freeeploymentadvice.co.uk
Workplace Stress: THE LEGAL ESSENTIALS -
The summaries of cases on these pages illustrate developments in the Law of Workplace Stress 1999 to 2007.
Foreseeability: Working Conditions
Foreseeability: Reasonable Steps
Foreseeability: Evidence: Notice of Psychiatric Injury
Foreseeability: Contributory Negligence
Foreseeability: Excessive Workload
Foreseeability: Arrangements for Return to Work
Victim classification: Employee Witnessing Colleague’s Death
Victim classification: Post-
Constructive dismissal: Implied Term to take Reasonable Care for Health and Safety of Employees
Constructive Dismissal: Medical Evidence
Unfair Dismissal: Cause of Illness
Unfair Dismissal: Employment Tribunal: Compensation for Personal Injury
Unfair dismissal: Common Law Remedy
Disability Discrimination: Anxiety Disorder: Medical Evidence
Disability Discrimination: Disability: Medical Diagnosis
Disability Discrimination: Disability: Evidence of Mental Impairment
Damages: Causation: Exacerbation of Pre-
Damages: Quantum: Bullying at Work
Post-
Damages: Quantum: Anxiety Resulting from Minor Physical Injury
Post-
Service Personnel: Safe System of Work
Employment Tribunal Procedure: Postponement of Hearing: Medical Evidence
Foreseeability: Race Discrimination
Breach of Contract: Unfair Dismissal
Knowledge of Employer: Special Educational Needs School Teacher
Foreseeability: Stress Reduction Policy
Vicarious Liability: Breach of Statutory Duty: Harassment
Psychiatric Injury: Harassment: Foreseeability
Stress: Duty of Care Owed: Foreseeability
Stress: Duty of Care Owed: Workload
Stress: Foreseeability: Vicarious Liability
Psychiatric Injury: Foreseeability: Duty of Care
Post-
Post-
Stress:duty of Care Owed: Workload
Psychiatric Injury: Foreseeability: Duty of Care
Post-
Disability Discrimination Update
April 2008
Home About Me Qualifications Contact
Case Examples -
Sex Discrimination Disability Discrimination Workplace Stress Harassment & Bullying Employment Tribunals
Publications -
Psychiatric Iinjury: Harassment: Foreseeability
Deadman v Bristol City Council (2007) NLJ 1422, CA
D was employed by B as a manager. In February 1998 he was accused by a female colleague of sexual harassment. B carried out an investigation but it failed to carry out its procedures correctly. B’s decision was set aside after D lodged a grievance. B then decided to carry out a new investigation. It informed D of this decision by a letter which was left on his desk for him to find.
D then gave up work as a result of depression. He claimed compensation from B for breach of its common law duty of care and for breach of contract. On behalf of D it was alleged that B had acted in breach of its own harassment policy. At first instance, D’s claim succeeded. The judge ruled that the harassment policy had been incorporated into D’s contract of employment and that B had been in breach of the contract. B appealed to the Court of Appeal.
Decision:
1. The appeal succeeded.
2. It was a term of D’s contract that B would follow its harassment procedures. It had not done so.
3. Where an employer has published and implemented procedures providing for the manner in which complaints are investigated, it will usually become a term of the contract of employment that those procedures will be followed unless and until they are withdrawn by agreement.
4. D was not entitled to recover damages.
5. It had not been reasonably foreseeable that B’s failure to comply with its procedures would cause D to suffer psychiatric harm.
6. To all appearances D was a person of robust good health. He had worked for B for
more than 30 years and had an excellent attendance record, having been absent from
work for only five days during that period because of ill-
7. There was nothing to suggest that B should have been aware that D was liable to be severely adversely affected by the ordinary operation of its procedure for investigating complaints of harassment.