Workplace stress - The worth of diligence

With job losses being announced on a daily basis, those left in employment may be fearful of being made redundant themselves; employers cannot underestimate the likelihood of workplace pressures increasing. The recent stress at work case of Dickins v O2 has now added to the responsibilities of brokers - as employers themselves - and their clients in managing workplace stress.

Mrs Dickins' job involved preparing management and regulatory accounts and a quarterly audit; she was psychiatrically vulnerable and found undertaking an audit in February 2002 "extremely stressful". On 11 March 2002, she asked for a less stressful job. Because there were no vacancies, she was told that the matter would be reviewed in three months and thereafter she was repeatedly late for work.

On 23 April 2002, she requested a six-month sabbatical, stating that she was stressed, struggling to rise from her bed to arrive at work on time and that she did not know how long she could carry on before being off sick. She was advised to access O2's confidential counselling helpline and told further that her sabbatical request would be considered.

At her annual appraisal in late May 2002, she repeated her concerns and was referred to occupational health, albeit with some delay. However, before any appointment was fixed, she suffered a breakdown and never returned to work.

The Court of Appeal concluded that psychiatric injury was reasonably foreseeable from 23 April 2002 onwards. There was sufficient indication of impending harm to Mrs Dickins' health, given the description of the seriousness of her symptoms, and the fact that she had been mentioning difficulties over a period of time was significant because she was usually a conscientious employee.

The Court of Appeal found that the employer had breached its duty in not sending her home with an immediate referral to occupational health.

All cases of workplace stress require some management intervention and it is unlikely that offering a confidential counselling service will be enough to exonerate an employer. Departing from the position established in Hatton v Sutherland (2002) that the employee is best placed to decide if they should continue to work, some responsibility now passes to the employer.

Deciding whether or not to allow someone to work, or to send them home, will be difficult for employers and will need to be done in conjunction with a review of workloads and the provision of additional help for the employee. Liaison with the employee's general practitioner and occupational health may be critical. Employers will need to consider all the options when an employee expresses a difficulty in coping.

Rachel Dineley, partner, employment and pensions group and Dorothy Sproule, associate, injury risk group, Beachcroft.