Counselling is not enough if your employer knows your workload is making you ill.
“Court of Appeal upheld damages of £134,545.18 against the employer.”
A counselling service does not discharge your employer's duty of careA legal responsibility to take reasonable care to avoid causing someone harm. In an occupational health context, it matters because this duty is owed to your employer, not to you. if the real problem is your workload.
- Keep a written record of when you raised workload concerns and what, if anything, changed afterwards.
- Being offered counselling or an EAP is not the same as your employer fixing the underlying problem, and does not close off your options.
- If you have been signed off due to stress or depression linked to your workload, get advice on whether your employer's response met its legal duty of care.
The situation
An employee working in payroll integration had thirteen years' service and a good record. After a promotion, her workload increased sharply, her reporting lines became confused, and she found herself caught between competing demands from different managers with no one resolving the priorities. She raised concerns about the volume of work over several months. Management drafted in two extra staff, but the added headcount changed little in practice. In June 2001 she suffered a breakdown caused by chronic depression brought on by the excessive workload.
What the court found
Liability stood: the Court of Appeal agreed with the High Court that the employer was at fault. The demands placed on the employee were unreasonable, and the risk to her health was clear. Applying the guidance in Hatton v Sutherland, the court held that this guidance did not excuse a detailed, fact-specific look at what actually happened. It rejected the idea that an employee who keeps working through excessive stress, rather than resigning, automatically loses the right to claim. The court went further on the counselling point: a counselling service, it said, was no substitute for tackling the workload itself, and offering one did not satisfy the employer's duty of care. Damages of £134,545.18 were upheld, including compensation for future loss of earnings.
Court of Appeal · 2007 · Workload, stress and the duty of care