It is an established common law principle that employers are liable for the acts (or omissions) of employees acting within the “course of their employment.” The Court of Appeal has recently considered whether the victims of the employees’ actions (who were also employees) could successfully sue their employers within the scope of this principle.
Weddall v Barchester Healthcare Limited
Mr Weddall was a deputy manager of a care home. He did not particularly get along with a colleague, Mr Marsh. One evening whilst on duty, Mr Weddall telephoned Mr Marsh (who was employed in a subordinate role to him), and asked him if he would be available to cover a shift for an employee who had ‘called in sick.’
Mr Marsh had been drinking when he received the call and took exception to the call. He formed the impression that Mr Weddall was mocking him. Mr Marsh rang back soon thereafter stating his intention to resign and then proceeded to bicycle over to the care home and attack Mr Weddall at work. Mr Marsh was subsequently sentenced to 15 months imprisonment for his unprovoked actions.
Wallbank v Wallbank Fox Designs Limited
Mr Wallbank was Managing Director of a company which manufactured bed frames. He was assaulted by an employee, Mr Brown, who worked on the shop floor. Mr Wallbank considered Mr Brown to be a troublesome employee and on the day in question he noticed that Mr Brown was not feeding in the bed frames through the finishing oven in an expedient way, thereby causing unnecessary fuel wastage.
Mr Wallbank questioned Mr Brown’s pedestrian approach and proceeded to try and assist him in loading more frames to speed things up – Mr Brown took exception to Mr Wallbank’s interference and reacted by throwing him onto a table 12 feet away, causing him to fracture a vertebrae in his back. Mr Brown was subsequently convicted of causing grievous bodily harm and ordered to pay £600 compensation.
The Court of Appeal’s Judgments
The crux of the Court of Appeal’s considerations in each case was the connection between the act of violence and employment.
In the first case, the Court of Appeal upheld the decision that there was insufficient link between Mr March’s violent act and his employment – he was at home when he received the call and there was some 20 minutes between the call and the assault.
In the second case, the Court of Appeal found that there was a sufficient link. The Court determined that factories, by their nature, can be quite fractious and confrontation does sometimes occur. The act of violence was so spontaneous and connected to the instruction given that it was conducted during the course of employment and the employer was as a consequence vicarious liability for those actions.
Comment
This case is an important reminder to employers about the extent to which they can be liable for the acts of their employees. As these cases demonstrate, whether there is a close enough connection for an employer to be found liable will ultimately turn on the facts of each case.
Albeit it will be difficult to predict (and therefore prevent) such acts, to reduce the likelihood of such incidences occurring, employers should ensure that they have robust disciplinary rules that spell out a “zero tolerance” approach towards acts of violence within the workplace.
Employment Law Update – Time to Ring the Changes for 2012
Our Employment Law Team will explain the latest and forthcoming changes in the complex area of employment law and will update you on changes and developments for 2012.
Details of our upcoming seminars in April 2012 can be found by clicking here.
If this alert has been forwarded to you and you would like to sign up to receive regular alerts, you can do so using our online form.
If you have any comments or queries please do not hesitate to contact Joanne Holborn, Adrian Maitra, or Tom Scaife on 01228 552600. Alternatively, email one of the team at HR@baineswilson.co.uk.
27 January 2012
