Articles
Customer violence against employees: not the employer’s problem?
20 Mar 2014 |
8 minute read
This website will offer limited functionality in this browser. We only support the recent versions of major browsers like Chrome, Firefox, Safari, and Edge.
Last month we looked at the case of Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets Plc, which dealt with whether an employer was vicariously liable for an employee's unprovoked attack on a customer. Mr Mohamud had visited a petrol station operated by the supermarket in 2008 and after making an innocent request of the kiosk operator, was subjected to racist abuse, and then to a violent and unprovoked assault.
In the Mohamud case the Court of Appeal found that the employer was not liable for its employee's actions. Although the unprovoked nature of the attack raises a number of issues for employers in regard to managing staff, it is also worth considering whether the situation would have been different if the situation was reversed and the attacker had been a member of the public. If Mr. Mohamud had been the aggressor, to what extent could the employer of the victim be held accountable for Mr Mohamud's actions?
The risk of violence or harassment from a third party can potentially affect any workplace. However, certain sectors (such as retail) are at higher risk given the increased level of face to face contact with the general public. So what should an employer do in order to protect its employees and to ensure that if an individual is harmed, it is not held accountable?
An employer has a duty to take reasonable care of the health, safety and welfare of its employees whilst they are at work. The employer must also take reasonable steps to provide a safe workplace and a safe system of work. These duties will extend to cover any risk of violence which an employee may face in the workplace, encompassing any acts which affect the physical or the mental wellbeing of the employee. Employers will therefore have to consider not only physical acts against an employee but also psychological and/or sexual acts.
The responsibility to take care of the health and safety of employees arises from a number of sources:
The Equality Act 2010 (the Equality Act) sets out rules, in addition to those responsibilities set out above, which would render employers liable in certain circumstances for the harassment of employees by third parties. These rules were repealed on 1 October 2013. However, even though the rules relating specifically to third party harassment are no longer in force, employees may still attempt to make a claim under the general harassment provisions in the Equality Act (for more information please see our article Third party harassment – gone but not forgotten). These provisions set out that it is unlawful harassment for a person to engage in unwanted conduct related to a relevant protected characteristic which has the purpose or effect of either violating the other's dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. However, whether an employee can claim that an employer's inaction when dealing with a third-party's conduct amounts to harassment is not entirely certain.
Whilst uncertainty surrounding third party harassment claims remains, as a matter of good practice, employers should do as much as possible to ensure that where any discriminatory or harassing behaviour is identified, steps are taken to stop such behaviour. Additionally, there may also be a risk that employees could claim indirect discrimination if employers have a practice of not addressing or challenging third party harassment and this puts groups of people at a disadvantage and cannot be objectively justified. As such, employers should not take a relaxed stance regarding discrimination, regardless of the source.
There is an implied term in contracts of employment that an employer will not, without reasonable and proper cause, conduct itself in a manner calculated and likely to destroy or seriously damage the relationship of trust and confidence between employer and employee. Employees who are subject to third party harassment and/or their employer failing to protect them from it could feasibly argue that the implied term of trust and confidence has been breached and this may entitle them to resign and claim constructive unfair dismissal against their employer.
All employers (and in particular employers in sectors which regularly deal with members of the public) must keep these obligations at the forefront of their mind. Steps should be put in place in order to ensure that employees are provided with a safe working environment to reduce the risk of incidents occurring in practice as well as the risk of claims being brought. We recommend that employers take the following steps to ensure that they comply with their obligations:
Although the duty to provide a safe working environment rests with the employer, the employees themselves play an important role in preventing violence in the workplace. An employer should therefore involve employees (and if relevant, trade unions) as much as possible when looking to put in place suitable protections.
An employee who is injured at work could bring a negligence claim if they can show that they have suffered a physical or psychological injury as a result of an employer's failure to comply with health and safety legislation and its duty of care. Although the employee may be able to bring a claim directly against the individual who caused them harm they may look to claim against their employer as the employer is likely to have greater resources to provide compensation to the employee.
As highlighted above, an employee may resign and claim constructive unfair dismissal and/or bring claims under the Equality Act (for harassment and/or for indirect discrimination).
Even if an employer's failure to provide a safe working environment does not manifest itself as a claim against the employer, an unsafe (or perceived unsafe) working environment may lead to greater absences and reduced productivity. It will also do little for staff morale and may hinder recruitment. As is always the case with employee relations, the emotions and perceptions of an employee could be an important factor in determining how they approach litigation (or if they choose to do so at all). If they feel that nothing has been done by the employer to protect their safety, they are more likely to feel that they have been treated poorly. Although an employer may be able to show that it took all reasonable steps to protect its employees, the most advantageous position is to never have a claim brought against it in the first place. It is therefore very important for staff morale (and the associated problems that will come with poor morale) that employees understand the steps that are being taken and perceive their workplace to be a safe one.
The reoccurring theme set out above is that an employer must take reasonable steps to ensure that an employee has a safe working environment and is kept from harm. Unfortunately, there is nothing that an employer can do to completely guarantee its employees' safety when dealing with third parties. However, by taking a sensible and pragmatic approach to employee safety, employers should be able to show that they have taken such reasonable steps as are necessary in order to minimise the risk of employees coming to harm.
In the event that an employee is injured, then as long as the employer has taken all reasonable steps to protect their safety, the employer will be in a strong position to defend itself against any claims made by the employee.
We would be happy to discuss steps to take to manage this issue with one of our retail solicitors. For more information please contact us.
