Stress at work is something that we hear more and more about; the question is, is it a problem that is real or imagined? After all, we all feel stressed from time to time but it usually does us no long-term harm.

In fact, some people argue that stress begins the release of the hormones that activate the body's 'flight or fight' mechanism! There is a difference however between what might be called 'transient stress' from which we usually recover quite quickly, and 'debilitating stress' that actually causes us to become ill.

Stress can have physical and psychological effects. Physical symptoms may include rapid heartbeat, headache, stiff neck and/or tight shoulders, backache, rapid breathing, sweating and sweaty palms, upset stomach, nausea, or diarrhea.

Psychological symptoms may include some or all of the following: irritability, intolerance, frustration, short temper, anxiety, exhaustion, lack of concentration, self-doubt, and depression, leading in extreme cases to nervous breakdown and other forms of psychiatric illness.

Work-related stress, according to the UK's Health and Safety Executive is, "the adverse reaction people have to excessive pressures or other types of demand placed on them". It is important to recognise that what is tolerable to one individual may be too much for another to cope with.

Work-related stress is therefore something that must be considered on a case-by-case basis, although employers need also to consider the subject from a strategic point of view, developing policies and procedures to deal with work-related stress just as they would for any other health and safety issue.

It has long been accepted that employers are responsible for the health and safety of their employees. Clear statements on the subject are for example contained in the Occupational Safety and Health Authority Act of 2000 and in most subordinate legislation.

Work-related stress should be considered within the context of the 'health' aspect of health and safety. The law does not distinguish between physical and mental health, and so the duty on employers is to safeguard their employees' mental as well as physical health insofar as it may be affected by their work.

Courts in the various EU member states often take note of decisions made in their counterparts' courts in order to help inform their own decisions, particularly where another jurisdiction has more experience of the issues in question.

The courts in the UK, for example, have tended to focus on the question of 'reasonable foreseeability' in stress at work cases. The key question being, "could the employer have reasonably foreseen that a particular employee would suffer psychiatric illness as a result of workplace pressures?"

Each case is different, and the duty is owed to individuals and not to the group. In other words, just because employee A does not suffer an illness, when employee B does, even though their work is similar, it does not mean that employee A can be used as a defence against liability.

In Mark Hone vs Six Continents Retail Ltd (2005) the court took the view that liability would arise when the indications of impending harm are plain enough for any reasonable employer to realise that he or she should do something about them.

In this case Mr Hone had already complained of excessive hours, and highlighted the likely effects on his health, yet nothing was done to alleviate the problems. The employer was therefore found to be liable.

Another example may be found in Intel Corporation vs Daw (2007) where the High Court held that it was reasonably foreseeable that the employee's workload would cause a risk to her health. In this case the employee had informed her employer in writing of her difficulties before she suffered a breakdown.

Interestingly, the company had an employee counselling service which the employee did not use, but this in itself did not absolve the company because the key duty is to prevent harm rather than to treat the consequences.

We all experience pressure on a daily basis, and within tolerable limits, it can help to motivate us and enable us to perform at our best. It is when we experience too much pressure without the opportunity to recover that we may start to experience the adverse symptoms of stress, and it is at this point that employers may become liable for the consequences of that stress.

These issues will be explored in a conference to be held on March 3. For details contact info@ihs.com.mt.

Mr Hudson is director, Training and Consultancy, at the Institute of Health and Safety.