Introduction
Work related stress has become an issue of concern in the modern employment realm. The performance may diminish with the prevalence of workers’ stress in the workplace. The employer may not be at a position to evaluate the loss in performance he or she suffers if immediate action is not taken to avert the crises. Stress may emanate as a result of many activities in the workplace. It may be a result of bullying, faulty work organization, lack of communication, poor relationship of the workers and harassment among others. Many employment legal regimes have developed cushion for workers who may suffer from stress in the workplace. This development is buttressed by various case law that have addressed this scenario in the depth that is required. This research will be an exploration into the legal issues that pop their heads in the cause of action whose subject matter is stress. The exploration will take the form of the different case law that has developed with time.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"Workplace Stress".
Legal Issues
The harm attendant to the workplace stress may be addressed through the prism of the breach of duty of care which is always statutorily guaranteed in the common law jurisdiction. The remedies that are available can thus be addressed through the regime of the tortious liability. This goes to the very substratum of the rights of employees and the duties of the employers. Common law address to the issue of workplace stress is not a restrictive aspect. The language of the statute and the terms contained in contracts should not limit the employees’ rights to be remedied as determined in the celebrated case of Berber v Dunnes Stores [2009] 20 E.L.R. 61. There is an implied duty of the employer to provide a safe working environment. That was the issue in the case of Wilson and Clyde Coal Co. Ltd v English [1938] AC 57.
Another major legal issue that stress brings about is whether its results can be compensable even if it does not amount to physical injury. Before this area was properly developed, non-physical harm was not recognized. However, L. Loyd in the case of Page v Smith [1996] 1 AC 155 was of the view that non-physical injuries are also medical injuries and thus recognized in the purview of employment law. Stress related claims can therefore be remedied if the same are of recognized nature and not necessarily on the work occupational stress. This was the position in the case of Global Services Ltd. [2005] E.L.R. 233.
The employer will be liable if it is foreseeable that there would occur an eventuality in a workplace. This issue was extensively dealt with in the case of Walker v Northumberland County Council [1995] 1 All ER 737 where an English court held that an employer was liable for failing to provide a safe work place thereby causing stress of an employee who later got ill and dismissed. The court was of the opinion that there was causation between lack of proper working conditions and the stress suffered by the employee.
Psychiatric injuries are also acceptable parameters with regard to stress-related injuries. This was the issue in Mullaly v Bus Eireann [1992] ILRM 722). However, in Petch v Customs and Excise Commissioners ([1993] ICR 789) the courts chipped in and added that the duty of care will only be breached if the employer has knowledge of he is supposed to take some form of special care to the employee. In this case, the employer suffered two successive mental breakdown and maintained that they were a result of stress of much work. It was held that unless the authority knew of his special condition, he could not claim.
However, it should be noted that an employer has a defence in terms of the injuries suffered by the employee under his or her care. The employer will only be liable to medically certified injuries and not ones that are caused by anxiety or fatigue. Stress-related injuries due to activities done outside the place of work do not fall under the employer’s obligation. This was held in the Walker case (supra).
Conclusion
From the above exposition thus, work related stress and the harmful results attendant to the same can be visited on the employer. However, before the employer is blamed, some checklist must be fulfilled. There must be established a duty of care (in terms of providing safe working place), breach of that duty of care and injury suffered due to the breach. The injury must be foreseeable. The victim of stress related harms can thus be remedied upon the fulfillment of the checklist. Courts are always faced with complex legal issues when the subject matter is harm suffered out of work related stress.
