Opinion: NFP employees deserve a duty of care
Share
While all employers know they owe a duty of care to employees to prevent physical and psychological injury, this notion can sometimes be lost in the not-for-profit world. Employee wellbeing can sometimes take a back seat to look after clients as charities do their best to uphold its social duty.
Treating employee welfare as a mere box-ticking exercise is not sufficient and even companies whose focus is on helping those in need may still have their priorities askew.
A decision of the Supreme Court of Queensland which recently handled this very situation has prompted employers to recalibrate their idea of what’s important in the workplace.
In this particular case, the court ruled in favour of an employee who claimed psychiatric harm on the job. In this instance, a youth service provider failed to appropriately recognise and mitigate the increasing risk that one of its long-term clients posed to its employees.
The decision sends a clear message to the NFP world that regardless of any social expectation the charity may have, the obligation to adhere to its charitable purposes does not displace an employer’s duty of care to employees.
Charities charged with assisting vulnerable people who have suffered over their lives and who are most at risk of destructive and anti-social behaviour face significant difficulties in managing their obligations to clients as well as their duty to ensure the emotional and physical wellbeing of their employees.
For some charities in particular, their mission is to provide care and support to those in the community who need it the most and while that’s a massive focus, they have to remember their organisation is only as good as the people working for them.
All employers know they need to take reasonable care to avoid things like injury in the workplace, but more thought needs to go toward how this applied in real life employment situations.
Employers need to be across their staff’s working environment, they need to mitigate risks and constantly monitor potentially hazardous situations. It’s critical employment risks for employees are continually identified, assessed and strategies are developed to ensure an appropriate response is ready.
As job descriptions or company scope grows and evolves over time, so too do the potential risks involved, particularly when you are dealing with vulnerable members of society. If red flags start to appear with particularly at-risk clients, as they did in the recent Supreme Court case, employers need to revise how they will deal with the increased risks and if they can continue to provide services to the client in question.
The evolving workforce means many employees will have their duties increased overtime and if they are not aware of the environment they are working in at any given moment, they are at risk. Employers should plan to assess risks frequently and match them against employee knowledge, resilience and other factors.
What constitutes reasonable care is a matter of fact which evolves as the undertaking of risks inherent in certain types of employment develops over time. The NFP sector has to ensure that it maintains a safe environment for employees, even if it means compromising on social outcomes.
Nicole Shenfield, Lawyer, Paxton-Hall Lawyers.
