Stress and the court appeal ruling

Claims brought against employers for stress-related injury are rising fast. In 2000, 516 stress-related claims were made, according to the Trades Union Congress; last year the number increased twelvefold to 6,428 claims.

But, in February 2002, the Court of Appeal made an important ruling that could help to stem this tide. After overturning three of the four work-related stress compensation claims brought before it, the judges clarified the position of both employers and employees with regard to the issue of stress in the workplace.

Their guidelines offer employees a clear and fair benchmark as to when they will be considered liable for stress related injures to their employees' health. They state that, as no occupation can be regarded as intrinsically dangerous to mental health, employers should normally be able to expect their employees to cope with the normal pressures of their job.

For an employer's duty to act to be triggered, there needs to be sufficient indication of a problem, with the onus largely on the employee to bring knowledge of such personal difficulties to their employer's attention. The employer would then only be culpable should they fail to offer the necessary support to their employees.

Two of the guidelines also recognise that the workplace is often not the only cause of stress related injury. These state that, where there is more than one cause, the employer can only be liable for a proportion of the harm caused by their breach of duty. Similarly, the judges ruled that the assessment of damages would take into account any pre-existing disorder or vulnerability and the probability the employee would have suffered a stress related condition anyway.

Additionally, and possibility most importantly for employee benefits professionals, the Court of Appeal acknowledged the benefit of employee assistance programmes (EAPs). It stated: "An employer who offers a confidential advice service, with referral to appropriate counselling or treatment services is unlikely to be in breach of duty."

This effectively means that, by putting an EAP in place (providing it fits the Court of Appeal's criteria to be both confidential and provide access to appropriate treatment), employers will be able to protect themselves from stress related workplace claims.

Background of Business Benefits of EAP's

In January 2001 the British Association for Counselling & Psychotherapy published a study by Professor John McLeod of the University of Abertay, Dundee, which showed that counselling could reduce levels of stress in the workplace by more than 50%. This survey revealed that:

In November 2001 the results of one of the largest studies ever undertaken on the effectiveness of workplace counselling were published. The CORE Workplace Counselling Study collected data on 1,500 clients and benchmarked variations across services, in terms of client characteristics, service provision, and beneficial outcomes.

Seven counselling services spent eight months piloting this revised version of CORE for workplace counselling audit, evaluation and outcome – and their findings built on Professor McLeod’s conclusion that workplace counselling is highly effective. Among other results, this study shows that workplace counselling has the potential to:

British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy