"The respondent, a loyal and capable employee,
pointed out the serious management failings which were causing her
stress and the failure to take action was that of management," said
Lord Justice Pill in his ruling. "The reference to counselling
services in [similar case] Hatton does not make such services a
panacea by which employers can discharge their duty of care in all
cases."
Intel must pay now compensation to Tracy Ann
Daw, the employee who suffered from stress and depression when her
workload shot up following company cost-cutting. The chip giant has
lost its appeal against last year's ruling in the employee's
favour.
Daw worked in the finance department of the
company and was responsible for integrating the payroll functions
of companies which Intel acquired. Daw told the original trial that
she felt she was doing the work of two people, working 60-hour
weeks and into the small hours at home.
Daw had suffered from post-natal depression on
two occasions, and one of her managers knew this. When that manager
found Daw in tears he asked her to put in writing what was
wrong.
She wrote an email which outlined the
excessive work that was being demanded of her and concluded: "I
cannot sustain doing the level of work that I am currently doing.
No-one is getting a particularly good service, I am not enjoying
what I am doing, bureaucracy is stressing me out (evidenced by my
violent mood swings – bad sign … been here before – twice"), HR/PX
[human resources and another manager] are demoralising me and I
want out".
The original court decision, and the Court of
Appeal, found that Daw's manager should have known that the
reference to having been there twice before was to the post-natal
depression; should have known that Daw's workload was excessive;
and should have acted to protect Daw.
Pill said that Daw was very obviously not the
kind of employee to attempt to exaggerate or invent a problem with
stress. "She was loyal and regarded by them as of the highest
calibre, with a capacity for hard work. She wished to remain in her
employment with them and had prospects of promotion," he said.
"In my judgment, the judge was fully entitled
to hold that it was a failure of management which created the
stresses and led to the breakdown. The judge was entitled to hold
that, by early March, injury to the respondent's health was
reasonably foreseeable. The indications of impending harm to health
were plain enough for the appellants to realise that immediate
action was required," said Pill.
"The case is a reminder for employers that
they must act in the context of all the information they have about
an employee", said Ben Doherty, an employment specialist at Pinsent
Masons, the law firm behind OUT-LAW.COM.
"This underlines that employers do owe their
employees a duty of care, and must even take into account events
and conditions that take place outside the workplace," said
Doherty. "Employers who are told of such conditions must be careful
to make allowances for them in their treatment of employees."
Daw was awarded £134,545.18 in compensation
and in lost future earnings. Intel also appealed against that award
figure, but Pill upheld the original award.
