The Attendance Management Blog Business Centred Therapy
  • The Blog
  • About Us
  • Archives
  • Contact Us
  • Register
  • Log in

Green V DB Group Services; D v Intel Corporation

By Susan Montgomery on the December 19th, 2007

Stress and Bullying - Employers Beware

These two high court cases as lloked at by Sarah Michael make for interesting reading:

Helen Green was employed by Deutsche Bank for four years, between October 1997 and October 2001. Ms Green, who had a history of depression, suffered two separate mental breakdowns. The first occurred in November 2000 when she was admitted to hospital and diagnosed as suffering from a major depressive illness. After returning to work part-time in the following March she suffered a further relapse in October 2001 and never returned to work.

She brought two claims in the High Court :-

  • That her employer had breached its duty of care in failing to take action against other employees who had engaged in a constant campaign of bullying and harassment against her.
  • That her employer was vicariously liable for the actions of the other employees under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

She was successful in her personal injury claim and was awarded in excess of £800,000 to reflect her loss of earnings and the extent of the injury to her health.

The High Court found that a systematic and relentless campaign of bullying and spite had been carried out by four of Ms Green’s colleagues and that another colleague had bullied her in seeking to promote his own career at her expense. 

The High Court also found that Ms Green’s line-managers knew or ought to have known what was going on and that it would have been reasonable for the employer to have taken action to stop the bullying by making it clear to the employees that such behaviour was unacceptable and could lead to disciplinary action. 

The High Court found that Ms Green’s employer had failed to take these reasonable steps and therefore was liable for any stress or psychiatric injury caused by the campaign of bullying and harassment. The Court felt that the events described by Ms Green went beyond normal ‘acceptable’ office banter and that it was foreseeable that some employees would be particularly vulnerable to such behaviour, particularly if they had suffered from depression in the past. 

Ms Green also succeeded in her claim under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. 

The Court found that the actions of her work colleagues amounted to harassment as they had occurred with great frequency and were specifically targeted to cause Ms Green distress. Under the Protection from Harassment Act it is generally easier for an employee to succeed than with a claim for personal injury. This is because in personal injury claims it is necessary to establish that there was a duty of care existing between the employee and employer, that there was a breach of that duty and that the resultant injury was reasonably foreseeable. This is not necessary in Protection from Harassment claims.

Comment

It is increasingly important for employers to be proactive in not only taking steps to prevent bullying and harassment in the workplace but also in tackling these issues promptly and appropriately when they occur.

There should be a cultural emphasis within an organisation that such behaviour is not acceptable and will not be tolerated as normal ‘workplace banter’ and that, where appropriate, disciplinary action will be taken.

Action points for employers

Employers will have to demonstrate a commitment to addressing issues of bullying in the workplace through:-

  • Having a clear policy on bullying and harassment
  • Training of all levels of staff on that policy
  • Sensitively managing grievances or concerns raised by employees
  • Taking strong disciplinary action where appropriate

Another reminder that it will not be enough to avoid liability for an employer simply to point to policy documents which have sat gathering dust on a shelf. 

In light of the recent case of D v Intel Corporation (UK) Ltd 2006 it will also not be enough for employers to rely solely on the fact that they provide an employee assistance programme, with counselling facilities, in seeking to argue that they had done all that a reasonable employer could do. 

Whilst such services are to be commended the Courts will expect employers to be proactive, rather than passive, in the management of this invidious problem within the workplace.

It is also worth mentioning here another recent case of Garrod v North Devon NHS Primary Care Trust. In Garrod the court emphasised the importance of return to work programmes for those returning from periods of stress related illness and that it is essential if such programmes are offered, for them to be rigorously adhered to and monitored.

Posted in ·

Tags: No Tags

0 responses so far (Leave your comment)

  • There are no comments yet...Kick things off by filling out the form below.

Leave a Comment

About the blog

An online journal aimed at sharing skills views and good practice in working with attendance management.

More →

Search

Subscribe

Subscribe to The Attendance Management Blog RSS feed to keep up to date.

RSS Feed Get RSS Feed →

Tags

absence bullying CIPD counselling DDA disability discrimination employee assistance employment law guidance legislation long term absence managing absence motivation occupational health research short absence sick note stress well being


Tag Archive →

Topics

Blogroll


  • ACAS
  • Business in the Community
  • Business in the Community Wealth from Health
  • Gateway

© The Attendance Management Blog.