News
English court issues new workplace stress decision
First published in The Independent, 15 August 2007.
"Stress" is an emotive word.
Most of us find ourselves using it to describe how we are made to feel in our day-to-day lives by the pressures of our work, our personal lives – and even things as petty as the pressing need to get our kids to school (and ourselves to work) on time.
It is perhaps for that reason that many employers felt a chill down their spine when, in 2003, New Zealand's health and safety legislation was amended to recognise workplace stress as a potential workplace hazard.
Surely, with all the "stress" of modern day working life, employers would be beset with an avalanche of claims?
There have, of course, been a number of high profile cases involving successful claims brought by employees who demonstrated that they had suffered harm as a consequence of exposure to workplace stress. And there is an ongoing prosecution under the legislation.
But in the main, successful claims of this nature (and prosecutions) have been few and far between.
It is against that background that a recent decision of the English Court of Appeal may be greeted with some interest in this country.
The case is Deadman v Bristol City Council [2007] EWCA CIV 822. It concerned an employee who had been employed by the Bristol City Council for over 30 years in different capacities – most recently as a manager of its mechanical and electrical services team.
The case arose out of an unfortunate incident which occurred in 1998. A female employee from another department alleged that Deadman had committed an act of sexual harassment. Deadman denied the allegation and the employer responded by conducting a formal investigation.
Perhaps understandably (and irrespective of guilt or innocence) a process such as this is stressful for the accused employee (and possibly also for the accuser). But, by virtue of a series of unfortunate procedural mistakes, the employer's process in this case was even more challenging for Deadman.
The city council failed to convene a proper panel to investigate the matter. And one of the people on the panel should not have been allowed to sit in judgment of Deadman.
Eventually, the employer saw the error in its ways and decided to undertake a second and separate investigation process, which complied with its prescribed procedures. It communicated this decision to Deadman by recording it in a letter which it left on his desk.
Deadman's case was that his employer's mishandling of the investigation process caused him to suffer harm as a consequence of stress and which culminated in him resigning from his employment.
It appears to have been accepted that Deadman was indeed suffering ill health as a result of stress but the real question was whether liability for this fact could be sheeted home to the city council.
The Court of Appeal found in favour of the city council rejecting Deadman's claim. Although it had been guilty of a failure to follow its prescribed procedure for the investigation of the complaint, it was not reasonably foreseeable that this would have led to adverse consequences for Deadman's health.
Further, the Court of Appeal found that the particular steps which the council had taken (including leaving the letter on Deadman's desk) were not, in themselves, breaches of any duty owed to Deadman. For example, the court held that the content of the letter to Deadman had not been inappropriate and the decision to provide him with information in writing was not improper.
In summarising its conclusions, the court said that it had much sympathy for Deadman. He had worked for the council for over 30 years and had an excellent attendance record. The court said that it was understandable that Deadman could take the view that something had gone badly wrong but, in any event, the council could not be held liable for his illness.
There are a couple of features of this decision which may have some application to New Zealand law.
First, the case is notable because it involves an otherwise healthy (and long serving) employee who was caused to suffer harm as a consequence of a small number of events that took place within a relatively short timeframe.
This feature distinguishes the case from most that have been successful in New Zealand – which have (in the main) involved deterioration in health as a consequence of events over a long period often accompanied by "cries for help" from the ailing employee.
It may be reasonable to conclude that, in general, cases such as Deadman's might be harder to make out simply because they require the court to accept that negative health consequences should have been foreseen as a result of one or two specific but admittedly traumatic events.
Secondly, as a more general comment, the case potentially provides some comfort to employers who may have been formerly chilled by the prospect of workplace stress claims. Such claims are difficult to make out and, as experience in this country has shown, successful claims are likely to be more rare than perhaps first thought.
Whether these facts make employers stress a little less about stress is another question.
