 |
|
|
|
|
|
Work-related suicides could be killing over 250 workers in the UK each year, according to a new report - more than die in workplace accidents. The news comes as a union-backed case at the House of Lords confirmed the widow of a worker depressed after a workplace injury and who subsequently killed himself should receive compensation. 'Crying shame', the report published this week in the union-backed Hazards magazine, said there are about 5,000 suicides every year in the UK in people of working age.
Japan - where work-related suicide or 'karojisatsu' in an officially recognised and compensated occupational condition - estimates five per cent of all suicides are 'company related', equating to over 250 deaths a year in the UK. The problem could be getting worse, the report said. Figures released by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) in November 2007, showed a sharp upturn in cases of work-related 'stress, depression or anxiety,' with the total affected up to 530,000 in 2006/07 from 420,000 the previous year.
The number of new cases reported in HSE's Labour Force Survey (LFS) analysis was up by 1,000 cases a week, to 242,000. A Hazards dossier included in the report highlights work-related suicide cases in sectors including education, manufacturing, the health service and fast food.
The House of Lords this week upheld a March 2006 Court of Appeal ruling that IBC Vehicles was liable for the suicide of Thomas Corr, 31, who became depressed after a work accident which left him suffering headaches, tinnitus and severe depression. Mr Corr's widow, Eileen, received legal support from his union, Unite. Confirming the company was liable, Law Lord Lord Bingham said: 'In the present case Mr Corr's suicide was not a voluntary, informed decision taken by him as an adult of sound mind, making and giving effect to a personal decision about his future.
It was the response of a man suffering from a severe depressive illness which impaired his capacity to make reasoned and informed judgments about his future, such illness being, as is accepted, a consequence of the employer's [actions].' He added: 'It is in no way unfair to hold the employer responsible for this dire consequence of its breach of duty, although it could well be thought unfair to the victim not to do so.'
Source: TUC Risks
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
Designed, Hosted and Maintained by Union Safety Services
|
