Time to curtail summary dismissal in Australia

It is assumed that the right to summarily dismiss an employee for certain forms of misconduct is a fundamental legal right reposed in employers. It is argued that the scope of this right in Australia is too expansive and should be significantly curtailed. In its current form, the right to summarily dismiss employees offends several widely accepted legal and normative maxims and is incompatible with several behavioural norms. While this paper focuses on Australian summary dismissal law, the doctrinal analysis and the reform suggestions advanced in this paper are of relevance to all market economy jurisdictions. Studies of human well-being show that employment, independent of its wealth-creating aspect, is important to well-being. Matters that are central to a person's well-being should not be taken away readily. This moral prescription is given legal recognition by the legal principle of proportionality, which prescribes that there should be proportion between the punishment and harm caused by the wrongdoing. Moreover, it is not the case that a single impertinent act is defining of a person's character or necessarily evinces a predisposition to behave in a like manner in the future.

Intervention designed to reduce the use of summary execution in acute psychiatric inpatient settings

Context: Although it may seem preposterous to consider the need to reduce the use of summary executions in acute psychiatric inpatient settings because practitioners simply would not consider using such inhumane treatment, it is sobering that many mental health professionals do not hesitate to use seclusion.

Objectives: We draw attention to the assumption that underlies the thinking of many mental health professionals that seclusion is acceptable simply because it is available.

Key messages: The letter of the law (seclusion is legal) is frequently given precedence over the spirit of the law (seclusion should used as a method of last resort, if at all). The availability of seclusion as an intervention makes its use inevitable. Although sufficient checks and balances exist in society to prevent psychiatric staff from adding summary executions to their ‘‘treatment’’ paradigms, legislators need to set the bar much higher. Outside intervention, in the form of legislation, is needed because the mental health professions seem incapable of discontinuing the use seclusion despite evidence of the trauma it causes to both patients and staff and despite the lack of evidence that it achieves any desirable outcomes.

Conclusion: The use of seclusion is unacceptable and should be as impossible and unthinkable as summarily executing our patients. By the use of what would seem, at first glance, an absurd analogy between seclusion and summary execution we highlight the need for a shift in policy and legislation regarding the use of traumatising interventions.

Occupational health services in higher education : second annual report : summary

The second of three surveys of occupational health provision in UK higher education institutions was carried out in March 2003.

Information was collected on occupational health provision arrangements for all 193 members of UUK, other HEIs funded by HEFCE, constituent parts of the University of London and the University of Wales, and degree awarding bodies in the UK. There was a wide variety of arrangements. Thirty-eight percent had in-house services, 33% contracted with external providers for occupational health services, 13% made use of a local general practice or student health service, 6% had other or ad hoc arrangements and 9% had no occupational health service.