Veitch Penny LLP - Exeter | Crediton, Devon

Case

Marshall Specialist Vehicles v Osborne
Employment Appeal Tribunal - (30 April 2003)

Issues

(1) Unfair dismissal
(2) Constructive dismissal
(3) Implied terms

Facts

Shirley Osborne was employer as the finance director of Marshall Specialist Vehicles. In addition to her financial role, she also undertook work normally association with the position of Human Resources director. She was resistant to help from the group Human Resources director.

Osborne resigned her position by letter, giving the required six months notice. She claimed that she was overworked and frustrated in fulfilling her position as finance director. She had been seen in tears by other employees.

She began to work out her notice period, but felt unable to carry on. She sent a letter to her employer to this effect, enclosing a sick note which stated she had suffered a nervous breakdown. It appeared that she had a stress-related condition of which management were not aware.

Osborne entered a complaint at the Employment Tribunal submitting that she had been constructively unfairly dismissed, and that her employers had breached her contract of employment.

The tribunal found there had been a breach of the implied term in as to Health and Safety and consequently, found in the favour of the employee’s favour. The term meant that her employer’s would take reasonable action to avoid imposing a workload, or acquiescing in an employee’s assumption of a workload, which would foreseeably cause mental or physical injury. She was award a basic award of £460, and £51,700 by way of compensation.

The employer appealed the decision.

Decision

The employer’s appeal would be allowed. The employment appeal tribunal stated that an employee such as Osborne would have to show three things:

(1) the risk of injury was foreseeable (as in civil claims, and in the case of Sutherland –v- Hatton.
(2) that the employer was in breach of its duty to take reasonable care for the safety of its employees (as, again, in Sutherland); and
(3) The breach amounted to a fundamental breach of contract.

There was a general term implied into all contracts that an employer should take reasonable care for the safety of its employers. Not doing so would be a breach of this implied term.

The employment appeal tribunal concluded that there was insufficient evidence for the employee to succeed under the common law principles of Sutherland.

Comments

This case suggests that an employee will have more difficulty in succeeding with an employment stress claim if it is brought in an employment tribunal than if he brings it in the High Court or County Court. In the civil courts, the employee would only have to show parts 1 and 2 mentioned above, and that the stress was caused by the employer’s negligence.