Workplace Health and Safety Regulations Overview
Explore key aspects of workplace safety laws and regulations, including employer duties, employee responsibilities, bullying and harassment prevention, and procedures for handling complaints. Learn about the Equality Tribunal, safety officers, risk assessments, and more to ensure a safe work environment for all.
Download Presentation
Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.
The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author. Download presentation by click this link. If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.
E N D
Presentation Transcript
INTO & GENDER DISCRIMINATION INTO Equality Conference Portlaoise, September, 2016 Anne McElduff, B.Ed., LL.B., BL. INTO Assistant General Secretary
SAFETY, HEALTH AND WELFARE AT WORK ACTS 2005 & 2010 SAFETY, HEALTH AND WELFARE AT WORK (GENERAL APPLICATION) REGUALTIONS 2007 HEALTH & SAFETY AUTHORITY (HSA) APPLIES TO ALL EMPLOYERS, EMPLOYEES (INCLUDING FIXED-TERM AND TEMPORARY) AND SELF-EMPLOYED PEOPLE IN THEIR WORKPLACES SETS OUT RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS FOR BOTH EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES PROVIDES FOR SUBSTANTIAL FINES AND PENALTIES FOR BREACHES OF THE HEALTH AND SAFETY LEGISLATION
EMPLOYERS DUTIES HAS DUTY TO: ENSURE EMPLOYEES SAFETY, HEALTH AND WELFARE AT WORK AS FAR AS REASONABLY PRACTICABLE... PROVIDE AND MAINTAIN A SAFE PLACE OF WORK...PROVIDE INSTRUCTIONS AND TRAINING TO EMPLOYEES ON HEALTH AND SAFETY....HAVE PROPER PROCEDURES IN PLACE TO DEAL WITH IMPROPER CONDUCT OR BEHAVIOUR....
APPOINT A SAFETY OFFICER DRAFT A SAFETY STATEMENT CARRY OUT RISK ASSESSMENTS TO IDENTIFY POTENTIAL HAZARDS..... TO REPORT ANY ACCIDENT THAT RESULTS IN AN EMPLOYEE MISSING 3 CONSECUTIVE DAYS AT WORK TO THE HEALTH AND SAFETY AUTHORITY (HSA)
EMPLOYEES MUST TAKE REASONABLE CARE TO PROTECT THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF THEMSELVES AND OTHERS; NOT TO ENGAGE IN IMPROPER BEHAVIOUR OR CONDUCT; NOT TO BE UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF DRINK OR DRUGS IN THE WORKPLACE; REPORT ANY DEFECTS IN EQUIPMENT ETC....
BULLYING - EMPLOYER SHOULD ESTABLISH PROCEDURES FOR DEALING WITH COMPLAINTS IN THE WORKPLACE INTO/MANAGEMENT AGREED WORKING TOGETHER PROCEDURES CODE OF PRACTICE FOR EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES ON THE PREVENTION AND RESOLUTION OF BULLYING AT WORK HARASSMENT EMPLOYER HAS DUTY UNDER THE EEA ACTS TO PREVENT HARASSMENT IN WORKPLACE - CLAIM TO EQUALITY TRIBUNAL UNDER 9 GROUNDS
VICTIMISATION EMPLOYEE CANNOT BE VICTIMISED FOR MAKING A COMPLAINT UNDER THE H&S ACTS I.E. DISCIPLINED OR TREATED LESS FAVOURABLY ENFORCEMENT.. ..COMPLAINT TO HSA/RIGHTS COMMISSIONER/EQUALITY TRIBUNAL 6/12 MONTHS
