Work Related Stress Grievance Complaint Letter

This webpage last updated 7.7.26.

The only way to know your employment rights is to take the time to educate yourself by reading through the pages of this website.

However, if you don’t have either the time or the energy to read through this website and just need answers to the questions which you have, then why not book a consultation with either myself or my wife Amy to be better informed of your employee rights UK.

Amy & I have created some new webpages for 2026 for you to look at:

We charge only £35 for an initial telephone consultation up to one hour. During the telephone consultation, we can provide assistance to guide you through your workplace dispute with your employer and answer your questions. All calls are confidential. We do not record any calls.

The first step in helping yourself is for us to give you the information which you need, so that you can make informed decisions about your future.

Make the call and reach out to us on 07775943414 Monday to Sunday (9-5 UK time) or email us at: myrightsuk@protonmail.com to book a consultation.

Amy & I work seven days a week to assist our clients. We work seven days a week because we know that your work-related problems don’t just end on a Friday night!

So, make the call – 07775943414.

Word of Caution:

  • Do NOT use AI to generate your grievance letter.
  • For the avoidance of doubt, there are many free AI detectors online, which are 99% accurate in detecting whether a grievance letter has been AI-generated.
  • The Employment Tribunal Service is receiving an uptick in AI generated grievance letters, which are frowned upon.
  • Notwithstanding, AI can cite case laws which do not exist, apply legislation from other jurisdictions, or outline legal principles that have absolutely no bearing on your particular circumstances.

If you want to raise a grievance letter for work-related stress, please click here.

The HSE define stress as:

“The adverse reaction a person has to excessive pressure or other types of demand placed upon them.”

The Health and Safety Executive have identified six key areas to help employers understand the “cause” of work-related stress and how to undertake a “risk assessment” for “work-related stress”. These are known as “Management Standards”:

HSE Management Standards

.

1. The demands of your job;
2. Your control over your work;
3. The support you receive from managers and colleagues;
4. Your relationships at work;
5. Your role in the organisation;
6. change and how it’s managed.

“The changes which have taken place in the employer-employee relationship, with far greater duties imposed on the employer than in the past, whether by statute or by judicial decision, to care for the physical, financial and even psychological welfare of its employees”.

The Court of Appeal has laid down 16 “practical propositions” to be considered in injury claims arising from work-related stress (see below). These propositions are very important, and you want to take the time to read them to establish your employers’ culpability with regard to its respective “acts and omissions”. Put short, you can elucidate in your Tribunal claim the steps your employer failed to undertake, which it could have taken, and should have taken. This is important, as to make the employer liable for damages, you need to establish its torts, viz: what reasonable and practicable steps the employer ought to have taken, which it omitted to take.

1. There are no special “control mechanisms” relating to work-related stress injury claims; ordinary principles of employers’ liability apply.

2. The “threshold” question is whether this kind of “harm” to you was “reasonably foreseeable”. (Does the employer know you have a disability, past or present)

3. “Foreseeability” depends on what the employer knows or should know about the individual employee. Unless aware of a particular problem or vulnerability (disability), the employer can usually assume that the employee can withstand the normal pressures of the job.

4. The test is the same for all occupations; no occupation is to be regarded as “intrinsically dangerous” to mental health. (what about soldiers who subsequently suffer from Post Traumatic Stress?)

5. Reasonable “foreseeability of harm” includes consideration of:

(i) the “nature and extent” of the work
(ii) whether the workload is much greater than normal (excessive workload)
(iii) whether the work is particularly intellectually or emotionally demanding for that employee
(iv) whether unreasonable demands are being made of the employee (excessive workload)
(v) whether others doing this job are suffering harmful levels of stress
(vi) whether there is an abnormal level of sickness or absenteeism in the same job or department.

6. The employer can take what the employee tells it at “face value”, unless it has good reason not to and need not make searching enquiries of the employee or his/her medical advisors.

