Reactions on Landmark Stress Judgement

Reactions have flooded in following the Tuesday’s landmark Court ruling on payouts to workers unable carry out their jobs through stress. Three workers who had previously been awarded nearly £200,000 in compensation were left with nothing as a judge overturned their decisions at the Court of Appeal, while a fourth man held on to his award of £150,000 as his case was upheld.

The rulings mark a turning point in the way cases of work-related stress are treated by the courts. The HSC has been indicating for some time that stress in the workplace is an issue that employers should be prioritising. It has just been announced that stress will be the issue around which the European Week for Safety and Health will be focused later this year.

When interpreting previous cases of alleged work-related stress, the courts had expected employers to recognise that some occupations might cause workers to be more vulnerable to stress, and that the employers themselves should effectively go out of their way to identify the early signs of stress in workers. Many employers have considered this to be a ‘walking on egg shells’ approach which has clearly not been effective, given the recent rise in stress payouts.

Reversing this previous interpretation at the Appeal Court, Lady Justice Hale took what employers have claimed as a pragmatic view of managing stress, putting the onus on the employee:

"If there is no alternative solution, it has to be for the employee to decide whether or not to carry on in the same employment and take the risk of a breakdown in his health or whether to leave that employment and look for work elsewhere before he becomes unemployable."

As reported by the Workplacelaw Network, the judgement also noted that employers offering a counselling service to stressed workers were unlikely to be found in breach of their statutory duty by the courts.

Reaction from the TUC emphasised the positive news for workers: "Unions will certainly make sure that employers know that they must assess the risks of stressful occupations. We will make sure our members know that the Court of Appeal has urged them not to suffer in silence but get their complaints about bullying, overwork, inadequate training and unrealistic deadlines on record."

This document is for general guidance and research purposes only, and does not purport to give professional advice. Please check the date at the top of the article; the Workplace Law Network retains historic articles for general research.