|
Ask Employment Law |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Remember: There is no substitute for legal advice on the actual
situation you find yourself in. The information posted on this site is for
general information only, is based on |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question: |
Can I bring a claim
under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997? |
|
|
|
|
Answer: |
The
Protection from Harassment Act was originally brought in to force to combat
the likes of stalkers and similar pests. However
subsequent case law suggests that the Act may be invoked to protect employees
against harassment by employers. For the employee, this may have several
advantages: 1.
The employee does not have to resign in order to bring a claim
(as would be the case if bringing a constructive dismissal claim) 2.
The employee can claim distress and anxiety caused by the harassment
(which is not the case in unfair dismissal claims). 3.
The harassment does not have to relate to the victim’s sex,
race, disability, sexual orientation or religious belief, as would be the
case if bringing a claim of unlawful discrimination. 4.
A claim under the Act will be brought in the Civil Courts, for
which there is a longer limitation period than in the Employment Tribunal To
claim under the act the treatment must: (a)
occur on at least two occasions; (b)
be targeted at the claimant; (c)
be calculated in an objective sense to cause alarm or distress; and (d) be objectively judged to be oppressive and
unreasonable (e) give rise to criminal liability. Intention
is irrelevant. All that is required is that the conduct occurs in
circumstances where a reasonable person would realise that harassment would
be its effect. In 2006 in Majrowski v Guy's & St Thomas's NHS Trust the
House of Lords held that employees can use the Protection from Harassment Act
1998 to claim damages from the employer if a colleague bullies or harasses
them. Guidance
has also been given in the case of Banks v Ablex Ltd 2005 in which a woman
who alleged she had been shouted and sworn at by a male colleague made an
unsuccessful claim under the Protection from Harassment Act. In Banks, the
Court of Appeal emphasized that to contravene the Act, there must be a course
of intentional conduct which amounts to harassment. Misconduct on one
occasion only is not sufficient. There must be a course of conduct extending
over two or more occasions. Unfortunately for Ms Banks, she’d only been sworn
and shouted at on one occasion! In
Veakins v Keir Islington Ltd 2009 the Court of Appeal held that when deciding
whether the conduct complained of constitutes harassment, the primary focus
is on whether the conduct is oppressive
and unacceptable, although the Court must still consider whether it is
sufficiently serious to amount to criminal liability (as per Majrowski). In
this case Ms Veakins, told the Court that she was a usually robust woman who
had been victimised and demoralised by her supervisor and became clinically
depressed. The Court took the view that this conduct was indeed oppressive
and unreasonable and was sufficient to establish criminal liability. See
our page on injury to
feelings in discrimination claims Last
updated: July 2010. |
|
|
|
|
Employment
Solicitor Reculver Solicitors Tel
0207 324 6271 Regulated
by the Solicitors Regulation Authority ©
Reculver Solicitors. 2005- |
|