An Employers Duty of Care: What Your Employer Must Do Once They Know About Your Workplace Stress

Once your employer is aware of the negative impact stress at work is having on your wellbeing, the situation is no longer private. Whether through conversations, emails, workplace processes, or emerging distress, the organisation now has sight of the problem, or at the very least enough information that it should reasonably have recognised the risk. 

Your employers duty of care comes into effect at this stage, and it often determines everything that follows. Up to now, the focus has been on the employee recognising what is happening and beginning to protect their position by speaking up. From here, the emphasis shifts. Responsibility increasingly sits with the employer: how they respond, what they prioritise, and whether they act in a way that reduces risk or allows it to grow. 

This article is part of a series exploring each stage of a workplace stress claim, from recognising something is wrong through to litigation (this stage) and recovery: 

• Stage 1: Work-Related Stress: Early Signs, Causes and What to Do
• Stage 2: Making Your Situation Visible: How to Report Stress in the Workplace
• Stage 3 (this stage): An Employers Duty of Care: What Your Employer Must Do Once They Know About Your Workplace Stress
• Stage 4: Deterioration, Absence and Recovery: A Guide to Taking Time Off Work for Stress
• Stage 5: Legal Strategy After Workplace Stress: How Work Related Stress Claims Work
• Stage 6: Litigation and Preparing for Trial: What to Expect From a Workplace Stress Claim
• Stage 7: Aftermath and Recovery: Life After Workplace Stress and What Comes Next
• Stages overview 

Summary of this stage 

Once your employer is aware that workplace stress is affecting your health, their responsibilities shift from passive to active. Awareness alone is no longer enough, and the expectation is that reasonable, practical steps will be taken to reduce harm. This article explores what that looks like across four common scenarios: excessive workload, bullying and conflict, trauma-exposed roles, and organisational disengagement. It also explains a critical distinction that runs through all of them: the difference between a response that genuinely changes things, and one that simply goes through the motions. 

What is my employers duty of care once they are aware of the situation? 

This stage is the point when an employers duty of care becomes active rather than passive. Awareness alone is not enough. The expectation is that reasonable, practical steps will be taken to prevent harm, and the question is no longer whether a problem exists, but what the organisation does about it. 

How can Setfords help?

David Miers is a consultant solicitor specialising exclusively in work-related stress and psychiatric injury claims. He is based in Liverpool but can represent clients nationwide on a fully remote basis. He joined Setfords in 2019 and previously led the Work-Related Stress team at Slater u0026 Gordon after training at Weightmans.

Reach out today

Meaningful vs procedural responses: what’s the difference? 

A meaningful response changes the environment or expectations that created the risk. A procedural response documents the issue but leaves the underlying problem intact. 

This distinction becomes particularly important in the scenarios below. Employers sometimes respond with: 

• Meetings 
• Documentation 
• Policies 
• Wellbeing language 

These steps can be important, but if they do not change working conditions or exposure to harm, the risk often remains. 

If your situation progresses to litigation, courts rarely expect perfection. They do, however, expect action that is proportionate, timely, and directed at the actual source of difficulty. 

Do formal processes like risk assessments and occupational health referrals automatically protect my employer? 

In the previous stage outline, we discussed occupational health referrals and stress risk assessments. Carrying out a risk assessment or occupational health referral does not automatically mean an employer has acted reasonably. Equally, failing to carry them out is rarely the thing that directly causes harm. They are mechanisms for identifying and managing risk, and are only as valuable as the actions that follow them. 

Courts and regulators tend to focus less on whether a process occurred, and more on whether meaningful steps followed it. An employer who commissions assessments but doesn’t put their recommendations into practice may struggle to show that it acted reasonably in preventing harm. 

Practical Guidance: how do I know if my employer is genuinely responding to my concerns? 

Let’s imagine some employer duties in real-world scenarios 

1) Overwork and unsustainable demand 

In cases driven by workload, the most telling question is simple: 

Did the workload actually change? 

Supportive language without structural change rarely alters the outcome. Employees may be encouraged to prioritise better, manage time differently, or “look after themselves,” while expectations remain exactly the same. 

A meaningful employer response may involve: 

• Redistribution of work 
• Clarity about priorities 
• Removing non-essential tasks 
• Additional staffing or resourcing 
• Supervision focused on reducing pressure rather than monitoring performance 

Where workloads remain unchanged, risk often remains unchanged. 

2) Bullying, conflict and relationship breakdown 

Where the issue relates to behaviour, particularly from managers or colleagues, the response must address exposure, not just process. 

