Maureen Flood V. The University Court Of The University Of Glasgow
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judge | Lord Woolman |
| Neutral Citation | [2008] CSOH 98 |
| Court | Court of Session |
| Published date | 08 July 2008 |
| Year | 2008 |
| Date | 08 July 2008 |
| Docket Number | A200/04 |
| OUTER HOUSE, COURT OF SESSION [2008] CSOH 98 | |
| A200/04 | OPINION OF LORD WOOLMAN in the cause MAUREEN FLOOD Pursuer against THE UNIVERSITY COURT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW Defenders ________________ |
Pursuer: Ellis Q.C.; Balfour + Manson LLP
Defenders: Miss Smart; Brechin Tindal Oatts
8 July 2008
[1] This is a "stress at work" case. Between May 1999 and January 2001, the pursuer was employed as a senior lecturer by the defenders. She went off work with symptoms that she attributes to her excessive workload. She has since been diagnosed as suffering from psychiatric injury, in respect of which she now claims damages from the defenders.
[2] Miss Smart, counsel for the defenders, sought dismissal of the action. She contended that it was irrelevant and lacking in specification in three respects. First, she maintained that on the pursuer's averments, the defenders could not have foreseen the risk of psychiatric harm to the pursuer. Secondly, she disputed any claim that there was a duty on the defenders to carry out a risk assessment. Thirdly, she challenged the pursuer's averments regarding the steps which the defenders should have taken in order to fulfil their duty of care.
[3] Senior counsel for the pursuer, Mr Ellis, invited me to remit the case for a proof before answer. He stated that it was not possible to hold at this stage that the case would necessarily fail at proof. In particular, he argued that having regard to the pleadings: (a) the risk of psychiatric damage to the pursuer was reasonably foreseeable; (b) no risk assessment case had in fact been pled; and (c) fair notice had been given to the defenders of the steps which they should have taken to satisfy their duty of care.
The Pursuer's Case on Record
[4] The facts upon which the pursuer relies are set out in Articles 4 and 5 of Condescendence. It is necessary to set them out in some detail.
[5] The pursuer was formerly employed by St Andrew's College, Glasgow. In November 1998 she attended a health screening organised by the College, which indicated that she was suffering from stress. On 1 April 1999 the College merged with the University of Glasgow. The pursuer became a senior lecturer within the University's Department of Curriculum Studies ("the Department"), which is part of the Faculty of Education ("the Faculty"). The Faculty provides courses for students intending to become primary and secondary school teachers. As part of their teacher training, they require appropriate school placements.
[6] In terms of her contract of employment, the pursuer was required to work 321/2 hours per week. Her line managers were Dr Kwiatowski, Mr McCarney and Professor McGettrick. They were respectively the Head of the Department and the Associate Dean and Dean of the Faculty. Apart from her teaching duties, the pursuer also held the post of Co-ordinator of School Experience and Partnerships. That role involved liaising with schools, students and staff tutors. The Faculty had three separate co-ordinator posts: (a) for International Placement; (b) for the Postgraduate Secondary Course; and (c) for the Postgraduate Primary Course. After the merger, those posts remained vacant and the pursuer undertook a substantial proportion of their work.
[7] The pursuer frequently communicated with her line managers about the problems she was experiencing. In June 1999, she told Mr McCarney that her work overload was affecting her health and causing her to be unable to sleep. On 10 September 1999, Professor McGettrick expressed concern that she had too much work. During the autumn of 1999, the pursuer requested additional staff to assist her. On 6 November 1999, Dr Kwiatkowski provided a reference for the pursuer in which he mentioned her "very heavy administrative commitment" and "very demanding role".
[8] In December 1999 a paper was circulated to staff, which highlighted the heavy workload of those employed at the former St Andrews' campus. The issue was raised at a committee meeting the next day. It was illustrated by the example of the pursuer sending work-related e-mails in the early hours of the morning and at weekends. On 22 March 2000, Professor McGettrick recommended that the pursuer's workload should be reduced by appointing an administrator.
