An abattoir and meat processing business was found to have breached its duty of care to its plant manager. The manager, who worked on-call hours 24 hours a day, twice collapsed at work due to stress and exhaustion. His employer later retrenched him.

Background

The plant manager, Mr Roussety, was required to work excessive hours and was expected to be available 24 hours a day to manage plant breakdowns. In 2007, Mr Roussety made several complaints about work-related stress and excessive hours, which included:

  • a plant equipment breakdown in February 2007, which caused Mr Roussety to be at work for 20 hours over a 36-hour period;
  • on 26 February 2007, Mr Roussety fainted at work and was subsequently absent from work;
  • a second major plant breakdown, which required Mr Roussety to work excessive hours and take calls throughout the night; and
  • in July 2007, Mr Roussety collapsed again and was taken to Dandenong Hospital.

Duty of care

Mr Roussety brought a civil suit against his employer for negligence for failing to meet its duty of care.

The Supreme Court found that the employer's duty of care required it to take all reasonable steps to provide a safe system of work, which includes a duty to avoid any foreseeable risk of psychiatric injury to the employee in the course of their employment.

The Supreme Court found that the employer breached its duty of care to Mr Roussety. Justice Zammit said that it was reasonably foreseeable that, following Mr Roussety's collapse and his ongoing complaints regarding support, staff shortages and long hours, he might develop a psychiatric condition caused by work.

Furthermore, a reasonable person in the employer's position would have acted to prevent the injury by:

  • putting measures in place to prevent excessive work hours; and
  • setting certain hours where Mr Roussety could be relieved of on-call duties.

A further hearing will be held to determine the liability of the employer for the injury and damages.

This publication does not deal with every important topic or change in law and is not intended to be relied upon as a substitute for legal or other advice that may be relevant to the reader's specific circumstances. If you have found this publication of interest and would like to know more or wish to obtain legal advice relevant to your circumstances please contact one of the named individuals listed.