re have a liability in case his or her employee suffers from any psychiatric illness because of working under stressful conditions as the discussion below portrays.
A stressful working environment is definitely unconducive thus not productive. Creating a conducive working environment in not only a motivational technique used by employers to enhance productivity but is also a basic right for every employer. Recruiting employees to a position requires that an employer consider the professional maturity of the employees thus his ability to handle the stress that may arise from the job. For an employee to contract a psychiatric condition because of working in stressful working environment the employer is arguably liable for either causing the stress or negligence both of which are provable forms of a breach on duty of care.
The application of duty of care in England requires key specific features. These include the existence of a “reasonable foreseeable” result of the employer. An employee working in a stressful is defiantly foreseeable. Such employees are likely to complain to their employees characterized with instances of underperformance. With such signs, an accommodative employer should either replace an employee or improve the working condition by addressing the concerns of the employees with the view to preventing any form of psychiatric breakdowns. When such features of the workplace persists to the point of an employee acquiring a psychiatric disorder, then the employer is liable for breaching the duty of care since they failed to care for the safety and health of their employees.
Secondly, the English common law requires a plaintiff to prove proximity with the defendant (BAILEY, 2005). The scope of application of the duty of care dictates that the law is applicable even in cases where the two are far apart. The relationship between an employer and an employee for example is always intimate. An employee is part of the resources belonging to the