Free Employment Advice - Foreseeability: Working Conditions

T, a special needs teacher, was employed by F as a senior learning support teacher at a primary school. During her employment, she consulted F’s assistant director of education because of her stress problems which resulted from staff and management difficulties. Following the consultation, she was transferred to another primary school in 1995, where she was employed as a senior teacher of special educational needs.

T claimed compensation from her employers on the basis that she had suffered psychiatric injury in the course of her employment. She alleged that she suffered recurrent depressive disorder caused by her working conditions. These conditions included the a lack of dedicated recreational facilities for special needs pupils, a shortage of staff for an increased number of pupils and lack of training in restraining pupils which resulted in injury to her back and neck. It was argued on her behalf that the employers knew about her mental state which culminated in an incident in 1998 when she suffered a breakdown, and that the employers ought to have foreseen a risk of psychiatric injury.

It was also argued that if the employers had increased resources as she had requested, there would have been a significant lessening of her responsibilities and she would not have suffered psychiatric damage.

Decision:

• Before a duty to prevent psychiatric injury could arise, employees must establish that a harmful reaction to the pressures of the workplace, in the form of actual psychiatric injury, was foreseeable.

• At the time of T’s transfer, there was nothing to alert F to any risk that she might suffer psychiatric injury.

• The fact that F had been alerted to the risk that T might suffer stress was insufficient.

• T’s complaints were about lack of resources and facilities, not about the effects on herself and very few details had been given about her breakdown.

• Since her immediate concern afterwards had been directed to resources, taking F’s attention away from her psychological state, her allegation of the breakdown, if proved, would not be sufficient to establish that F were alerted to the risk of psychiatric injury.

• The action would be dismissed.