7. The “duty to take steps” is “triggered” by indications of “impending harm to health”, which must be plain enough for any reasonable employer to realise it has to “act”. (*crying whilst at work)

8. There is a “breach of duty” only if the employer has failed to “take steps” that are reasonable in the circumstances, bearing in mind the “magnitude of the risk of harm occurring, the gravity of that harm”, the costs and practicability of preventing it and the justifications for running the risk.

9. The employer’s size, scope, resources and demands on it are relevant in deciding what is reasonable (including the need to treat other employees fairly, for example in any redistribution of duties).

10. An employer need only take steps that are likely to do some good; the court will need expert evidence on this.

11. An employer that offers a confidential advice service, with appropriate counselling or treatment services, is unlikely to be found in breach of duty. (This is no longer aplicable, see: Dickens v O2).

12. If the only reasonable and effective way to prevent the injury would been to dismiss or demote the employee, the employer will not be in breach in allowing a willing employee to continue working.

13. In all cases, it is necessary to identify the steps that the employer could and should have taken before finding it in “breach of duty of care”.

14. The claimant must show (establish facts) that that “breach of duty” has “caused” or “materially contributed” to the “harm suffered”. It is not enough to show that occupational stress “caused” the “harm” –  it must be linked with the “breach”. (Tie in – “excessive workload” combined with “harassment” “triggered” the employees (disability) asthma, panic attacks, depression etc.)

15. Where the “harm” suffered has more than one “cause”, the employer should only pay for that part caused by its wrongdoing, unless the harm is indivisible.  (This has now changed, see; Dickens v O2)

16. Assessment of damages will take account of pre-existing disorders or vulnerability and the chance that the claimant would have suffered a stress-related disorder in any event.

* In our own case, my wife Amy had burst into tears on two occasions in front of management. Amy ‘visible distress’ was sufficient “cause” to “trigger” the employer’s “duty to take reasonable steps”. Put shotly, the “indications of impending harm to health” arising from stress at work must be plain enough for any reasonable employer to realise that he should do something about it. See: Intel Incorporation (UK) Ltd v Daw, Court of Appeal 2007.

Establishing Your Employer’s Liability

.

You have to establish facts. Outline in your grievance letter for work-related stress what is the root cause of your stress.

For example, in the grievance letter, which I submitted to my employer, I outlined a series of ‘omissions’ which had led to the work-related stress, in addition to the breaches of the relevant Acts:

Health & Safety Breaches

.

  • Management were in the knowledge the nature and extent of my work had increased, due to a rise in both customer volume and profits,
  • Management knew (or reasonably ought to have known) that the demands placed upon me were both excessive and unreasonable,
  • Management had failed to provide me adequate support or supervision to cope with their expectations (demands).
  • Management were verbally informed that my workload was excessive, but omitted to act to take “reasonable and practicable steps”,
  • Management were aware (constructive knowledge) I had a problem or vulnerability (disability),
  • Management had failed to undertake any employee consultations, stress audits or workplace training during my tenure,
  • Management’s failure to take any preventative measures to mitigate my “work-related stress”.
  • Management had failed to observe the HSE Management Standards (1-6 above) which are ‘guidelines’ to ‘assist’ employers in combating work-related stress,
  • Management had failed to invoke and observe the company’s own Health & Safety Policy.
  • Management had failed to invoke and observe the company’s own Stress Management Policy,
  • Management had failed to undertake a stress-specific “risk assessment” to identify the risk of harm excessive workload posed to my health,
  • Management failed to recognise the magnitude of the risk of harm occurring, or the gravity of that harm,
  • Management failed to recognise its duty of care to my person.
  • Management had failed to refer me to its occupational counselling service,
  • Management had failed to refer me to its occupational health advisors,
  • Management had failed to offer me a sabbatical.
  • Management conceded the fact they had never undertaken any workplace training, to promote, communicate or implement the organisations Disability Discrimination Policy.
  • Management had constructive knowledge I had a disability (asthma)
  • Management knew a vulnerability existed (physical impairment)
  • Management failed to consult or implement the organisations own Disability Discrimination Policy,
  • Management failed to consult my person, with regard to any reasonable adjustments it could have made,
  • Management failed to make any reasonable adjustments, at all,
  • Management failed to separate myself and my harasser, despite my own request that it do so,
  • Management failed to recognise the magnitude of the risk of harm occurring, or the gravity of that harm, which subsequently occurred,
  • Management failed to recognise its duty of care to my person, to “protect my health” from a “foreseeable risk of harm”,
  • Management failed to observe the “mutual trust and confidence” or “good faith performance”
  • Management failed to observe the European Human Rights Commission ‘guidelines’ and ‘recommendations’ on disability discrimination and harassment.

