Commercial team discussing issues Home | Stress in the workplace: reasons to be fearful

Stress in the workplace: reasons to be fearful

20 October 2008

Employers owe a duty of care to staff, and must do all they can to protect employees’ health and safety at work. This extends to protecting employees’ mental health. Employers failing to do so can be liable for unlimited damages for psychiatric injury.

With depression expected to be the second leading worldwide cause of disability by 2020, occupational stress is a topical and important issue to address.

A recent and important Court of Appeal decision, Dickins v O2, has rejected previous judicial guidance which allowed for damages for psychiatric injury to be reduced in relation to stress which had its cause outside the workplace.

It has now been suggested that psychiatric injury is truly undividable. Where an employer has been found liable for causing occupational stress, and this accounts for more than a minor contribution to the claimant’s psychiatric injury, the employer will be liable for the whole injury, rather than just a part.

In the Dickins case, Ms Dickins made repeated requests to her employer for a change in her role, or to be moved into a less stressful position. In March 2002 she was told there were no such roles currently available, and that the matter would be reviewed in three months.

By April 2002 Ms Dickins had become increasingly stressed, and requested a six month sabbatical from work. She was told her request for a sabbatical would be assessed and was referred to her employers’ counselling helpline. A month later she repeated her concerns and was eventually referred to an occupational health specialist. But prior to any appointment, Ms Dickins suffered a breakdown and was unable to return to work.

In an earlier Court of Appeal case, Hatton v Sutherland, the Court suggested that if an employer made available a form of confidential counselling service (such as the counselling helpline in this case), it would be difficult for them to be found to have breached their duty of care. However, recent case law has dispelled this notion and found that such services are insufficient in discharging an employer’s duty in its entirety.

It has always been the employer’s duty to monitor employees’ stress and to recognise when an employee is becoming unable to handle the normal stresses of the job – it has a positive duty to take steps to identify and address employees’ concerns.

Following the judgment in Dickins v O2 it is now absolutely clear that speed is of the essence, and employers must act as soon as they are aware of problems to ensure compliance with their duty of care.

Employers who get it wrong will now face a potentially much larger bill for damages where an employee suffers illness as a result of stress in the workplace. It is therefore essential that employers take seriously tell tale signs of stress, anxiety and depression in their employees.

© Shoosmiths. This page is for general information: it is not legal advice. Please read our full terms and conditions for details of the disclaimers and exclusions which apply.