Blog Layout
Noise Induced Hearing Loss
Apr 07, 2020
Noise Induced Hearing Loss
It has long been accepted that continual exposure to excessive levels of noise can cause damage to the ears by way of hearing loss and tinnitus. We have successfully represented a number of union members from a variety of backgrounds in cases of noise induced hearing loss.
Who can claim?
In order to support a claim for noise induced hearing loss, a member must establish the following:
1. That they have been exposed to excessive noise in the course of their employment.
2. That such work took place in the last 40 years.
3. That they suffer reduced hearing and or tinnitus (a ringing or buzzing in the ears).
There are strict time limits for claims such as these and in the event that any member considers that they may have a claim for noise induced hearing loss, we would urge them to utilise their union membership and seek immediate legal advice.
How much are they entitled to?:
Mild: Up to a maximum £17,500.
Moderate: Up to a maximum of £35,000.
Severe: Up to a maximum of £70,000.
Recent settlements:
Mr B, a retired member, was exposed to excessive noise in the course of his employment as a maintenance electrician from the mid 70’s to the mid 90’s. He worked in a noisy factory without the provision of adequate hearing protection and by reason of noise exposure contracted mild hearing loss and slight tinnitus. Medical evidence was obtained and the expert considered that the Plaintiff suffered from hearing loss and tinnitus 60% of which related to his previous employment. Court proceedings were issued. Liability was denied by the Defendant and an acoustic engineer was instructed to prepare a liability report. The engineer accepted that the Plaintiff would have had excessive noise exposure in the course of his employment without the provision of adequate protection. Damages awarded: £11,250.
Share this page
UK Supreme Court Rules Trade Union Law Breaches Workers’ Rights in Landmark Decision The Supreme Court has today ruled that trade union law in Britain breaches workers’ human rights failing to protect them from sanctions short of dismissal for taking part in industrial action. Mrs Mercer was a trade union representative and employee of Alternative Futures Group Ltd in the role of support worker. She was suspended during lawful strike action. She was paid basic pay losing out on overtime pay for overtime she would have otherwise worked, prevented from talking to her colleagues and was issued with a written warning. Proceedings were brought under Section 146 of the Trade Union Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (TULCRA) claiming that she suffered a detriment short of dismissal for organising and participating in strike action. The Supreme Court was asked to determine whether TULCRA protected workers who take part in strikes during working hours from detriment short of dismissal. The Supreme Court Judges decided that the legislation did not do so because protection was only given to industrial action carried out “outside working hours”. It commented that Section 146 amounted to a lack of protection for workers and encouraged unfair and unreasonable conduct by employers. Judges held that the UK law is incompatible with Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights namely the right to freedom of association concluding that the law as it stands is in breach of human rights requirements. Taking the rare step of making a declaration of incompatibility, the court stated that “it fails to provide any protection against sanctions short of dismissal, intended to deter or penalise trade union members from taking part in lawful strike action organised by their trade union”. The UK Parliament will now consider making amendments to the legislation. Reflecting on the decision today, Orla Sheils of our Employment Law Department commented “This decision is hugely significant for trade union members and representatives engaging in industrial action and in the legal jurisdiction of Northern Ireland where Union busting is unfortunately a real issue in some workplaces, it should send a strong message to rogue employers who seek to punish their employees simply for engaging in lawful industrial action".
UNIONS SECURE HIGH COURT VICTORY
School Admissions