HARASSMENT DEFINED AS ANY FORM OF UNWANTED CONDUCT RELATED TO ANY OF THE DISCRIMINATORY GROUNDS SEXUAL HARASSMENT DEFINED AS ANY FORM OF UNWANTED VERBAL, NON-VERBAL OR PHYSICAL CONDUCT OF A SEXUAL NATURE ......BEING CONDUCT ..... WHICH HAS THE PURPOSE OR EFFECT OF VIOLATING A PERSON S DIGNITY AND CREATING AN INTIMIDATING, HOSTILE, DEGRADING, HUMILIATING OR OFFENSIVE ENVIRONMENT FOR THE PERSON
VICARIOUS LIABILITY APPLIES....IE EMPLOYER LIABLE WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS DONE WITH THE EMPLOYER S KNOWLEDGE OR APPROVAL
TWO FEMALE TEACHERS V A BOYS SECONDARY SCHOOL - LABOUR COURT [2002] CLAIMS BY TEACHERS IN RESPECT OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT ALLEGEDLY PERPETRATED BY SENIOR STUDENTS OVER A PROTRACTED TIME INCLUDING SEXUALLY EXPLICIT NOTES/DRAWINGS & REMARKS, TEACHERS BEING SUBJECTED TO CRUDE REMARKS OF A SEXUAL NATURE .WOLF WHISTLING AND CAT CALLING . WHETHER COMPLAINTS TAKEN SUFFICIENTLY SERIOUSLY BY PRINCIPAL/BofM .RELIANCE ON DISCIPLINE WHERE PUPILS COULD BE IDENTIFIED
INVOLVEMENT OF ASTI.AND APPARENT NEGATIVE RESPONSE OF PRINCIPAL/BofM TO THIS .AND INITIALLY TO REQUESTS FOR MEETINGS TO ADDRESS A CULTURE .AMONGST STUDENTS WHICH RESULTED IN NUMEROUS INCIDENTS OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT OF TEACHERS .THE ENVIRONMENT .HAD BECOME POLLUTED BY SEXUAL HARASSMENT WHETHER THE CONDUCT OF STUDENTS COMES WITHIN AMBIT OF EMPLOYER S LIABILITY
JUDGEMENT: SITUATIONS CAN ARISE IN WHICH THE EMPLOYER MAY ADOPT A COURSE OF ACTION TO AVOID HARASSMENT OF AN EMPLOYEE BUT THAT HARASSMENT NONETHELESS OCCURS DISCIPLINARY SANCTIONS NOT IN THEMSELVES SUFFICIENT . TO ALLEVIATE OR CONTROL THE DEVELOPING CULTURE OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT .
SCHOOL DID NOT TAKE SUFFICIENT MEASURES TO CONTROL THE SITUATION .EG DEVELOPMENT OF CODE OF PRACTICE/POLICY EMPLOYER/BofM VICARIOUSLY LIABLE AND FAILED TO EXERCISE ADEQUATE CONTROL DISCRIMINATION OCCURRED ..AS THE EMPLOYER/BOFM FAILED TO PROVIDE TEACHERS WITH A PLACE OF WORK FREE FROM SEXUAL HARASSMENT AWARD OF 10K AND 20K RESPECTIVELY TO THE TWO TEACHERS
HIGH COURT [2011] - UNA RUFFLEY V ST ANNES SPECIAL SCHOOL CLAIMANT AN SNA ISSUE CONCERNING USE OF SENSORY ROOM....WHETHER SNA LOCKED A PUPIL INTO SENSORY ROOM WHETHER GENERAL PRACTICE BY SNA S TO LOCK SENSORY ROOM
HC JUDGEMENT: NOTED VARIOUS INTERACTIONS WITH THE PRINCIPAL INCLUDING FURTHER INCIDENT OF ALLEGED FALSIFICATION OF PAPERWORK WHETHER DISCIPLINARY ACTION/SANCTION APPLIED FAIRLY REFUSAL OF APPEAL BY BofM WHETHER TREATMENT OF CLAIMANT BETWEEN 14/9/2009 AND 27/10/2010 AMOUNTED TO BULLYING AND HARASSMENT....WAS BEHAVIOUR PERSISTENT OVER TIME?
