Free Employment Advice - Foreseeability: Arrangements for Return to Work

Y was employed by the Post Office in 1978. In 1993 he was appointed as a workshop manager. This job was fairly stressful and the stress level increased when computer systems were introduced.

In 1994 Y was prescribed anti-depressants. In 1997 he became unable to cope with his job. He asked his employers for help but this was not forthcoming. In May 1997 he suffered a nervous breakdown and was off work for four months.

Y was visited during his absence by members of management. An agreement was reached whereby Y could work on a flexible basis with the aim of gradually introducing himself back to work.

Y returned to work in September 1997. The agreement was not adhered to and by the end of November Y suffered a recurrence of his mental illness. He left work and did not return. In May 1998 he took voluntary early retirement.

Y claimed compensation in negligence from his former employers. At first instance his claim succeeded and he was awarded £94,000 in damages. The judge ruled as follows:

• Y’s employers knew that he needed looking after when he went back to work.

• The employers did not implement the agreement which they had reached with Y.

• There was therefore a clear breach of the employers’ duty of care and that breach caused Y’s second breakdown.

The employers appealed on the following grounds:

• They had taken reasonable steps to enable Y to return to work at his own pace.

• Because Y had not told them that he was under increasing stress, they could not have known that these steps were unsuccessful.

• Y had been contributorily negligent in that he had unnecessarily burdened himself with work and had not voiced any concerns about his health to his superiors.

Decision:

1. The appeal should be dismissed.

2. The judge at first instance had been correct in ruling that the employers were in breach of their duty of care.

3. Where an employee has already suffered from a psychiatric illness caused by occupational stress, it is clearly foreseeable that there might be a recurrence of that illness if appropriate steps are not taken when the employee returns to work.

4. The employer owes the employee a duty to take such steps and to ensure that the arrangements are implemented.

5. In the present case, Y was sent on a one-week residential course two weeks after his return to work. Within seven weeks he was doing the same job which had originally made him ill. The employers failed to fulfill promises that he would be regularly visited and assessed by management.

6. In relation to contributory negligence, an employee who is known to be vulnerable is not necessarily to be regarded as responsible for a recurrent psychiatric illness if he fails to tell his employer that his work is becoming too much for him.

7. In the present case, Y had not been negligent in failing to speak up. He was vulnerable and conscientious. He could not be blamed for doing his best to do his job, especially when his past complaints had not been dealt with.