Five law lords have upheld a Court of Appeal decision that makes employers liable for bullying in the workplace.
The landmark decision means that employees who are the victims of bullying can take legal action under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.
This means that they no longer have to prove that the bullying caused an identifiable psychiatric illness, merely that a ‘course of action’ took place more than once – the Act does not define harassment and was originally passed to curb stalkers.
The law lords’ ruling is binding on all courts in England and Wales and can only be overturned by a future judgment in the House of Lords or a change to the statute. Employers in Scotland were already vicariously liable for bullying in the workplace.
As well as establishing that an employer has vicarious liability for the bullying of an employee, the case also means that claims can be brought within six years rather than the usual three for a tribunal hearing.
The case was brought by Bill Majrowski, who worked as an audit co-ordinator for Guy’s and St Thomas’s NHS Trust.
He said his line manager, Sandra Freeman, was excessively critical of and strict about his time-keeping and his work; isolated him by refusing to talk to him and treated him differently and unfavourably compared with other staff; was rude and abusive to him in front of others; and imposed unrealistic targets for his performance, threatening him with disciplinary action if he failed to achieve them.
Mrs Freeman was suspended and, after an internal investigation which found he had been subjected to homophobic harassment, she was allowed to resign.
The case was originally struck out by the county court and the court of appeal and House of Lords’ decisions have been over the issue of whether there was a case to answer under the 1997 Act.
Now the answer is an emphatic yes – and any company which does not have an anti-bullying strategy in place should be hearing very loud warning bells. As Baroness Hale of Richmond pointed out in her judgment, Guy’s and St Thomas’s NHS Trust had a grievance procedure and the perpetrator resigned as a result.
The implications of the decision could be huge – the Andrea Adams Trust estimates that one in four people will be bullied at some point during their working life.
In a statement on their website, Mr Majrowski’s solicitors Reynolds Williams said: “The decision should be seen as a positive one the impact of which ought to be to help achieve the aims of the Act itself and actually reduce claims.
“One of the policy reasons for imposing vicarious liability on employers for the acts of their employees is because it encourages employers to impose good practice on their staff.
“Although most employers already have anti-harassment procedures in place there is all too often still an underlying culture which condones behaviour which can amount to harassment or bullying. This decision should serve to remind employers of their responsibilities and encourage them to take positive steps towards eradicating harassment in the workplace altogether.
“Meanwhile, as this decision followed the strike out of the case at an early stage, the matter now returns to the Central London County Court to determine whether Bill Majrowski was actually the victim of harassment within the meaning of the Act at all.”
