英语论文网

pear to suffer from stress in the workplace , less absences may arise as the result of such counter – measures ”. [48] Furthermore “ there will be less chance of liability arising in the first place , and less time will be wasted by employers fighting such claims ”. Moreover “ there may also be an increase in some employers introducing stress policies within the workplace in order to promote a healthy working environment ”. [49]

The subsequent development of proposition 11 is also a ‘ satisfactory development ’. Intially it was feared that proposition 11 “ seemed to offer a ' get out of jail free ' card to employers who offer counselling services ”. [50] However in the case of Intel Corporation (UK) LTD v DAW [51] Pill LJ stated “ The reference to counselling services in Hatton does not make such services a panacea by which employers can discharge their duty of care in all cases ”. [52] As a result it was held that “it was a failure of management which created the stresses and led to the breakdown ”. [53] This meant that the “ injury to the respondent's health was reasonably foreseeable and problems could have been dealt with by management reducing her workload ”. [54] The decision is a ‘satisfactory development’ because “ it makes very clear that an occupational couselling service is not a panacea for occupational stress ”. [55] This imposes “ an overriding responsibility on management to identify and address work situations that create a risk of psychiatric due to stress ”. [56] The decision of Hartman v South Essex Mental Health and Community Care NHS Trust [57] also enforces the principle “it is not sufficient to have a system of counselling but an effective system of counselling must be offered to the employee”. [58] (more on hartman needed) ?? ( dickens v o2) furhter blow heasher platt

Subsequent cases to Sutherland have clarified ‘ law on the liability stress at work ’ by affirming the Sutherland propositions , this in turn has meant that law has ‘ developed in a satisfactory manner ’. For example , the case of Barber v Somerset CC [59] “ broadly supported the guidance given by the CA on dealing with stress cases and the principles established by the CA are / were still valid ”. [60] Hartman has also “ followed Walker , Sutherland and Barber , it entrenches work – related stress as a new and distinct category of recoverable psychiatric harm ”. [61]

Whist the propositions in Sutherland have been accepted by recent case law. The propositions have not been free of criticism / concerns by judges and academics. One of the main criticism of the propositions in Sutherland is that they are guidelines which provide “ useful practical guidance , but it must be read as that , and not as having anything like statutory force”. [62] According to Lord Walker “ Every case will depend on its own facts ”. [63] This pragmatic approach it could be argued may lead to inconsistency within the case law. For example , this inconsistency can be seen in relation to the 11th proposition which has been altered in subsequent cases in search of fair result.

Proposition 2 has proved problematic this is due to concept of ‘ reasonable foreseeability ’. The problem is that “ foreseeability has been shown up as vague , capricious and subjective … some learned judges are able to foresee very little ; others , by taking a complex succession of events step by step are able to foresee almost anything