Investigations, mediation, or formal meetings can be appropriate, but they do not always protect the individual day to day. 

Effective steps often include: 

• Separation from the source of difficulty 
• Changes to reporting lines 
• Independent oversight 
• Behavioural intervention 
• Clear communication boundaries 

Treating serious interpersonal issues as “personality differences” or communication style can leave the underlying harm untouched.

How Setfords can support you.

If you are experiencing bullying at work, getting the right legal advice can make a significant difference. The experienced employment solicitors at Setfords provide clear, practical guidance to help you understand your rights and explore your options if you are facing workplace bullying or harassment.

Contact us

The legal reality of bullying: is bullying at work illegal in the UK? 

There is no standalone legal claim for ‘bullying’ in England and Wales – being bullied at work does not, by itself, automatically create a civil claim. This is one of the most commonly misunderstood areas of workplace law, and it is worth being clear. 

In practice, claims arising from workplace bullying are usually framed through: 

• Employer negligence (failure to protect mental health)  
• Harassment under the Equality Act (where linked to a protected characteristic)  
• Harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997  
• Breach of contract or constructive dismissal (in employment contexts)  

The focus is not simply on whether bullying occurred, but on what the employer knew and how they responded.  

For example, an employer is not automatically liable because a manager behaves unreasonably or a colleague is difficult. The legal question is whether the behaviour created a foreseeable risk of harm, whether concerns were raised or visible, and whether reasonable steps were taken to address it. 

This brings bullying back into the broader duty of care framework. The risk is not the label “bullying” itself, but the harm that may flow from sustained exposure to it.  

In practice, many of the most serious stress claims involve bullying-type environments, but the legal route is almost always through the employer’s failure to act, rather than the existence of bullying as a standalone wrong.  

The perception of bullying and its impact: does my employer have to agree I’m being bullied before they have a duty to act? 

No. What matters is not whether your employer accepts the label “bullying” — it is whether they are aware that the treatment you are experiencing is affecting your mental health. 

Two people can experience the same working environment very differently. The law does not require behaviour to be formally categorised as bullying before a duty arises. It requires recognition that harm is occurring. 

Once an employer knows that an employee feels targeted, undermined, or distressed and that this is affecting their wellbeing, the duty to act is engaged. An investigation that concludes no bullying policy was breached does not end the matter if the employee’s mental health continues to deteriorate as a result of workplace relationships, and the employer is still expected to consider reasonable steps to reduce harm, such as: 

• Changes to reporting lines  
• Mediation or supervision  
• Adjustments to working arrangements  
• Separation from the source of distress  
• Monitoring wellbeing over time  

In many psychiatric injury cases, the turning point is not whether bullying was proven but whether the employer recognised the impact and acted to protect the employee. 

3) Exposure to trauma (police, emergency services, safeguarding roles) 

Some roles carry an unavoidable psychological burden. In policing, this is particularly evident in specialist functions such as child sexual exploitation investigations, digital forensic review of indecent material, firearms operations, fatal incident response, and safeguarding work. The exposure is not occasional, but repeated, cumulative and often deeply distressing. 

In these environments, the risk does not arise because the work is inappropriate. It arises because of the sustained human impact of performing it. 

An employer cannot remove the inherent nature of these roles, but it is expected to recognise the psychological risk and manage it proactively. Reasonable steps may include: 

• Structured rotation away from high-exposure work 
• Limits on duration within specialist units 
• Access to trauma-informed supervision 
• Routine psychological screening 
• Decompression time after particularly distressing incidents 
• Monitoring cumulative exposure over time 

The key issue is not whether officers “should be able to cope,” but whether the organisation recognises the foreseeable impact of repeated exposure to traumatic material and acts to mitigate it. 

Where high-risk roles exist, a reactive approach is rarely sufficient. Waiting until an officer becomes unwell before intervening can allow harm to develop. In contrast, proactive monitoring, support, and structured rotation demonstrate recognition of the risk and a genuine attempt to manage it. 

The aim is not to remove the nature of the work, but to reduce the psychological burden and prevent cumulative harm.

My role involves repeated exposure to distressing situations – what is my employers duty of care here? 

Trauma-exposed roles have two sides. One is the trauma itself, inherent to the work and often unavoidable. The other is the working environment: hours, supervision, support, and culture. The first cannot always be changed, while the second can, and should be. 

Research consistently shows that psychological harm in roles like policing, emergency services, and safeguarding is rarely caused by a single incident. It builds over time, shaped as much by working conditions as by the nature of the work itself. 

