Employee stressed by fallout of colleague dispute over affair fails to win compensation

About this case:

• Citation:
  [2024] SC EDIN 32
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  Sheriff Court
• Judge:
  Sheriff Iain W Nicol

Paul Frame, a station worker for Abellio Scotrail Ltd based at Cathcart Railway Station, sought solatium of £35,000 following a diagnosis of Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Anxiety and Depressed Mood. The defender maintained that it did not breach any duty of care which created a foreseeable risk of psychiatric injury.

The case was heard by Sheriff Iain Nicol in the All-Scotland Sheriff Personal Injury Court at Edinburgh. Lauder, solicitor advocate, appeared for the pursuer and Nicholson-White, advocate, for the defender.

Failed to follow protocol

In 2016 and 2017, the pursuer’s line manager was Joe O’Neill, whose manager at all material times was John McBrinn. A friend and colleague of the pursuer who also worked at the station, Lorraine McGorm, was in a relationship with Mr O’Neill’s son and was engaged to be married to him in 2016. However, she was having an affair with Mr McBrinn, which when discovered by Mr O’Neill created a toxic work atmosphere which persisted for the remainder of 2016 and most of 2017.

The pursuer attempted to remain neutral to the dispute, however on 14 November 2017 he attended a meeting with Mr O’Neill in which he perceived that his line manager was unhappy that he had a continued friendship with Ms McGorm, rather than him having any concerns about his work. The following day he was absent from work, and after consulting his GP he was certified as unfit for work due to stress until 2 January 2018.

On 16 November 2017 the pursuer lodged a grievance with the defender complaining about Mr O’Neill’s attitude towards him. The defender’s internal grievance procedure was delayed due to Mr O’Neill going on long term sick leave, and in June 2018 the pursuer was signed off work due to hypertension. In March 2019, the pursuer received a letter from his new line manager, George Allan, which made reference to the grievance being closed. The pursuer averred that this caused him additional upset as he considered it to be on pause until he was fit and well again.

It was submitted for the pursuer that the defender had failed to follow protocol in relation to the grievances he had raised, which were the ultimate cause of his injury. For the defender it was submitted that nothing had been said in evidence that suggested that the pursuer remained unwell after returning from sick leave in January 2018, nor was there sufficient evidence to establish that he had been suffering from a psychiatric disorder prior to his diagnosis in 2022.

All appropriate steps

In his decision, Sheriff Nicol said of the defender’s knowledge of the pursuer’s condition: “Prior to being certified as unfit for work in December 2018 due to stress at work and voicing his concerns that his grievance had not been handled in accordance with proper procedures, there was nothing to alert the defender that a foreseeable psychological injury would befall the pursuer due to not handling his grievance appropriately.”

He continued: “That is no doubt partly because the pursuer was accepting of the fact that the grievance would take some time to resolve and was not attributing any blame on the part of the defender for delays in reverting to him until he became aware in December 2018 that the grievance had not been processed.”

Noting that the position changed in December 2018, Sheriff Nicol said: “From 31 December 2018 the defender, in the main, took all appropriate steps except in relation to Mr Allan writing to the pursuer in March and May 2019 to say the grievance was closed. That conduct amounted to a breach of duty on the part of the defender which created a foreseeable risk of injury.”

However, based on the available evidence he concluded: “No medical evidence is available to the court, to allow the court to conclude that the pursuer’s psychological condition is wholly or partly attributable to any breach of duty between 31 December 2018 and 1st August 2019. The medical evidence can only be relied upon to confirm that the pursuer was suffering from a psychological injury in 2022 and 2024. It does not permit the court to form a view that the breach of duty in 2019 caused or materially contributed to the pursuer developing the Adjustment Disorder.”

Having found that the defender was not liable to make reparations to the pursuer, the case was dismissed and the defender assoilzied.