Counselling insufficient for addressing Workplace Stress

On the 7th February 2007 the Court of Appeal upheld a decision that a payroll analyst be paid £135,545 in damages as a result of her suffering a breakdown at work due to the pressures of the job, despite the company offering counselling provision to address workplace stress.

Tracy Ann Daw, a former employee of the Intel Corporation, suffered the breakdown in 2001 as a result of her having to undertake the workload of two members of staff. She was working 60 hours per week, and had to undertake further work at her home. Daw had stated at the original trial, that she had made numerous representations to her employer regarding her workload. She had highlighted the problems she was encountering in an email to her manager, which also included a request for an extra member of staff to help with the amount of work she had.

The issues highlighted in the email were not adequately addressed and subsequently Daw's health deteriorated and in March 2001 she was found in tears at her desk. Intel argued that Daw had not taken advantage of their counselling provision and medical assistance and had she done so then the magnitude of the problem would have become apparent. However, Lord Justice Pill said that the provisions of such services were not a "panacea" by which employers could discharge their duty of care.
 
Employers have duties under the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 to assess the risk of stress-related ill health arising from work activities and implement adequate controlled measures. The Daw ruling means that an employer's provision of counselling services and medical  assistance for staff will not be sufficient in protecting them against claims made in relation to stress-related ill health.