A bank teller in a major bank was involved in a hold up and had a gun pointed at her head. The bank had just received a delivery of money. Bank procedure was that the guards placed bags of cash on the counter. A teller would lift them onto the floor then put them in the safe. This was done in full view of the public using the bank.

After the incident, the bank teller suffered a disabling depression, which ultimately led to her dismissal. She sued, claiming that her injuries resulted from the bank's negligence in failing to provide a safer system of work.

On appeal, it was found that a bank has a duty to take reasonable care of its employees, including protecting them should a robbery be attempted, and that a bank should expect that robberies may be attempted from time to time. At least the bank should have provided the protection of a security guard while the teller had possession of the cash, prior to it being deposited in the vault. The bank was ordered to pay damages.

In another case, a senior worker brought an action against his employers after having to return to work during a bitter waterfront dispute.

The company had locked out and subsequently dismissed a number of its employees, predominantly union members. In the middle of the dispute, a vessel was expected to berth and Mr V. was informed that, along with other employees, he would have to return to work.

The Court found that a major confrontation with union members was inevitable and that if workers were brought onto the site they would be at risk of suffering physical or psychological harm. In the event, the workers were brought in for several days on a terrifying bus journey, through a barrage of abuse and thrown objects. Whenever the bus stopped it was shaken and men jumped on the roof, hitting it with baseball bats. Threats were also made to Mr V. and his family.

The Court found that if the company had had due regard for the safety of its employees, it would never have requested them to go to work in these circumstances. It had not fulfilled its duty of care and Mr V. was awarded damages.

Reproduced from In Touch With The Law, published by the Law Society of NSW