WHETHER EMPLOYER/BOFM AWARE OF IMPACT OF DEVELOPMENTS ON CLAIMANT? WHETHER CLAIMANT SUFFERED A PERSONAL INJURY A DEFINITE PSYCHIATRIC INJURY ....MEDICAL EVIDENCE [OF]...... DEPRESSION AND GENERAL ANXIETY DISORDER? CLAIMANT ON SICK LEAVE DUE TO WORK RELATED STRESS ? OF DAMAGES
COURT OF APPEAL [2015] UNA RUFFLEY V ST ANNE S SPECIAL SCHOOL 2 ISSUES CONSIDERED: APPLICATION OF WRITTEN WARNING/FAIR PROCEDURES WHETHER PRINCIPAL & BofM S CONDUCT AMOUNTED TO BULLYING & HARASSMENT
DEFINITION OF BULLYING CONSIDERED.WHETHER PRINCIPAL S/BOARD S CONDUCT AMOUNTED TO .REPEATED INAPPROPRIATE BEHAVIOUR .WHICH COULD REASONABLY BE REGARDED AS UNDERMINING INDIVIDUAL S RIGHT TO DIGNITY AT WORK
PRINCIPAL/BofM ARGUED: APPLICATION OF THE DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURES DID NOT AMOUNT TO BULLYING . THERE WAS NO CAUSAL LINK BETWEEN PRINCIPAL S/BofM S ACTIONS AND PSYCHOLOGICAL INJURIES SUFFERED BY SNA AWARD OF DAMAGES EXCESSIVE
CA RULED OUT MOST OF THE ACTIONS OF PRINCIPAL AND BofM AS NOT BEING INAPPROPRIATE .RECOGNISED ONE ACTION ONLY AS INAPPROPRIATE/NOT REPEATED .EG CA STATED: BULLYING CAN ONLY BE IDENTIFIED RETROSPECTIVELY . INCIDENTS OF INAPPROPRIATE CONDUCT DO NOT HAVE TO BE OF THE SAME NATURE OR CHARACTER
CA STATED WHAT AMOUNTS TO INAPPROPRIATE BEHAVIOUR MUST BE OBJECTIVELY DETERMINED .THE TEST DOES NOT CENTRE ON THE INTENTION OF PERSONS NOT INAPPROPRIATE: TO ADVISE SNA SHE WOULD BE SUBJECT TO DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS NOT TO CONDUCT A PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION/PRINCIPAL TO KEEP SNA S PERFORMANCE UNDER REVIEW
MONA JACKSON V CAHILL & CAHILL SOLICITORS [HC 6/7/2016] CLAIM BY SOLICITOR OF B&H AGAINST THE PRINCIPAL VARIETY OF COMPLAINTS CITED .INCLUDING o ERRATIC & INTIMIDATING BEHAVIOUR o DIFFERENT/INCONSISTENT TREATMENT . RE THREATS OF PAY CUTS OF 20%/10%/5%, BONUSES, AND THREAT OF REDUNDANCY .(2010-2012 MAINLY & PRACTICE UNDER SOME FINANCIAL PRESSURE) o ISSUES RE NOTES, EMAILS AND MANNER OF DELIVERY
o ISSUES RE PAYMENT OF HEALTH INSURANCE, PRACTICING CERT, CHRISTMAS BAR LUNCH IN CASTLEBAR o WHETHER WORK ENVIRONMENT TOXIC o PL S WORK COMPETENCE NOT AN ISSUE o WHETHER COMPLAINTS WERE ONLY AN EMOTIONAL REACTION TO HER PERCEPTION OF BULLYING
TWO DIFFERENT/CONTRADICTORY PSYCHIATRISTS OPINIONS FOR PL AND DFT....PL S EVIDENCE THAT SHE CAME TO SUFFER SIGNIFICANT DEPRESSION AND ANXIETY COMPLAINTS ALL DENIED BY DFT EG DENIED SHOUTING . , ACCEPTED ON OCCASIONS BECAME EXCITABLE AND BECOMING FLUSTERED & REFERRED TO OFFICE JOKES AND A BIT OF CRAIC HR CONSULTANT HIRED .NO INDICATION OF OUTCOME & MATTER REFERRED TO WRC
