Deadman v Bristol City Council
Employees can try to pursue claims of stress either on the basis of a breach of their contract of employment or common law negligence.
In Deadman v Bristol City Council, the Court of Appeal said that although the council had breached Mr Deadman’s contract, it was not foreseeable that it would affect his health adversely.
Basic facts
Mr Deadman had worked for the council for over 30 years when, in February 1998, another employee accused him of sexual harassment. The council carried out a formal - but flawed - investigation into the matter, in that there were only two people, rather then three on the panel. It found against him.
He then successfully challenged that decision, and the council decided to reconvene a new panel. It wrote to Mr Deadman on 6 May 1998, but just left the letter on his desk for him to find when he came in to work (although it was not clear when he actually read it). After going on sick leave from 6 to 13 May, he stopped work permanently because of depression.
Relevant documentation
Paragraph 11 of Mr Deadman’s statement of terms and conditions referred to a number of policies and procedures (contained in paragraph 13) that were “relevant” to his work, but did not form part of his contract. Among these was the equal opportunities policy.
In February 1997 the council issued an Integrated Equalities Policy, including an anti harassment policy. In December it then adopted a Procedure for Stopping Harassment in the Workplace, which included a general paragraph that incidents of harassment must be dealt with “positively, quickly and sensitively” and a more detailed section, setting out the formal procedure that it must follow.
High Court decision
The judge held that although the council had not breached its duty of care at common law to Mr Deadman, it had breached the Procedure for Stopping Harassment (which it said was incorporated into his contract of employment) in the way it carried out the investigation and the way in which it informed him about the new hearing. These breaches had caused his illness.
The council appealed, saying that these points could not constitute a breach of his contract as they were not contractual terms.
Decision of Court of Appeal
And the Court of Appeal agreed. It said that the Integrated Equalities Policy was not contractual and just provided “a useful insight into the standards which the Council itself considers that it is appropriate to observe in its dealings” with staff.
As for the Procedure for Stopping Harassment, it held that parts could be incorporated but that “it was not a term of Mr. Deadman's contract of employment that the Council would investigate complaints of harassment sensitively, but … it was a term of his contract that it would follow its published procedure in the investigation of any complaints of harassment made against him.”
Although it was therefore a breach of contract to convene a panel of two, rather than three (as stipulated in the procedure), the Court of Appeal said it was not reasonably foreseeable that doing so would have “adverse consequences for Mr Deadman’s health”, as he was of “robust good health” and had an excellent attendance record.
Nor could the council have known that announcing another investigation would be so damaging to his health, given Mr Deadman’s demeanour and behaviour leading up to it. It had not therefore been negligent to tell him of its decision "by leaving a bald letter on his desk". The Court could not accept an argument that depended “not on the content of the letter but on the manner of its transmission.”
For these reasons, the appeal was allowed.