Veakins v Keir Islington Ltd – conduct must be “oppressive and unacceptable” to amount to “harassment” under 1997 Act

Court of Appeal – 02/12/2009

In a claim under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (which will be rare in matters concerning the workplace) the court must focus primarily on the requirement that the conduct complained of be “oppressive and unacceptable” (as against merely “unattractive, unreasonable or regrettable”), albeit that it should also bear in mind the authority that the conduct must be of an order that would sustain criminal liability.

Miss Veakins was a trainee electrician. She brought a claim in the County Court under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, arguing that although she was usually a robust woman her supervisor did not like her and so “made life hell for her”. She had been continually picked on and victimised and thus became clinically depressed. Crucially, in this particular case, none of these matters were challenged and so her evidence was accepted by the Recorder.

“… it is doubtful whether the legislature had the workplace in mind when passing an Act that was principally directed at “stalking” and similar cases. Nevertheless, there is nothing in the language of the Act which excludes workplace harassment. It should not be thought from this unusually one-sided case that stress at work will often give rise to liability for harassment. I have found the conduct in this case to be “oppressive and unacceptable” but I have done so in circumstances where I have also described it as “extraordinary”. I do not expect that many workplace cases will give rise to this liability. It is far more likely that, in the great majority of cases, the remedy for high-handed or discriminatory misconduct by or on behalf of an employer will be more fittingly in the Employment Tribunal.”

The appeal was allowed.

Related resources: employment policies | non harassment policy

Subscribe To Site:

Full Post Feed | Summary Feed | Comments Feed