Collins v First Quench Retailing Ltd, 31 January 2003,Court of Session, [2003] GWD126
Cook v Bradford Community Health NHS Trust, CA, 23 October 2002 [2002] EWCA Civ 1616
R v Merseycare NHS Trust,Ormskirk MC, 5 September 2002

Violence at work is a huge and ever increasing problem at many workplaces. It is more prevalent in the public sector - as anyone will tell you who has had the misfortune to visit an A&E department on a Friday night and witnessed the abuse that hospital staff suffer.

The HSE's definition of work related violence is:

"any incident in which a person is abused, threatened or assaulted in circumstances relating to their work" (Violence at Work, INDG 69 (rev) published by HSE in 2000) 
This covers not just actual physical assaults, but also verbal abuse and threats. It includes work related assaults and threats from members of the public, fellow employees, contractors, managers and others.

Given this problem, are employers expected to do anything about it?

Following the death of a social worker in 1986, the DHSS Advisory Committee on Violence to Staff was set up, chaired by Lord Skelmersdale. In his report of 1988 he said:

"Where violent incidents are foreseeable employers have a duty under Section 2 [of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974] to identify the nature and the extent of the risk and to devise measures which provide a safe workplace and a safe system of work."

A contract of employment imposes an obligation upon the employer to provide 'trust and support' to employees in performing their work. In Keys v Shoe Fayre Ltd [1978] IRLR 476 the employee, Keys, was required to take money to the bank. She was worried about being mugged as there had been a number of muggings in the area. She refused to go to the bank and was con-sequently sacked. It was held that the employer had failed in its obligation of trust and support: the employee's concerns had not been taken seriously nor had alternative methods of getting the money to the bank been explored. In these circumstances their had been a breach of contract.

In a personal injury case in Scotland, Collins v First Quench Retailing Ltd, an employee recovered £179,000 from her employers when the off-license she managed was robbed. 
Mrs Collins sued on the basis that her employers were at fault for failing to provide her with adequate protection from such an attack Under Regulation 3 of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, employers are required to carry out risk assessments of hazards in the workplace. Arguably the risk of violence is a hazard that has to be assessed like any other. Although the term risk assessment was not mentioned directly in the judgement, the judge considered what the risk was and, effectively, what control measures should have been in place.

The robbery took place in October 1998. Since 1977 there had been 13 reported crimes at the shop, including five thefts, one minor assault, one serious assault and one assault with intent to rob. There were two armed robberies in 1994 and four in 1996. There was an incident in November 1997 when one employee resigned after being threatened by a violent customer.

When Mrs Collins started in the shop she had been concerned about security and raised this with management. Her case was that there should have been security screens and/or double staffing.

The employers argued that the shop was not located in a "high risk" area and the number of incidents there was not "significantly higher" than other similar outlets in Edinburgh. They also said other shops suffered more serious incidents.

The judge did not find that there was a requirement upon the employers to have security screens but did find there should have been double staffing ie the client should not have been in the shop on her own. The question was whether this failure was causative. The judge ruled:

"...I hold the prospect of this robbery occurring would have been substantially diminished had there been double manning. [The employers] created a situation in which a robbery, or similar act of physical violence to staff, was much more likely too occur than if there had been double manning I am satisfied that the [employers'] failure to take reasonable care and introduce double manning materially increased the risk of a robbery of this type happening. I am accordingly satisfied [their] failure was a material cause of the incident, which resulted in [Mrs Collins'] condition."

In another personal injury claim, Cook v Bradford Community Health NHS Trust, the claimant, a healthcare assistant, was awarded compensation after being assaulted by a patient.

Ms Cook worked at a psychiatric hospital. She was taking cups of coffee to her colleagues in the 'seclusion suite' of a unit for violent patients. As she was delivering the coffee, a patient asked to go to the toilet. He was known by the hospital to be unstable, unpredictable and dangerous. While she was in the suite the door was opened allowing him to get out. He attacked Ms Cook and as a result she suffered severe psychiatric injuries.

The Court of Appeal said the defendants had a duty "not to place her unnecessarily in a position where there is a risk of foreseeable danger". The risk could have been avoided by not having the patient out of his room.

Employers can also face criminal prosecutions over workplace violence. On 5 September 2002, Ormskirk magistrates heard how a care worker was beaten un-conscious by a schizophrenic who threatened to kill her. Elizabeth Barrett was punched to the floor by the male patient after she had volunteered to take him on a caravan holiday in Cumbria. Her colleague, Mellissa Darby, was also elbowed in the face as she tried to restrain the man.

Mersey Care NHS Trust was found guilty of breaching the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 because it failed to carry out sufficient procedural checks. It was ordered to pay a fine of £12,000.

Large organisations often pay lip service to taking workplace violence as a serious issue. The reality is that although they might have an impressive strategy document and policy, at the coal face, employees are left to fend for themselves.

Many employers seem to think that workplace violence is a risk which employees should cope with alone. They are expected to use their experience and professional training to identify when they are at risk and then determine how to cope with it. In other words employers have handed the responsibility and management of the problem over to the employees.

Much of the risk of violence at work is foreseeable. It therefore can be assessed and prevented or, failing that, mitigated. Employers who do not adequately tackle the problem could find themselves on the wrong end of a compensation claim, or even worse, in the dock of a criminal court.