A large-scale Cambridge study of UK police officers found that around 90% had been exposed to traumatic events at work, with approximately one in five screening positive for PTSD or complex PTSD. Yet, only a small proportion had received a formal diagnosis. Critically, trauma exposure alone did not determine outcomes. Many officers with significant exposure did not develop clinical conditions, while others carrying similar exposure did. The difference was often found in the environment around them. 

Employers cannot remove the nature of these roles. But they are expected to manage the conditions in which that work takes place. That means recognising that harm is not inevitable, but poorly managed environments make it significantly more likely. 

Does the working environment matter as much as the trauma itself? 

Yes, and research suggests it may be the more decisive factor. 

A second Cambridge study found that positive workplace conditions, such as supportive management, reasonable workloads, meaningful work, and work-life balance, were associated with roughly half the rate of complex PTSD compared to environments where those factors were poor. The trauma was the same, but the outcomes were not. 

Protective environments tend to share common features:  

• Strong supervisory support 
• Opportunities to debrief 
• Time between traumatic exposures 
• Peer support and team cohesion 
• Access to occupational health and psychological services 
• A culture where raising concerns is acceptable 

Where these are absent (where pressure to “carry on regardless” is the norm, recovery time is limited, and mental health concerns go unacknowledged), the risk compounds. 

How can employers manage this risk? 

The question an employer should be asking is not simply whether an employee was exposed to trauma. It is how often, what support followed, whether the workload was manageable, and whether help was accessible and encouraged. Trauma risk, understood properly, is an organisational risk, not just a personal one. 

In practice, managing that risk may involve rotation away from high-intensity roles, structured supervision, trauma-informed management, psychological screening, and ensuring workloads allow time for recovery. The focus is not just on incidents, but also on systems. 

Key Research References 

Brewin, C. R., Miller, J. K., Soffia, M., Peart, A., & Burchell, B. (2022). Posttraumatic stress disorder and complex posttraumatic stress disorder in UK police officers. Psychological Medicine, 52, 1287–1295. 

Burchell, B., Miller, J., Brewin, C., Soffia, M., & Wang, S. (2022). The association between job quality and the incidence of PTSD amongst police personnel. 

4) Lack of support or organisational disengagement 

Sometimes the problem is not workload or behaviour, but the absence of meaningful response. Common indicators include: 

• Concerns raised but not followed up 
• Unclear expectations 
• Limited supervision 
• Isolation within the team 
• Repeated requests for support without outcome 

Employer duties in these cases often involve: 

• Active engagement 
• Structured supervision 
• Clarification of role and expectations 
• Implementation of support mechanisms 
• Monitoring wellbeing over time 

Inaction can be as significant as active failure. 

Setfords is here to support.

We have a specialist solicitor who is highly experienced in this area of work and is one of the few UK specialists in work-related stress claims. David has a proven track record with millions of pounds of compensation recovered for clients since joining Setfords in 2017.

Reach out today

The organisational crossroads

This stage often feels like a quiet turning point. The situation is visible. The risks are identifiable. The organisation has options. 

It can intervene meaningfully, stabilise the situation reduce pressure and support recovery. Or, it can delay, rely on process and hope things improve 

A useful way of understanding this moment is to think of it as a fork in the road. 

One path leads toward resolution; the other leads toward escalation. 

Employees rarely control which direction is taken at this point. The choices made by the organisation carry increasing weight. 

What tends to follow? 

From here, trajectories diverge and it is rarely a sudden shift. More often, it is a gradual movement in one direction or the other, shaped by how the organisation responds once the risk is known. 

And it is those responses practical, timely and proportionate, or delayed and procedural that often determine what happens next. 

Legal Framework: when does the employers duty of care become active? 

Pressure alone does not automatically create a legal problem. Many roles are demanding, and workplaces are not expected to eliminate all stress. However, once the risk of psychiatric harm becomes visible, the employer’s duty changes. From a legal perspective, this is the stage where foreseeability becomes real rather than theoretical. The risk is visible when: 

• Injury to health is foreseen 
• Support has been requested 
• Patterns have emerged 
• Workplace issues remain unresolved 

What do courts and regulators look for when assessing how an employer responded? 

Courts and regulators rarely expect perfection. Instead, they look at whether an organisation: 

• Recognised the risk 
• Acted in time 
• Took reasonable steps 
• Monitored the situation

What happens next? 

Where reasonable steps are taken, situations often stabilise. Where they are not, risk can deepen and responsibility may follow. 

In the next stage Deterioration, Absence and Recovery: A Guide to Taking Time Off Work for Stress, the priority shifts from prevention to stabilising the situation, prioritising recovery and deciding what to do next.