [34] Proposition 9 states that “ the size and scope of the employer’s operation , its resources and the demands it faces are relevant in deciding what is reasonable ; these include the interests of other employees and the need to treat them fairly , for example , in any redistribution of duties [35] ”. Proposition 10 states that “ an employer can only reasonably be expected to take steps which are likely to some good : the court is likely to need expert evidence on this ”. [36]
Proposition 11 states that “ an employer who offers a confidential advice service , with referral to appropriate counselling or treatment services , is unlikely to be found in breach of duty ”. [37] Proposition 12 states that “ if the only resonable and efecttive step would have beeen to dimiss or demote the employee , the employee will not be in breach of duty in allowing a willing employee to continue in the job ”. [38] Proposition 13 states that “ in all cases , therefore , it is necessary to identify the steps which the employer both could and should have taken before finding him in breach of his duty of care ”. [39] Proposition 14 states that “ the claimant must show that breach of duty has caused or materially contributed to the harm suffered and it is not enough to show that occupational stress has caused the harm ”. [40] Proposition 15 states that “ where the harm suffred has more than one cause , the employer should only pay for that proportion of the harm which is attributable to his wrongdoing , unless the harm is truly indivisible ”. [41] Proposition 16 states that “ the assessment of damages will take account of any pre-existing disorder or vulnerability and of the chance that the claimant would have succumbed to a stress-related disorder in any event ”. [42] propositions applied to each of the 4 appeals and 4/1 succeeded.
The decision in Sutherland can be seen as a ‘satisfactory development in relation to the law on the liability of stress at work’. The decision in Sutherland has effectively “ restricted the extent of employers' liability for stress - related illnesses”. [43] For example 4/1 sutherland 6/2 in hartman all failed due to forseeability requirement strict. This “indicates that it offers more to employers than employees ”. [44] Thus “The overall effect of Hatton is that the English courts will not allow the floodgates to open in such stress cases”. [45]
Another way in which the decision in Sutherland can be seen as a ‘satisfactory development’ is that “ proposition 11 encourages employers to put in place mechanisms to prevent injury or catch the adverse effects of a stressful system of work before they develop into personal disasters ”. [46] In other words “ The decision may create a boom in workplace counselling and encourage employers to take preventative action ”. [47] This is ‘satisfactory development because “ as more and more employees ap
本论文由英语论文网提供整理,提供论文代写,英语论文代写,代写论文,代写英语论文,代写留学生论文,代写英文论文,留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。