Workplace Malpractice

Dave has been unemployed for a number of years and is naturally delighted when he gets a job working for a timber merchant. Part of Dave’s job involves cutting wood using a circular saw. Dave is sent on a training course on how to use the saw safely. Naturally the training provider emphasises that the saw must never be used without a safety guard.

Dave is actually a bit of a pain as far as the employer is concerned; he is a bit slow at the job, does not pick things up very quickly and is regarded as a clock-watcher.

About six months after he started the new job, Dave is asked to cut some wood for a rush order for an important customer. Unfortunately, the safety guard on the saw is broken. Dave tells the supervisor who tells him to get on with the job and cut the wood without the guard in place. Dave sort of complains thinking (rightly!) that it is dangerous, but he cuts the wood anyway. He does not injure himself and the job gets done.

That night, Dave’s wife gives him a good ear-bashing for endangering his safety and tells him to complain to the boss the next day.

The next day Dave does complain to the owner of the timber yard; he says he doesn’t think it was right that he should be asked to use dangerous equipment.

The owner of the yard knows a bit about employment law and knows that an employee normally cannot claim unfair dismissal unless he or she has been employed for a year. Believing that Dave has no legal protection, he sacks him on the spot telling him that he is not suitable to work in the yard.

The owner of the yard is wrong in thinking that Dave cannot claim unfair dismissal; Dave can rely on the Public Interest Disclosure Act. This Act was designed to protect workers who are treated badly for blowing the whistle by complaining that their employers are engaged in malpractice that the public should know about.

However, in recent years it has become clear that employees who treated badly by being sacked can sometimes benefit from the protection of this law, even though there is no real matter of “public interest”.

Dave’s employer is legally obliged to protect Dave’s health and safety at work. By not doing this and sacking Dave because he complains, Dave is entitled to bring a claim before an Employment Tribunal of automatic unfair dismissal. The Tribunal will find in his favour, and can then award him unlimited compensation, which can include money for injury to feelings.

The lesson that employers must learn is not to be unreasonable and, when an employee complains legitimately that the employer is breaching the employees contract, (this is not restricted to endangering health and safety) they should take steps to remedy that breach rather than punish the employee.

If an employee is not up to the job the employer should deal with them in the proper way so that either the employee reaches an acceptable standard at work or is managed out of the business.

Published 27/09/2006.