Afterwards a number of guests retired to the nearby Hilton Hotel where they had rooms for the night. Some of that group continued drinking into the early hours of the morning when a dispute arose between the company’s managing director, John Major, and a sales manager, Clive Bellman. In an unprovoked attack Mr Major struck Mr Bellman twice and with such force that his subordinate fell to the floor, where he hit his head and fell unconscious. Mr Bellman suffered serious brain damage as a result.

Mr Major was arrested for assault, but the criminal case did not proceed after Mr Bellman refused to press charges. At the time Mr Bellman said he could not believe it had been Mr Major’s intention to harm a childhood friend.

The question for the High Court to decide was whether Northampton Recruitment, as the employer of Mr Major, should be vicariously liable for his assault on Mr Bellman. The High Court applied the ‘close connection’ test by which the company would be liable for Mr Major’s actions if his misconduct was found to be so closely connected with the work he was employed to do that it could be said that he had been acting in the ordinary course of his employment.

The High Court acknowledged that as Mr Major was the managing director of Northampton Recruitment he had a wide range of duties, including discretion as to expenditure. However, despite the liberty enjoyed by Mr Major in that role, the High Court decided he could not be regarded as being always on duty even when in the presence of other company staff or discussing work matters.

The High Court accordingly decided that there was insufficient connection between the position in which Mr Major was employed and the assault to make it right for the Northampton Recruitment to be held liable. Our report on this judgment can be found here.

Mr Bellman appealed the decision.

The Court of Appeal effectively reversed the High Court’s decision. It found that there was a sufficiently close connection between Mr Major’s job as managing director and the assault to make it fair that Northampton Recruitment should be liable for his actions.

Key to the court’s decision was the very wide remit given to Mr Major in his role as the company’s managing director. It noted that the company was small, Mr Major had responsibility for all management decisions and he would have seen the maintenance of managerial authority as a central part of his role. The Court of Appeal viewed the afterparty discussion that preceded the fight as a means of Mr Major asserting his authority. The assault was a similar exercise of authority, albeit that by doing so Mr Major misused the position entrusted to him.

“He chose to wear his metaphorical managing director’s hat and to [...]]]> http://lawandlabour.com/recruitment-company-liable-for-managers-fight-at-christmas-afterparty/feed/ 0 http://lawandlabour.com/fight-at-xmas-afterparty/ http://lawandlabour.com/fight-at-xmas-afterparty/#comments Thu, 22 Dec 2016 18:19:23 +0000 http://lawandlabour.com/?p=2412 The defendant in the case, Northampton Recruitment, was a franchise business recruiting commercial drivers for temporary work. In December 2011, the company held its annual Christmas party at a golf club in Northamptonshire. The party passed without incident.

Afterwards a number of guests retired to the nearby Hilton Hotel where they had rooms for the night. Some of that group continued drinking into the early hours of the morning when a dispute arose between the company’s managing director, John Major, and a sales manager, Clive Bellman. In an unprovoked attack Mr Major struck Mr Bellman twice and with such force that his subordinate fell to the floor, where he hit his head and fell unconscious. Mr Bellman suffered serious brain damage as a result.

Mr Major was arrested for assault, but the criminal case did not proceed after Mr Bellman refused to press charges. At the time Mr Bellman said he could not believe it had been Mr Major’s intention to harm a childhood friend.

The question for the High Court to decide was whether Northampton Recruitment, as the employer of Mr Major, should be vicariously liable for his assault on Mr Bellman. The High Court applied the ‘close connection’ test by which the company would be liable for Mr Major’s actions if his misconduct was found to be so closely connected with the work he was employed to do that it could be said that he had been acting in the ordinary course of his employment.

The High Court acknowledged that as Mr Major was the managing director of Northampton Recruitment he had a wide range of duties, including discretion as to expenditure. However, despite the liberty enjoyed by Mr Major in that role, this did not mean that he was to be regarded as being always on duty even when in the presence of other company staff or discussing work matters.

The High Court drew a line between the activities that took place at the Christmas party and the spontaneous post-party drinks at the hotel. The Court found that the Christmas party was clearly connected to Mr Major’s employment because there was an expectation that employees would attend the party, while the early-morning drinking session was beyond the scope of his employment as attendance there was voluntary. This was the Court’s finding despite the altercation stemming from work-related matters and the company footing the bill for the drinks.

“…there was insufficient connection between the position in which Mr Major was employed and the assault to make it right for the Defendant to be held liable…” High Court

The High Court’s decision shows the importance of the time and place at which the misconduct occurred to the finding of vicarious liability. Had the altercation taken place at the Christmas party, then the company would likely have been found liable for its director’s actions. In any event, an employee who instigates a fight may face criminal prosecution, which could have serious and long-term negative consequences for their career, in addition to internal disciplinary proceedings [...]]]> http://lawandlabour.com/fight-at-xmas-afterparty/feed/ 0 http://lawandlabour.com/five-tips-for-handling-fighting-in-the-workplace/ http://lawandlabour.com/five-tips-for-handling-fighting-in-the-workplace/#comments Sun, 23 Oct 2016 18:02:14 +0000 http://lawandlabour.com/?p=2369 Workplace disagreements are commonplace, but it is thankfully rare for them to escalate into the type of conduct best suited to a boxing ring. However, should the worst happen and two employees end up trading blows, there are five tips that employers should bear in mind.

As tempting as it might be to sack the offending employees and get the matter over with quickly, you should avoid making rash decisions based on assumptions which cannot be backed up by convincing evidence.

The best course of action is to carry out a full investigation before deciding on the appropriate penalty. Meet with each party and get their version of events. If one person has been accused of being the aggressor, they should still have the chance to answer the case against them and put forward any mitigation.

On some occasions the fight may be sufficiently serious to result in police involvement. However, there is no need for the employer to wait for the outcome of criminal proceedings before taking action, as long as it has carried out its own investigation that is fair and reasonable in all the circumstances.

The offending employees are likely to give differing accounts of what took place. Witness evidence will therefore be key to deciding on guilt.

One complication is that an employee who is under police investigation might not wish to speak about the fight if to do so could lead them to incriminate themselves in the criminal proceedings. This may hinder your ability to get useful evidence from that person.

It is not uncommon for one party to end up the loser in a workplace battle. Does that naturally make them the innocent party who should therefore get a lighter penalty? Not necessarily. You should therefore avoid treating one party more favourably than the other unless the evidence strongly indicates that the offenders’ conduct was not sufficiently similar.

You should consider whether the evidence is sufficient to determine who was responsible for the fight. If not, then both offenders should receive similar disciplinary sanctions.

Employers should be alert to the potential risk of harm to the company’s reputation caused by the altercation, both within the business and externally. The worst case scenario is that news of the fight reaches the press causing negative publicity that has an adverse impact on the company’s business.

Even if news of the fight does not leave the business, it may still have a detrimental effect on workplace relations. It is therefore useful following an altercation to send a circular to staff with a warning that any fighting, whether on work premises or at work-related social activities away from the office, will result in severe disciplinary penalties, including dismissal. Such warnings will hopefully make any employee think twice before he invites a colleague to step outside and handle a dispute “mano a mano”.