BT staff settle in repetitive strain case
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.A COURT case with implications for millions of employees who work with computers has been abandoned and settled out of court, writes Barrie Clement.
Eleven former data processing staff who suffered from Repetitive Strain Injury (RSI) associated with operating keyboards, have accepted varying ex gratia payments from British Telecom, understood to be about pounds 10,000.
The agreement between the company and the National Communications Union means the legal action has failed to set a precedent for other workers believed to be suffering from RSI. Without admitting liability BT also paid the union's costs.
The case was due before the Court of Appeal this week following a Mayors and City of London County Court judgment 18 months ago which found that their workstations in Swindon and Cardiff in the early 1980s were 'in breach of requirements'. The court awarded pounds 6,000 each to two women involved in test cases. However, the court found that although the keyboard operation was partly to blame, management was not negligent and was not aware of the danger at the time.
In this week's appeal court hearing, management was to contest that BT was in any way liable. The union was to argue against the judgment that BT was not negligent.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments