This case is of particular interest to Local Authorities and larger employers because the Court of Appeal gives very useful guidance as to when policies, guidance documents and procedural guides are incorporated into an employees’ contract of employment. More general guidance is given concerning the scope of stress at work claims in the context of disciplinary and other procedures.
The Facts
Mr Deadman had been employed by Bristol City Council for over 30 years. On 5th February 1998 a sexual harassment complaint was made against him. The Council commenced a formal investigation under its procedure for dealing with allegations of harassment. The Council failed to follow its own procedures correctly in that the panel convened to consider the complaint comprised of two instead of three members, one of whom was Mr Deadman’s immediate line manager. As a result of the above Mr Deadman successfully challenged the unfavourable decision of the panel and it was set aside. The Council then decided that it would reconvene a new panel to conduct a fresh investigation into the allegation. A letter was left on Mr Deadman’s desk informing him of this decision. Mr Deadman found the whole investigation very stressful and in May 1998 he ceased work permanently suffering from depression.
The Claim
Mr Deadman brought a personal injury claim against the Council arguing that the manner in which it had conducted its investigation breached both the common law duty of care owed to him and his contract of employment. Unusually the trial judge found that the Council had not breached its duty of care towards Mr Deadman but that it had breached his contract of employment.
Mr Deadman’s contract of employment
Mr Deadman’s contract of employment consisted of a Statement of Terms and Conditions issued in compliance with the Employment Rights Act 1996. The issue between the parties was which of the Council’s policies and procedures were incorporated into his contract of employment, in particular:-
1. Whether the Council was contractually bound to conduct the investigation “sensitively” as stated in its Integrated Equality Policy and repeated in its Procedure for Stopping Harassment in the Workplace.
2. Whether the Council was contractually bound to follow the formal procedure for investigating complaints of harassment as set out in its Procedure for Stopping Harassment in the Workplace.
The trial judge found that the both of the above were incorporated into Mr Deadman’s contract of employment and that the Council’s breaches (in particular its duty to deal with the investigation sensitively) caused Mr Deadman’s depression.
The Decision of the Court of Appeal
The Court of Appeal allowed the Council’s appeal holding:-
The trial judge was wrong to find that the Council had a contractual obligation to conduct the investigation “sensitively” because:-
The Integrated Equalities Policy predominantly consisted of policies and aspirations and therefore did not naturally lend itself to incorporation.
The statement that the investigation would be conducted “sensitively” was properly understood as an illustration of the manner in which the Council expected to conduct its relationship with its employees, both in complying with its contractual obligation not to undermine the mutual relationship of trust and confidence and in observing its duty of care towards its employees under contract and at common law.
It was a term of Mr Deadman’s contract of employment that the Council would follow its published procedure in the investigation of any complaints of harassment made against him. The Council had therefore breached Mr Deadman’s contract of employment by convening a panel with only two members.
Mr Deadman’s injury was too remote in law to be recoverable as it was not reasonably foreseeable.
The trial judge’s ruling that the Council had not breached its common law duty of care towards Mr Deadman was upheld.
This case illustrates that Local Authorities and other employers may be held to have breached their employees’ contracts of employments if they fail to follow published disciplinary and investigatory procedures, even where those procedures are not explicitly incorporated into their employees’ contracts of employment. In this case the Court of Appeal held that Mr Deadman’s injury was too remote as it was not reasonably foreseeable that Mr Deadman, described as a person of “robust good health”, would suffer psychiatric illness. However, it is important for employers to be alert to signs of stress and any particular problems or vulnerabilities that their employees may have, as such circumstances could lead the court to conclude that psychiatric illness was reasonably foreseeable and the employee may have a valid claim for potentially unlimited damages against the employer.
LAURA PRINCE
The Facts
Mr Deadman had been employed by Bristol City Council for over 30 years. On 5th February 1998 a sexual harassment complaint was made against him. The Council commenced a formal investigation under its procedure for dealing with allegations of harassment. The Council failed to follow its own procedures correctly in that the panel convened to consider the complaint comprised of two instead of three members, one of whom was Mr Deadman’s immediate line manager. As a result of the above Mr Deadman successfully challenged the unfavourable decision of the panel and it was set aside. The Council then decided that it would reconvene a new panel to conduct a fresh investigation into the allegation. A letter was left on Mr Deadman’s desk informing him of this decision. Mr Deadman found the whole investigation very stressful and in May 1998 he ceased work permanently suffering from depression.
The Claim
Mr Deadman brought a personal injury claim against the Council arguing that the manner in which it had conducted its investigation breached both the common law duty of care owed to him and his contract of employment. Unusually the trial judge found that the Council had not breached its duty of care towards Mr Deadman but that it had breached his contract of employment.
Mr Deadman’s contract of employment
Mr Deadman’s contract of employment consisted of a Statement of Terms and Conditions issued in compliance with the Employment Rights Act 1996. The issue between the parties was which of the Council’s policies and procedures were incorporated into his contract of employment, in particular:-
1. Whether the Council was contractually bound to conduct the investigation “sensitively” as stated in its Integrated Equality Policy and repeated in its Procedure for Stopping Harassment in the Workplace.
2. Whether the Council was contractually bound to follow the formal procedure for investigating complaints of harassment as set out in its Procedure for Stopping Harassment in the Workplace.
The trial judge found that the both of the above were incorporated into Mr Deadman’s contract of employment and that the Council’s breaches (in particular its duty to deal with the investigation sensitively) caused Mr Deadman’s depression.
The Decision of the Court of Appeal
The Court of Appeal allowed the Council’s appeal holding:-
The trial judge was wrong to find that the Council had a contractual obligation to conduct the investigation “sensitively” because:-
The Integrated Equalities Policy predominantly consisted of policies and aspirations and therefore did not naturally lend itself to incorporation.
The statement that the investigation would be conducted “sensitively” was properly understood as an illustration of the manner in which the Council expected to conduct its relationship with its employees, both in complying with its contractual obligation not to undermine the mutual relationship of trust and confidence and in observing its duty of care towards its employees under contract and at common law.
It was a term of Mr Deadman’s contract of employment that the Council would follow its published procedure in the investigation of any complaints of harassment made against him. The Council had therefore breached Mr Deadman’s contract of employment by convening a panel with only two members.
Mr Deadman’s injury was too remote in law to be recoverable as it was not reasonably foreseeable.
The trial judge’s ruling that the Council had not breached its common law duty of care towards Mr Deadman was upheld.
This case illustrates that Local Authorities and other employers may be held to have breached their employees’ contracts of employments if they fail to follow published disciplinary and investigatory procedures, even where those procedures are not explicitly incorporated into their employees’ contracts of employment. In this case the Court of Appeal held that Mr Deadman’s injury was too remote as it was not reasonably foreseeable that Mr Deadman, described as a person of “robust good health”, would suffer psychiatric illness. However, it is important for employers to be alert to signs of stress and any particular problems or vulnerabilities that their employees may have, as such circumstances could lead the court to conclude that psychiatric illness was reasonably foreseeable and the employee may have a valid claim for potentially unlimited damages against the employer.
LAURA PRINCE
