A synopsis of recent successful stress at work and bullying cases

Summary

In Sweeney v. Board of Management Ballinteer Community School (Unreported High Court (Herbert J.) 24/3/11) the plaintiff succeeded in a personal injury claim for bullying and harassment against a school.  She had been home-school liaison coordinator and later a learning support teacher at the defendant school. The claimant was unsuccessful in applying for a post of responsibility and appealed that decision and argued that following that appeal the principal's behaviour towards her was hostile and dismissive. The plaintiff made a formal complaint of bullying and harassment in October 2006 and the investigator decided that the plaintiff had not been bullied or harassed in the period to September 2006. The ruling of the court was that the court would not revisit the complaints that formed the subject matter of that investigation. The court found that the treatment by the principal of the plaintiff in the period following March 2007 amounted to bullying or harassment. The incidents of bullying upheld include inter alia the engagement by the principal, without the knowledge of the defendant's board of management, of a private investigator to carry out covert surveillance of the plaintiff during college hours. This amounted to harassment of the plaintiff by him and was wholly inappropriate as a course of action to ensure the plaintiff was properly discharging her duties as home-school liaison co-ordination. The court found that the board of management was vicariously liable for this. The plaintiff had suffered clinical depression and was awarded damages, including aggravated damages and special damages totalling €88,625.

In Kelly v Bon Secours Health System Limited  (Unreported High Court (Cross J.) 25/1/12)  the plaintiff succeeded in a personal injury claim for bullying and harassment against the defendant. The court found the following incidents amounted to bullying

  • In 2004 inter-personal difficulties arose in the records department between the plaintiff and a co-worker, of which the defendant was aware or ought to have been aware, but took no steps to deal with initially, as a result of which the plaintiff suffered stress
  •  The defendant appointed an external candidate to a permanent position, for which the plaintiff had applied, in breach of agreed procedures between management and unions relating to the selection of internal candidates. The court accepted the plaintiff's view that the reason for the departure from the agreed procedures was because management viewed the plaintiff as "trouble" and did not want her to attain a permanent position.
  • In 2005 the defendant suspended the plaintiff with pay and escorted her from the defendant's premises following her refusal to sign a document, which the plaintiff claimed was an inaccurate record of what had occurred at an investigative meeting. The court was of the view that the plaintiff's request that the defendant contact her union to facilitate correction to the said statement was not unreasonable conduct on the part of the plaintiff and that the plaintiff's suspension was a breach of contract and constituted bullying and harassment by the defendant.

The court did not accept that there had been contributory negligence. The defendant had contended that the plaintiff had failed to participate in the defendant's grievance procedure and failed to mitigate her loss and respond to the defendant's transfer offer (the court was of the view the relationship between the parties had completely broken down at the time this offer was made). The court further rejected the defendant's contention that the court was prevented from  dealing with a number of the plaintiff's complaints by reason of findings made by the Labour Relations Commission and an independent third party in respect of same. The court awarded the plaintiff €60,000 in general damages for the severe distress and insult suffered by the plaintiff.

In Brown v. Minister for Justice Equality And Law Reform (Unreported High Court (Cross J.) 4/12/12) the plaintiff had been a Garda for 33 years. He claimed damages for bullying and harassment procedure arising from bullying harassment. The court found there were incidents of bullying and harassment including the following:-

  1. The plaintiffs was refused permission to drive Garda vehicles for 8 years following an incident where the plaintiff wrongly left a vehicle outside Kilmainham Garda Station overnight and it was stolen. The court found the length of the ban was excessive.
  2. A member of An Garda Siochana had fraudulently put the plaintiff's name and signature to a leaflet for a protest meeting suggesting that the plaintiff was involved in the meeting in a professional capacity.
  3. A criminal investigation was wrongly commenced against the plaintiff in relation to a claim for overtime on a day when the plaintiff had done overtime.
  4. In 2003 original statements in relation to a rape case were removed from the plaintiff's locker. The court found on the balance of probabilities that this was done by another member of an Garda Siochana with the result of the plaintiff was subjected to a complaint by the victim of the crime for losing the evidence.
  5. In 2004 the plaintiff went out sick for stress for one week. As a result his superiors removed his firearm which was not returned to the plaintiff even though the only medical evidence available indicated that the plaintiff was fit to work with a firearm
  6. The defendant had failed to investigate the plaintiff's complaints of bullying and harassment at various stages.

The plaintiff's psychiatrist found that he suffered from adjustment disorder of moderate severity for 12 years and continuing. The court awarded general damages for psychiatric injury in the sum of €55,000. The court awarded loss of earnings in the sum of €5000. The court found that the incident at 2. amounted to defamation and awarded €25,000.

Comment

Following previous cases McGrath v. Trintech Technologies Limited [2005] 4 IR 382 Maher v. Jabil Global Services Limited [2005] ELR 233 and Berber v. Dunnes Stores Ltd. [2009] ELR 61 where the plaintiff failed in personal injury claims for bullying and harassment at work, it might have been thought that it would be rare for a plaintiff to succeed in a personal injury claim of this nature. The more recent cases throw some doubt on this proposition.

In each case there were elements of the particulars of bullying and harassment which were upheld but also elements which were not upheld.

The cases indicate that the courts are not overly generous when it comes to psychiatric injury. In Brown v. Minister for Justice Equality And Law Reform the plaintiff was awarded €55,000 after suffering 12 years of psychiatric injury albeit the plaintiff could work during this period.

I intend to update this page as the law develops.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.