[9] It was acknowledged at Faculty Meetings on 19 April, 16 May and 23 May 2000, that conditions of overwork were causing stress and illness within staff. In May 2000, the postgraduate primary co-ordinator resigned. She had only been in post seven months. She cited work overload and stress as her reasons. At a staff meeting on 23 May 2000, the pursuer explained that the defenders were relying on staff goodwill to cover vacant co-ordinator posts, which was causing stress. In a memorandum the next day, Mr McCarney said that support staff were working at full capacity and that there was no "slack in the system". He also said that the pursuer's planned reduction of time to carry out her administrative duties could only happen if an additional post was created.
[10] On 14 June 2000, the pursuer tendered her resignation. She indicated that the basis for doing so was her excessive workload, which forced her at times to work in excess of 100 hours per week. She was persuaded to withdraw her resignation on the basis that assistance with her workload would be found. She was frequently assured that steps would be taken to remedy the situation.
[11] The pursuer was told that University teaching staff were expected to undertake research work. At the urging of her line managers, she agreed to register for an M.Phil degree in summer 2000. She proceeded on assurances that her administrative workload would be reduced. The work for the degree was normally allocated the time of one half of a full time post. By e-mail dated 28 June 2000, the pursuer told Dr Kwiatowski that she could not do the work of a single co-ordinator position and the research for an M.Phil degree and "remain intact". At that date, she was in fact undertaking the workload of several co-ordinators, as well as carrying out teaching and research responsibilities. On 30 June 2000, the pursuer sent an e-mail to Dr Kwiatowski, which she copied to Professor McGettrick. She stated that it would be impossible for her to undertake the M.Phil and continue with her co-ordinator roles.
[12] In August 2000 the pursuer told Mr McCarney that her workload was having an effect on her health. She said that she was suffering from projectile vomiting, stress symptoms and shingles. In early September 2000 she also told Professor McGettrick that her job was making her unwell. She mentioned that she was not sleeping, that she suffered from pains and that she was exhausted. She told him that her doctor thought that the shingles was stress related, which he accepted.
[13] At a Faculty meeting on 9 October 2000, the pursuer reported her serious concerns about the lack of relevant co-ordinators. The 'increasing health issues' relating to the staff workload were noted. In an e-mail to Mr McCarney dated 23 October 2000, the pursuer expressed alarm at the amount of hours that she continued to have to work and stated that it was a "genuine call for help".
[14] By e-mail to Dr Kwiatowski dated 16 November 2000, the pursuer stated that she was undertaking the work of 3.49 full time posts and she drew attention to the deleterious effects on her health. She referred to herself as "sinking beneath the waves". On the same day, she received an e-mail from Professor McGettrick in which he recognised the volume of work that her job entailed. At a meeting on 22 November 2000, the pursuer was tearful. She informed Dr Kwiatowski that she was feeling ill due to stress. She stated that she was not sleeping well, was suffering from chest pains and had recently crashed her car. The following day she was again tearful when she met Professor McGettrick. She informed him that she was overworked and that it was having a negative effect upon her health.
[15] At the end of November, she again met Professor McGettrick. She drew his attention to her extreme work overload and the deleterious effects it was having upon her health. He acknowledged the volume of her work on 27 November 2000. On 30 November 2000, Dr Kwiatowski sent a memorandum to all academic staff in the Department, proposing that data be collated to assess the range of work covered by employees. He acknowledged that the previous failure to do so had caused problems for the pursuer.
[16] After the pursuer ceased work on 31 January 2001, she was diagnosed as suffering from a Moderate Depressive Episode, from Anxiety Disorder and from Adjustment Disorder.
[17] The pursuer refers to the extent of her workload at various points in the pleadings. It is averred that she undertook the work normally regarded as appropriate for much more than one person and continually in excess of that appropriate to one and a half full-time employees. By Autumn 2000, her work had built up to a level of about three and a half full-time employees. She worked long hours under pressure to fulfil the demands placed upon her.
[18] The pursuer also avers that no effective steps were taken to reduce her workload. However, in response to the defenders' averments, she admits that they did provide clerical staff to assist her with administrative tasks. Two employees were provided in June 2000. In respect of a further member of staff appointed in August 2000, the pursuer states that she was an apprentice who "did not provide effective administrative support." She also avers that "it was not possible for [her] to mitigate her workload by delegating. There were no available members of staff with the ability to take on further work."
The Legal Framework
[19] In the course of the debate, I was referred to three main cases in which the principles that govern this area of law are to be found: Hatton v Sutherland [2002] ICR 613; Barber v Somerset County Council ...
To continue reading
Request your trial