STANDARD DEFINITION OF BULLYING ACCEPTED. REPEATED & UNDERMINING OF DIGNITY AT WORK .OBJECTIVE VIEW IE PERSON ENTITLED TO BE TREATED WITH REASONABLE FAIRNESS IN THE EYES OF OTHERS FOR PERSONAL INJURY .+ RECOGNISED PSYCHIATRIC INJURY (NOT ORDINARY STRESS) + REASONABLE FORESEEABILITY
JUDGEMENT: CASE FINELY BALANCED . WITH UTTERLY NO CLEAR CUT RESOLUTION . VERY LITTLE CORROBORATION OF VERSIONS ADVANCED BY EITHER PARTY PL FOUND TO BE MORE RELIABLE HISTORIAN [THOUGH] OTHER ASPECTS OF HER TESTIMONY HAVE CAUSED MISGIVINGS [EG FAILURE TO DISCLOSE HIP SURGERY..ETC] PL MORE RELIABLE AND PERSUASIVE WITNESS
FINDING 8:4 IN FAVOUR OF PL.A NUMBER OF INCIDENTS MET THE THRESHOLD FOR WORKPLACE BULLYING 50K AWARDED WITH 20% DEDUCTED TO REFLECT HC VIEW THAT IN CERTAIN INSTANCES PL LESS THAN CANDID
APPOINTMENT PROCEDURES GOVERNANCE MANUAL APPENDICES D & E ADVERTISING RULES SELECTION PROCEDURES CRITERIA FOR ASSESSMENT DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST INTERVIEWS
SEQUENCE LEADING TO APPOINTMENT/CONTRACT RETENTION OF RECORDS
EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY ACTS, (EEA) (1998- 2008) EEA- SCOPE - ASPECTS OF EMPLOYMENT THAT ARE COVERED INCLUDE: ADVERTISING EQUAL PAY ACCESS TO EMPLOYMENT VOCATIONAL TRAINING AND WORK EXPERIENCE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT PROMOTION OR RE-GRADING CLASSIFICATION OF POSTS DISMISSAL COLLECTIVE AGREEMENTS
EEA: O CONGHAILE V BOM OF MERCY MEAN SCOIL MHUIRE, GALWAY [DEC E2007 -068] APPLICATION FOR PRINCIPALSHIP....WHETHER THERE WAS DISCRIMINATION ON AGE GROUND CLAIMANT 36 YEARS EXPERIENCE...HIGH PROFILE....ACTIVE IN EDUCATION/UNSUCCESSFUL/YOUNGER CANDIDATE APPOINTED...
WHETHER QUESTION AT INTERVIEW DISCRIMINATORY... ...WHY SHE WAS APPLYING FOR THE JOB AT THIS TIME IN HER LIFE V RESPONDENT S CLAIM QUESTION WAS CAN YOU OFFER SELECTION COMMITTEE A BRIEF OUTLINE AS TO WHY YOU FEEL, AT THIS STAGE IN YOUR CAREER, THAT YOU ARE THE MOST SUITABLE CANDIDATE.... ISSUE OF QUALIFICATIONS/EXPERIENCE/EXPERTISE OF SELECTION BOARD
EO....THERE IS NO EXHAUSTIVE LIST OF FACTORS WHICH CAN BE REGARDED AS INDICATIVE OF DISCRIMINATION.....AN INFERENCE OF DISCRIMINATION CAN ARISE.... RELIANCE ON EU JURISPRUDENCE ...IT IS SETTLED LAW THAT DISCRIMINATION CAN ARISE NOT ONLY THROUGH THE APPLICATION OF DIFFERENT RULES TO COMPARABLE SITUATIONS BUT BY THE APPLICATION OF THE SAME RULE TO DIFFERENT SITUATIONS .....IE COULD THE DISPUTED QUESTION ASKED OF ALL THE CANDIDATES HAD A DIFFERENT SIGNIFICANCE FOR EACH?
