However, Supreme Court did not find the employer legally responsible
The Supreme Court of Victoria recently dealt with the case of an employee who claimed his employer subjected him to unreasonable and excessive workloads, which contributed to his psychiatric injury. The employer, however, argued that it took the necessary steps to resolve the employee’s issues, especially concerning his risk of injury, asserting that it acted upon its duty of care.
Background of the case
The worker was employed as a woodwork teacher at Williamstown High School since 2006. The court’s decision noted that the employee suffered from panic attacks and had been diagnosed with a major depressive disorder and chronic anxiety.
“He claims that these debilitating conditions were caused by, or aggravated by, the negligence of his employer and commenced a proceeding in the County Court seeking damages,” the court said.
In 2014, the worker experienced three changes in his workload, according to the court. Firstly, his class size increased from 22 to 25 students, and he claimed that the woodwork room was unsafe for 25 students. Secondly, he had two “challenge classes” compressed into two periods that involved special projects such as boat building and skateboard laminating.
The third change included the retirement of a part-time teacher who assisted the employee with his workload. Hence, the worker was required to teach six periods straight. With the absence of the part-time teacher, the employee found it very difficult to adjust and said that it took an “incredible toll” on his “nervous system.”
“The applicant’s case was that the respondent breached its duty of care by requiring him to teach full-time a class of 25 students in the woodworking classroom that was available,” the court said. “He said that reasonable steps to avoid the risk of injury included reducing the applicant’s class size to 22.”
The employee also contended that his employer should have replaced the part-time teacher as well as directed him to take “stress leave.”
The court’s findings
Although the worker claimed his employer was negligent in its responsibility, the court favoured the employer and said that the school took reasonable steps to avoid the risk of psychiatric injury. As a general standard, the workload imposed by the employer was reasonable, and it did not pose a risk to the mental health of teachers, according to the court.
“First, the work and workload that the [employee] was required to undertake were not inherently dangerous to the mental health of the employees,” the court said.
Second, the employee voluntarily accepted that he could safely teach 22 students full-time at that time, and the court noted that he was, after all, “not being asked to perform a duty that he could not safely undertake.”
Despite the worker’s adjustments, the court also said that the employer took significant steps to address the risk of harm to the employer.
“First, the employer took steps to address the physical constraints of the room, it hired a consultant to assess what could be done, and out of that work, some noise reduction panels were installed,” the court said.
“Second, the school offered some assistance,” and lastly, “the school offered a change to the composition of his subjects,” it said.
Hence, the court dismissed the case as it found no breach of duty of care on the employer’s part.
