In Intel Corporation Ltd v Daw, the Court of Appeal held the employer ought to have known that the demands it made upon the claimant were totally unreasonable and the indications of impending harm were plain enough, even though they largely arose in a single meeting between the claimant and her manager. It was no defence to the claim that the employer had offered confidential counselling.
Facts
Between September 2000 and March 2001 Ms Daw, “an outstanding employee”, told her managers on many occasions about work problems. She complained about confused reporting lines, conflicting priorities from her three managers and excessive working hours. In early March 2001, a manager found Ms Daw in tears. As he suggested, she wrote a note of the problems. She also wrote that she could not sustain the way she was working, that she was being stressed out and referred to her previous episodes of post-natal depression (which the employer knew of). The employer promised her support but that did not materialise. After being signed off from work in mid-June 2001 she attempted suicide and never returned to the job.
In the High Court the judge found that prior to the March meeting, a reasonable employer would not have considered someone in the employee’s position at greater risk of stress-related depression than a normal employee. This is the ‘threshold test’ established by the Court of Appeal in Hatton for establishing whether an employer is liable for work-related stress. The judge held, though, that following the note, the risk to the employee’s health was clear. As the company failed to take urgent action, the company had been negligent.
The Court of Appeal rejected Intel Corp’s appeal that the High Court judge had set too high a standard; the company had argued that it was only with the benefit of hindsight that it became clear the ‘window of opportunity’ for taking action to prevent the employee’s mental breakdown was about to close. On the contrary, held the Court, the indications of impending harm to Ms Daw’s health were plain enough for the company to realise that immediate action was required.
Significantly, the Court also rejected Intel Corp’s other argument, relying on Hatton, that it had discharged its duty of care to the employee by providing a confidential counselling service which Ms Daw had not taken up. The Court of Appeal held that, whilst there will be cases where employees will be expected to take up counselling, in this case the High Court judge was entitled, and having examined all the circumstances, to conclude that the counselling would not have helped to resolve Ms Daw’s problems; management action was required.
Comment
In this case, the employer was put on notice that an employee was struggling to cope and was found liable because it did not act quickly to relieve the pressure. The case emphasises the importance of conducting stress risk assessments on jobs and investigating complaints to see if they are well founded. In particular, the case demonstrates that employers have to be particularly alert to tell-tale signs that an employee who has made previous complaints about, for example, working conditions or bullying, is in fact at risk of mental ill-health. Employers need to ensure managers are trained to spot such employees as well as act on their complaints.