Employment – Work Related Stress – Employer’s Liability
In the recent case of Intel Corporation (UK) Ltd v Daw [2007], the Court of Appeal rejected an employer's appeal from a High Court decision that it was liable for the personal injury suffered by its employee as a result of work-related stress. The claimant was employed by the defendant and had a heavy workload in late 2000 and early 2001, and had made many representations about the amount of work she was required to do and the problems caused by her three managers.
She believed her three managers were pulling her in different directions, which made her working life difficult. In March 2001, one of the managers found the claimant in tears at her desk and asked her to put in writing what was bothering her. She drafted a detailed email in which she said that she could not sustain her current level of work, was under stress and was considering leaving because of those two factors.
She stayed at her position on an assurance that another employee would be recruited to assist with her workload, however, no such appointment was made. The claimant was signed off work by her GP in June and attempted suicide the day after leaving the office. She brought proceedings for damages for personal injury.
The judge found that, by the time the claimant had the conversation with her manager, the defendant ought to have known that the demands on her were totally unreasonable and that the risk of harm to her health was clear. He was also of the opinion that the provision of a counselling service by the defendant did not discharge its duty of care because its use in the instant case could not have ameliorated that risk or helped the claimant to cope with it. He concluded that the claimant would not have suffered the severity of depression that she had if urgent and appropriate action had been taken by the defendant after the claimant’s conversation with her manager.
The claimant was awarded damages and the defendant appealed to the Court of Appeal against its liability.
The defendant argued that its provision of counselling services was sufficient to discharge its duty of care, and that had that service been used, the urgency of the situation would have become clear to it. The defendant relied on previous authority that an employer who provided counselling or treatment services ‘was unlikely to be found in breach of duty’.
The appeal was dismissed. It was held that:-
§ Previous authority did not render the availability of counselling services a ‘cure-all’ by which employers could discharge their duty of care in all cases.
§ The considerable amount of helpful guidance in the previous authority did not preclude the trial judge from either conducting a vigorous fact-finding exercise or deciding which parts of that guidance were relevant to the particular circumstances.
§ the judge had been entitled to find that, by early March, injury to the claimant’s health was reasonably foreseeable and that the defendant’s failure to take urgent and appropriate action caused the severity of the depression that had occurred.
§ the situation would not have been avoided by the provision of a counselling service which might have highlighted to the defendant that action was required.
If you require further information please contact us at enquiries@rtcoopers.com or Visit http://www.rtcoopers.com/practice_employment.php
© RT COOPERS, 2007. This Briefing Note does not provide a comprehensive or complete statement of the law relating to the issues discussed nor does it constitute legal advice. It is intended only to highlight general issues. Specialist legal advice should always be sought in relation to particular circumstances.
