Having the right processes avoids a

stress related claim

Whilst workplace stress claims are said to be on the rise, the case of Finlay v The State of Western Australia highlights the importance of employers exercising due diligence in investigating and monitoring claims of excessive workloads   . 

In this case the employee, Ms Finlay, a Level 2 administrative assistant commenced proceedings against her employer, the Department of Community Development (now the Department of Child Protection), alleging that as a result of the negligence of her employer she suffered a psychiatric injury. 

At hearing, it was not in dispute that the State of Western Australia owed Ms Finlay a duty of care as her employer.  The main issue before the District Court was whether a reasonable person in the position of Ms Finlay’s employer could have foreseen that she was at risk of sustaining a psychiatric injury.   

A recently heard case before a District Court has reinforced the importance of HR designing and sticking to its workplace policies in relation to complaints of employee stress claimed that:- 

 i) she was required to carry out duties in an extremely stressful workplace,

 ii) the quantity of work was too great, and

 iii) there were inadequate staff levels.  

In addition, she claimed that the telephone calls she received from a client on one particular day were distressing and abusive, and all of these factors caused her to experience panic attacks – she sought damages as a result of being subjected to excessive workloads and distressing telephone incidents. 

The employer was able to produce evidence of regular performance reviews which recorded no mention of the employee having raised any of her claims. In addition, it was also established that the employee had not worked excessive hours and that her absences on sick leave were not prolonged, extended or frequent, or due to psychiatric problems. 

As such, the court found in favour of the employer, principally finding that while some telephone calls taken by the employee did cause her distress, and contributed to the development of a psychiatric condition, the judgement found the employer had a firm policy in place to assist staff in dealing with aggressive or abusive calls. This policy was considered to be a reasonable response taken by the employer to the problem of which it was aware. In turn, it had not breached its duty of care to the employee, and the claim was subsequently dismissed.