Related posts:No related photos. Previous Article Next Article This month’s news in briefHurdles in stress at work claims Osborne argued that her employer had imposed an excessive burden of work onher which was consequently in breach of the implied term of mutual trust andconfidence, entitling her to resign. The EAT considered in detail the Court ofAppeal case in Sutherland v Hatton. The EAT confirmed that in order to succeed in a ‘stress claim’ before atribunal, an employee still needs to overcome the hurdles established in Sutherlandv Hatton and establish the risk of injury was foreseeable, the employer was inbreach of their duty, and that breach of duty caused the harm. To succeed in aconstructive dismissal claim, however, the employee had to go one stage furtherand also establish that the breach was a fundamental breach of the contract ofemployment. Marshall Specialist Vehicles Limited v Osborne EAT Foul and abusive language is breach of trust and confidence Having reported on the Cantor Fitzgerald case, it is worth also drawingattention to this case. The EAT again had to consider whether highly abusivelanguage was sufficient to amount to a fundamental breach of the implied termof mutual trust and confidence. The tribunal, in the first instance, found in favour of Neyrfor andconsidered that the defendant’s language did not amount to a breach. The EATdrew a distinction between what language may be commonly used on oilrigs andwhat may be common in boardrooms. The EAT said the tribunal’s judgment that thelanguage was not a breach of contract was ‘wholly flawed’. Ogilvy v Neyrfor-Weir Limited – EAT in briefOn 1 Sep 2003 in Personnel Today Comments are closed.