英语论文网

shed that 459 cases were in progress which indicates a rise in stress-related claims” [16] and “TUC's own survey showed union‘s backed over 600 stress cases in 2001”. [17] In my view the decision in Walker seems fair on the facts, however, the statistics above show the ramifications overall are far greater due to the ‘floodgate’ claims. Therefore although walker seems to be ‘satisfactory’ in the sense it establishes liability for stress at work, however, it is an ‘unsatisfactory development’ overall due to the expansive approach which led to the subsequent ‘floodgate’ of claims.

As a result of the expansion of the law post Walker the Court of Appeal (CA) in Sutherland sought to restrict liability arising from stress at work. In Sutherland the CA heard “4 appeals in which each defendant employer appeals against a finding of liability for an employee’s psychiatric illness cause by stress at work”. [18] The decision lays down “16 practical propositions” [19] which summarise the ‘law on the liability for stress at work’ and “ provides useful practical guidance ”. [20]

In doing so the “law tried to strike a balance which is reasonable to both sides”. [21] On the one hand, the CA acknowledged “that it is in the interests of individual employees that management should be encouraged to recognise the existence and causes of occupational stress and take sensible steps to minimise it within their organisation”. [22] However on the other hand, CA also acknowledged that “if the standard care expected of employers is set too high, or the threshold of liability too low, there may be also be unforeseen and unwelcome effects upon the employment market”. [23]

Proposition 1 states that “ there are no special control mechanisms applying to claims for psychiatric illness of injury arising from the stress of doing the work the employee is required to do ”. [24] Proposition 2 states “ the threshold question is whether this kind of harm to this particular employee was reasonably foreseeable ”. [25] “ This has 2 components, (a) injury to health (as distinct from occupational stress), which (b) is attributable to stress at work (as distinct from other factors) ”. [26] Proposition 3 states that “ foreseeability depends on employer’s knowledge about the individual employee ”. [27] Furthermore “ the nature of the mental disorder makes it harder to foresee than physical injury, but may be easier in a known individual than in the population at large ”. [28] Moreover “ an employer is usually entitled to assume that the employee can withstand the normal pressures of the job unless he know of some particular vulnerability ”. [29] Proposition 4 states that “the test is the same whatever the employment : there are no occupations which should be regarded as intrinsically dangerous to mental health ”. [30] Proposition 5 states “ Factors likely to be relevant in answering the threshold question include : nature and extent of the work and signs from the employee impending harm to health ”. [31] Both factors needing various questions to be answered at this stage of the enquiry.

Proposition 6 states that “the employer is generally entitled to take what he is told by his employee at face value, unless he has good reason to think to the contrary and he does not have to make searching enquiries of the employee or seek permission to make further enquiries of his medical advisers ”. [32] Proposition 7 states that “