Delaney v Central Bank of Ireland [2011]

  • Case Reference
    [2011] IEHC 212
  • Legal Body
    High Court of Ireland (IEHC)
  • Type of Claim / Jurisdiction
    Contracts of Employment, Policies and Procedures
Issues covered: Fair Procedure; Medical Assessment

The Plaintiff, who had made a complaint against colleagues for bullying which was not upheld, was sent to a consultant psychiatrist for medical assessment by the Bank arising out of its concerns for the Plaintiff’s mental health. The Bank’s psychiatrist, Dr. Mohan, found that the Plaintiff was not fit for work. Although the Plaintiff’s psychiatrist’s (Dr. Lane) opinion differed, the Bank would not permit the employee to return to work and as a compromise requested the Plaintiff to attend for further assessment by a third psychiatrist. The Plaintiff took a claim to the High Court for breach of contract including the implied duty of trust and confidence, beach of the Plaintiff’s right to earn a livelihood etc. The alleged wrongdoings committed by the Bank included, amongst other things, excluding the Plaintiff from the workforce on the basis of Dr. Mohan’s report without allowing him the opportunity to rebut its contents and despite the Plaintiff’s doctor’s opinion that he was fit for work; improperly seeking to influence Dr. Mohan in the compilation of his report; failing to furnish information to the Plaintiff which was furnished to Dr. Mohan; and allowing persons against whom complaints had been made by the Plaintiff to make decisions regarding the referral of the Plaintiff to Dr. Mohan etc. The Bank’s defence was that it had acted fairly, properly and reasonably as a responsible employer would act and that it was fully entitled to take the actions that it took. The Plaintiff’s contract of employment provided that the Bank could at its discretion refer any member of staff to its Medical Advisor. The Court held that the Bank was in breach of fair procedure in failing to furnish the Plaintiff with all documentation provided by way of brief to the consultant psychiatrist and by providing the psychiatrist with notes prepared by the employee who was referred to as the protagonist in the bullying case. Further, that “the source of the material was infected by a real likelihood of partiality or bias”. The decision made by the Bank not to allow the Plaintiff to return to work affected the Plaintiff’s rights and therefore, the process leading to this decision ought to have been conducted in accordance with fair procedure. The Court made no ruling on the entitlement of the Bank to send the Plaintiff for assessment for fitness to work to Dr. Mohan (on the basis of legal advice as opposed to medical advice). This was on the basis that the Plaintiff, with the benefit of independent legal advice, had agreed to attend Dr. Mohan and this, in the Court’s view, precluded the Plaintiff from contending that the Bank acted without reasonable and proper cause. Guidance * Ensure the company’s policies are clear and unequivocal in relation to the entitlement to send an employee for fitness to work medicals, either to an occupational doctor or a psychiatrist and that the employee gives their written to consent to same and to the company’s medical practitioner liaising with the employee’s doctor. * Decide in advance the reason for sending an employee for medical assessment:- i) fitness to work assessment; ii) to assess injuries in the context of PI proceedings; or iii) both. * If the assessment is for i) fitness to work assessment, ensure that the brief to the company medical practitioner is impartial and simply states the facts and instructions to the doctor and share the brief and the report with the employee to ensure compliance with fair procedures. Ensure that all communication with the company doctor is shared with the employee and would not be subject to a claim of bias. If the employee’s doctor’s opinion differs to the employee’s doctor, the employer should consider whether it is appropriate to appoint a third doctor (agreed between the parties) to conduct an assessment or whether the company doctor and the employee’s doctor can arrive at a mutually agreeable position after consultation. * If the assessment is for ii) to assess injuries in the context of PI proceedings, the employer can claim privilege over the brief to the doctor as long as the correspondence is for the dominant purpose of actual or contemplated litigation. * If the assessment is for iii) both a fitness to work assessment and to assess injuries in the context of personal injuries proceedings, the employer should proceed with care as it will be difficult to assess what is the “dominant purpose” in the context of privilege. The employer may wish to consider issuing the doctor with two separate briefs and asking for separate reports for the fitness to work assessment and for the PI claim or the employer may wish to consider briefing two separate doctors so that the privileged material can be separated.

The Plaintiff, who had made a complaint against colleagues for bullying which was not upheld, was sent to a consultant psychiatrist for medical assessment by the Bank arising out of its concerns for the Plaintiff’s mental health. The Bank’s psychiatrist, Dr. Mohan, found that the Plaintiff was not fit for work. Although the Plaintiff’s psychiatrist’s (Dr. Lane) opinion differed, the Bank would not permit the employee to return to work and as a compromise requested the Plaintiff to attend for further assessment by a third psychiatrist.

The Plaintiff took a claim to the High Court for breach of

Already a subscriber?

Click here to login and access the full article.

Don't miss out, start your free trial today!

Are you fully aware of the benefits of Legal-Island's Irish Employment Law Hub? We help thousands of people like you understand how the latest changes in Irish employment law impact your business through a mix of case law analysis and in-depth articles. All delivered right to your inbox.

We help you to understand the ramifications of each important case from Ireland and Europe.

We help you ensure that your organisation's policies and procedures are fully compliant with Irish law.

You will receive regular updates on Irish employment law including case law reviews, legislative changes, topical updates as well as answers to your burning questions through our Q&A feature.

You will have 24/7 access to the Employment Law Hub so you can research case law and HR issues when you need to.

Already a subscriber, now or Start my free trial today

This article is correct at 10/10/2012
Disclaimer:

The information in this article is provided as part of Legal-Island's Employment Law Hub. We regret we are not able to respond to requests for specific legal or HR queries and recommend that professional advice is obtained before relying on information supplied anywhere within this article.

Natasha Canniffe
McCann FitzGerald

The main content of this article was provided by Natasha Canniffe. Contact telephone number is +353 1 611 9138 or email natasha.canniffe@mccannfitzgerald.ie

View all articles by Natasha Canniffe