Two More Contrasting Stress Cases Hit The Courts

Stressed Employee Constructively Dismissed After "Last Straw" Grievance Procedure Mess

GAB Robins (UK) Ltd v Triggs

EAT
13 June 2007
Only recently reported
Weekly Law Reports Summary

Overworked employee presented written grievance.  The claimant took the view that the employers' response failed to deal with her grievances properly and she resigned claiming constructive dismissal.  The employers appealed, contending, in respect of an award of compensation, that the claimant's loss of earnings flowed not from her dismissal but from her continuing incapacity to work.  The EAT dismissed the appeal: "Where the employer's conduct of a grievance procedure was the "final straw" relied on as justifying resignation, the range of reasonable responses test had no application to that conduct, since the final straw, viewed alone, need not be unreasonable or blameworthy, though it had to be more than trivial and contribute something to the breach.  As the claimant's ill-health was caused by the employers' repudiatory conduct it was to be treated as a consequence of the dismissal leading to loss of earnings."

But contrast with this case reported by Daniel Barnett:

Stress at Work

1 August 2007
The Court of Appeal has handed down a decision dealing with contractual liability for stress at work.

After 30 years' good employment, the Claimant developed depression after an allegation of sexual harassment was made against him (and the investigation was, in part, bungled). The Court of Appeal, overturning the High Court's decision, held:

• a policy requiring the employer to handle complaints of harassment "sensitively" was aspirational and did not form part of the Claimant's contract of employment (paras. 17-18)
  
  
• although the covening of a panel with two, rather than three, members was a breach of a contractual term, it was not reasonably foreseeable that the Claimant would suffer a psychological reaction as a result (paras. 22-23)
  
  
• it was not negligent of the employer to inform the Claimant of its decision "by leaving a bald letter on his desk" - it is the content of the decision, not the manner of transmission (presumably, without more), which is important (paras. 41-42)

This case is another example of the tendency since Sutherland v Hatton in 2002 to limit the scope of stress at work claims.

Deadman v Bristol City Council

See Daniel's website and subscribe for his email service here:
http://www.danielbarnett.co.uk/