In today’s increasingly busy work environment, incidences of work-related stress have become a common occurrence affecting a fair share of the employees. Employers in their conduct are bound by a duty of care which dictates that they should take all steps reasonably possible to make sure that their workforce health, safety and wellbeing is guaranteed. The increase in occupational stress incidence means that employers must take the issue seriously to make sure that they do not fall foul of their duty of care obligation to employees (Jones 2017). The employer’s duty of care in the United Kingdom is outlined in the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act (CMCHA) legislated in 2007 and the provisions of the common law (Jones 2017). In this essay, I will outline the importance of said law and employers’ liability in regard to their employees’ health.
Employers’ liability for psychiatric illness
The employers’ statutory duty to regarding their workers’ safety at work is outlined in the CMCHA 2007, with c.19 of the act stating that it is the duty of any employer to make sure that the create a work environment that guarantees the wellbeing, and safety of their employees’ (Jones 2017). The breach of this provision, as well as the dictates of the common law to ensure that their staff does not suffer from occupational stress, makes the employer liable for negligence. The notion of negligence, in this case, is attributable to the failure of the defendant to satisfy his obligation which is recognized and accepted as owing to the plaintiff. For instance, according to Jones (2017) in Dalton v. Frendo, an unreported ruling made by the Supreme Court back on 15th
December 1977, in which the judge argued that each and every master has the obligation to guarantee their servants safety within the confines of work.
The nature of duty that is owed to an employee is defined by the ruling made in the Wilsons & Clyde Coal Co Ltd v English of 1937 (Butler 2018). The ruling established that duty of care is threefold, with employers expected to provide their staff with colleagues who are competent and skilled, provide all requisite material and establish a safe system of work (Branson 2014). The law, however, outlines that the employers are only mandated to provide the standard of level of care does not have to make them safe at any cost. In any case, where an employee accuses the organisation of negligence in fulfilling its duty of care, the courts take into consideration the financial burden that the defendant would incur in making sure that the plaintiff is safe (Branson 2014). In resolving cases involving occupational stress which are mainly subjective, the contract of employment plays a crucial role in determining the aspects of duty of care that had been established by the two parties.
The psychiatric injuries through stress although complicated to prove since they are linked to the employment contract terms on the existence of a safe working environment in the first place (Lockwood, Henderson and Stansfeld, 2017). All employers are mandated under the duty of care to make sure that they safeguard their workers’ wellbeing which entails their mental health, by making sure they are not exposed to a work environment that is toxic and which can compromise their mental stability. In proving a case involving psychiatric illness, the plaintiff must prove beyond doubt that stress is the primary cause of the affliction since mental disorders such as anxiety cannot be perceived as sufficient claims that a psychiatric injury has taken place (Lockwood et al., 2017). The current standards that are used to determine an employer’s liability to occupational stress are attributable to ruling made in the Hatton v Sutherland 2002. The case although having proceeded to the House of Lords as Barber v Somerset in 2004, it was a crucial milestone in employee care of duty (Barrett 2004). The House of Lords in its ruling argued that the sixteen principles that had been developed by Hale LJ, need to be used to determine whether suffered a psychiatric injury at his or her place of work.
One of the principles outlined in the ruling and which can be used to determine whether an employer is liable for the occurrence of psychiatric illness is their foreseeability of harm (Butler 2018). The employer is only liable for worker’s occupational stress if they knew that the work was overwhelming to the employee and did not take action to remedy the same. Foreseeability is the biggest challenge that plaintiffs have to overcome in proving their cases in a court of law (Barrett 2004). However, if in the employment terms, the employer is bound to provide a healthy work environment that is devoid of discrimination, bullying, and safe for the workforce and fails to meet this obligation, then they are negligent in their conduct and liable for injuries that their staff develops (Lockwood et al., 2017). For instance, in organisations where workers work for long shifts which are detrimental to their health, the employer is held liable for causing psychiatric injuries even though the employee give express terms before accepting such jobs (Butler 2018).
Does inherently stressful work make a difference to an employer’s liability?
The working conditions within any given organisation whether posing a high risk of occupational stress development or not, the management has an obligation to be proactive and develop a support system that can help the workers deal with the challenging work environment (McLellan 2017). For instance, the administration of a healthcare facility or even a police department which are inherently stressful work environments, have to be proactive in addressing work-related stress and make sure that they keep abreast with the current awareness of occupational safety and ensure that they adopt best practices to reduce the incidence of psychiatric injuries in their organisation.
There are limits that dictate the extent, to which an employer must meet their duty of care obligation, and in the event, an organisation has a stressful work environment; they are expected to observe the industry set regulations on work safety (Butler 2018). The observance of these regulations helps absolve them of the responsibility of work-related stress injuries in its employees. The plaintiff in a case seeking a reprieve for negligence on the defendant’s side in providing a conducive work environment even if the workplace was stressful, has to prove that the employer failed to comply with set requirements (McLellan 2017). The liability of an employer thus does not vary based on the work environment since all that an employee requires is prove that the employer was negligent in their conduct.
Conclusion
Psychiatric injuries that result from occupational stress are subjective since different people are affected by exposure to a similar amount of stress differently (McLellan 2017). The employees in any work environment whether having an inherently high risk of stress or not, have to bring to the employer’s attention, their inability to cope with the demands of the work. Research studies on the success of duty of care cases elucidate that proving foreseeability is the primary hurdle that numerous claimants are unable to overcome and proving that the employer acted negligently while knowing the work environment was no longer conducive can help the plaintiff win (McLellan 2017). The management of contemporary organisations has to make sure that they strive to create an enabling environment in which the plight and wellbeing of the workforce are prioritized.
References
Barrett, B., 2004. Employers' Liability for Stress at the Work Place: Neither Tort nor Breach of Contract?. Industrial Law Journal, 33(4), pp.343-349.
Branson, D., 2014. An Introduction to Health and Safety Law: A Student Reference. Routledge. Retrieved from https://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_ylo=2014&q=Wilsons+%26+Clyde+Coal+Co+Ltd+v+English+1938+AC+57&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5
Butler, D., 2018. Employer liability for workplace Trauma. Routledge. Retrieved from https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9781351742610
Jones, L., 2017. Criminal legislation: the corporate manslaughter and corporate homicide act 2007. Retrived from http://eprints.brighton.ac.uk/18685/
Lockwood, G., Henderson, C. and Stansfeld, S., 2017. An assessment of employer liability for workplace stress. International Journal of Law and Management, 59(2), pp.202-216.
McLellan, R.K., 2017. Work, health, and worker well-being: roles and opportunities for employers. Health Affairs, 36(2), pp.206-213.