ALL RECORDS NOT MAINTAINED & INCONSISTENCIES....CAN LEAD TO AN INFERENCE OF DISCRIMINATION EO EMPHASIS ON OPENNESS AND TRANSPARENCY
DISCRIMINATION - WHERE A PERSON IS TREATED LESS FAVOURABLY THAN ANOTHER PERSON IS, HAS BEEN OR WOULD BE TREATED IN A COMPARABLE SITUATION, ON ANY OF THE GROUNDS SPECIFIED... INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION ....WHERE AN APPARENTLY NEUTRAL PROVISION PUTS PERSONS AT A PARTICULAR DISADVANTAGE....UNLESS THE PROVISION IS OBJECTIVELY JUSTIFIED BY A LEGITIMATE AIM AND THE MEANS OF ACHIEVING THAT AIM ARE APPROPRIATE AND NECESSARY ...... IMPUTED BY ASSOCIATION
A TEACHER V A NATIONAL SCHOOL DEC-E2014-097 CLAIM FOR DISCRIMINATION ON THE GROUNDS OF AGE, RELIGION AND SEXUAL ORIENTATION CONTRARY TO S.6.2(d), (e) and (f) of the EEA 1998-2011 RELIGION WHERE IT IS REASONABLE....IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN THE RELIGIOUS ETHOS OF THE INSTITUTION.....OR......PREVENT AN EMPLOYEE OR A PROSPECTIVE EMPLOYEE FROM UNDERMINING THE RELIGIOUS ETHOS OF THE INSTITUTION .... FOR AGE IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES.....
INTERVIEW FOR PRINCIPALSHIP ASKED THOUGHTS ON FORUM ON PLURALISM & PATRONAGE & WHAT ABOUT THE HOMO S ALL QUALIFICATIONS SHOULD BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT WHEN AWARDING MARKS CLAIMANT CITED HER QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE....
PERSONAL OPINIONS SHOULD NOT BE ASKED FOR AT INTERVIEW QUESTIONS IN RELATION TO SEXUAL ORIENTATION ARE UNLAWFUL AWARD OF 54,000 AWARD UPHELD BY THE LABOUR COURT
EEA: MURRAY V BofM, SCOIL MHUIRE, SWANLINBAR [DEC E2005 -015] PERMANENT POST/ CLAIMANT UNSUCCESSFUL/ WHETHER GENDER DISCRIMINATION QUESTION AT INTERVIEW ABOUT HER MATERNITY LEAVE/WHEN IT WOULD END/WHEN AVAILABLE & COMMENT ABOUT DIFFICULTY IN OBTAINING SUBSTITUTE TEACHERS
DENIED BY RESPONDENT...ARGUED OBJECTIVE CRITERIA & ALL CANDIDATES ASKED WHEN AVAILABLE SELECTION BOARD OUTLINED ITS PROCESS....RELIED ON COMPETENCY TO TEACH IRISH & EXPERIENCE IN MULTI- CLASS TEACHING... NO INDIVIDUAL MARKING SHEETS...
CLAIMANT INFORMED SHE WAS UNSUCCESSFUL DUE TO HER UNAVAILABILITY... WHETHER QUESTION C/WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ASKED OF A MALE CANDIDATE....LINKING OF NON- APPOINTMENT TO PREGNANCY/MATERNITY IE GENDER GROUND
WHETHER THE RESULT WAS BASED SOLELY ON THE CANDIDATES PERFORMANCE AT INTERVIEW & CVs WHETHER QUESTION WAS INDIRECTLY DISCRIMINATORY....AS MORE WOMEN THAN MEN WOULD BE ADVERSELY AFFECTED ....IN CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THE PREGNANCY WAS KNOWN IN ADVANCE....
WHETHER MISMATCH BETWEEN FORMAL SELECTION CRITERIA AND THOSE APPLIED IN PRACTICE.... WHETHER STANDARDS OF FAIRNESS, TRANSPARENCY, OBJECTIVITY AND GOOD PRACTICE WERE BREACHED.... 10,000 COMPENSATION AWARDED.
