Health and Safety Case Law
Safe and adequate plant and equipment
BAC Ltd v Austin (1978) IRLR 332
Austin’s job required the wearing of eye goggles. Austin wore glasses which prevented the wearing of the goggles safely as the glasses often misted up. She complained, nothing was done about it. Options open to Austin were, leave the job or not wearing the goggles or dropping her complaint. Austin left the job and brought a claim for constructive dismissal. Claim successful as her employers had breached the implied contractual requirement to provide safe equipment for the employee.
Dugmore v Swansea NHS Trust 2003
Dugmore was a nurse who suffered from eczema and asthma for all her life. Between 1993 and 1995 she developed an allergy to latex as a result of using latex gloves in the course of her work. In 1997 she suffered an anaphylactic attack whilst lifting an empty latex glove box. Court ruled the employer had a duty of care under COSHH to ensure exposure to latex was prevented or adequately controlled. The court ruled that the duty was absolute. I.e. there is no way of getting out of it.
Safe premises
Latimer v AEC Ltd (1953) AC643
The place of work had a heavy rainstorm which left premises floor with a film of water and oil over the floor. Sawdust was put down before a change of shift. Latimer worked on the next shift, came in, started work and immediately slipped on the floor whilst carrying a heavy barrel which crushed Latimer’s ankle. The High Court found in Latimer’s favour over a duty of care but the Court of Appeal overturned the decision stating the employer had acted as far as was reasonably practicable.
A safe system of work
Crouch v British Rail Engineering (1998) IRLR 404
If an employee is regularly performing tasks that involve potential risk to the eyes the employer has to provide goggles and put them in the hands of the employee. Just making the employee aware of the availability of goggles is not enough.
Employer’s Liability relating to claims of work-related stress
Walker v Northumberland County Council (1994) IRLR 35
Walker was a social worker with a heavy workload that caused a lot of stress and distress to Walker due to the nature of the work. He discussed these issues with his employer on a regular basis expressing concern at the pressure he was under. The employer did nothing about it. In Novemeber 1986 Walker suffered a nervous breakdown and was absent until March the following year. During the absence agreement was made with the employers for a system of working which would enable Walker to come back to work with support and backup. When Walker came back to work the support either did not materialise or it disappeared after a very short time. Walker suffered a second breakdown. He was subsequently dismissed on grounds of permanent ill health in February 1988.
The High Court ruled that the employer was not liable for the first breakdown but was for the second. The reason for this was that the second breakdown was reasonably foreseeable. Walker settled out of court for £175,000.
Other cases;
Sutherland v Hatton and other cases (2002) IRLR 263
Introduced basic guidance on how to treat employer negligence in relation to stress.
Inter v Daw (2007) IRLR 346
Dickens v O2 IRLR 58
These two cases show that the fact the employer made provision of confidential counselling did not absolve the employer of his duty of care to the employee.