copyright  |  disclaimer  |  privacy policy  |  print ready

« back

The psychiatric liabilities of excessive workloads

Excerpts from this article first published in ‘Human Resources’ Magazine, Issue 79, 3 May 2005

In the recent case of Koehler v Cerebos (Australia) Ltd (Cerebos), the High Court determined that an employer could not have reasonably foreseen that their employee’s workload created a risk of psychiatric injury.

Ms Koehler had worked for 18 months as a sales representative. When Cerebos lost a contract it made the full time sales representative position redundant and offered Ms Koehler a part time position, working three days a week, as a merchandiser.  After commencing the role Ms Koehler regularly complained to Cerebos that the area she was required to cover was too big and that she should have more time in which to do it. But all her complaints were directed to whether the work could be done; none suggested that the difficulties she was experiencing were affecting her health.

Five months into the new role Ms Koehler developed a psychiatric illness. It was not disputed that her work was a cause of her illness.   Ms Koehler argued that Cerebos had breached its duty to provide her with a safe system of work because Cerebos should have reasonably known that a failure to change her workload put her at risk of a psychiatric illness. She asked the Court to consider whether the workload Cerebos expected of her was acceptable by reference to industry standards.

The Court determined that Cerebos and Ms Koehler were free to make a contract of employment that exceeded the industry standard workload, and that is what they did. Cerebos did not breach its duty of care to Ms Koehler by insisting upon her performance of the contract that she willingly entered into. The fact that Ms Koehler agreed to undertake the tasks required of the position was contrary to her argument that performing those tasks posed a risk to her psychiatric health.

The Court found that Ms Koehler’s complaints about her workload suggested an industrial relations problem, but they did not suggest a danger to her psychiatric health. For that reason, Cerebos could not have reasonably foreseen the risk of her developing the psychiatric injury.

HR Tips

Employers have a duty of care to provide a safe system of work to their employees. Accordingly, employers should not take false comfort from the High Court’s decision. It does not give employers the green light to require employees to work excessive workloads. An employee’s claim will succeed if the employer could have reasonably foreseen the risk of the injury to the employee. However, whether an employer should be able to tell if an employee’s health or safety is at risk due to their workload will depend upon the circumstances particular to each employee. It invites attention to the nature and extent of the work being done by the particular employee and signs given by the employee concerned including, for example, whether there are frequent or prolonged absences that are uncharacteristic.