You must have Credits on your Balance to download this sample
Finance & Accounting
Pages 14 (3514 words)
Question 1 A. Ben The House of Lords’ decision in Majrowski v Guy’s and St. Thomas NHS Trust establishes that an employer is vicariously liable for workplace bullying or harassment by one employee of another.1 Therefore Ben is at liberty to pursue a claim against X Ltd.
Despite a formal warning, the harassment continued. The fact is, an employer can be vicariously liable even if the employer is not aware of the harassment leading to psychiatric injury.2 Since Ben can substantiate harassment for which the employer is vicarious liable under the House of Lords’ interpretation of the Protection from Harassment Act 19973, Ben will have to prove that the harassment took place in the course of employment. An employer can only be held vicariously liable for the conduct of an employee during the course of employment.4 In this regard, the Salmond test is instructive. The Salmond test provides that: An employer will be liable not only for a wrongful act of an employee that he has authorized, but also for a wrongful and unauthorised mode of doing some act authorised by the master.5 It can be inferred that since Ben complained in the past and Amir’s harassment only intensified, X Ltd. authorized the harassment and therefore Ben will be able to meet the definition of the Salmond test. As Lord Millett stated, the Salmond test would act as a guide for applying the law to different facts and circumstances.6 Vicarious liability under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 broadens the Salmond test in that the employee need only be acting during work hours and in the workplace.7 Moreover, it was established in Jones v Tower Boot Co. ...
Not exactly what you need?