Sexual Harassment
.

  • Management knew my line manger habitually shouted at employees, and conceded it had previously warned him against doing so
  • Management conceded it had investigated my line manager twice in the previous two years for harassment, (albeit management claimed they could not find any evidence of harassment)
  • Management had never undertaken any workplace training to promote, communicate or implement the organisations Sex Discrimination Policy
  • Management failed to take reasonable and practicable steps to (i) prevent further acts of harassment being inflicted upon my person by a known harasser, or (ii) have eradicated harassment within the working environment, after the previous two incidents.
  • Management failed to take reasonable and practicable steps to prevent my person from being further victimised, having exercised my statutory rights by invoking the grievance procedure,
  • Managements failure to take any preventative measures, meant it had little defence in the Tribunal (omissions to act),
  • Managements Sex Discrimination Policy was not in line with the European Commission Code of Practise for Sex Harassment 1991,
  • Management failed to observe the organisations own Sex Discrimination Policy and procedures,
  • Management failed to separate myself and my harasser, despite my own request that it do so,
  • Management failed to prevent the harasser from further harassing and victimising me, (i) breach of duty of care, (ii) breach of mutual trust and confidence (iii) vicarious liability (iv) failure to act in “good faith”,
  • Management failed to observe the European Human Rights Commission ‘guidelines‘ and ‘recommendations’ on sex harassment,
  • Management’s omission to prevent further acts from being inflicted on my person made the company and its directorship vicariously liable,
  • Management failed to observe their statutory duties germane to the sex discrimination complained of.

For the avoidance of doubt, as of 2026, making a complaint of sexual harassment is now automatically considered whistleblowing under s.43B(1)(d)(a) of The Employment Rights Act 1996. If you have been subjected to sexual harassment at work, please contact us on 07775943414 9-5 UK time.

Workplace Danger- The Employment Rights Act 1996
.

In the case of Havest Press -v- McCaffrey, the Employment Tribunal Appeal found that the “conduct of workplace colleagues” can amount to a workplace “danger”. This is significantly important, as those employees’ who cannot bring an Employment Tribunal claim for discrimination or harassment under theEquality Act 2010, could argue that the conduct of workplace colleagues posed a “significant danger” within the working environment under the auspices of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

  • You would need to establish a case, whereas the Employment Tribunal could conclude that a colleague’s conduct ‘posed’a “risk of harm” to your “health or safety”. See whistle-blowing.

Statutory Law

.

The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 (MHSWR 1999).

  • R.3(1)(a) “Every employer shall make a suitable and sufficient assessment of – the risks to the health and safety of his employees to which they are exposed whilst they are at work.”
  • R. 5(1) “Every employer shall make and give effect to such arrangements as are appropriate, having regard to the nature of his activities and the size of his undertaking, for the effective planning, organisation, control, monitoring and review of the preventive and protective measures.”(Enshrined in the HSE Management Standards”)
  • R.6 “Every employer shall ensure that his employees are provided with such health surveillance as is appropriate having regard to the risks to their health and safety which are identified by the assessment.”
  • R.10(1) “Every employer shall provide his employees with comprehensible and relevant information on – (a) the ‘risks’ to ‘their health and safety’ ‘identified’ by the ‘assessment’.”

The Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 (HSAWA 1974)

  • S.1 “It shall be the duty of every employer to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all his employees.”
  • S.2(c) “The provision of such information, instruction, training and supervision as is necessary to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health and safety at work of his employees.”
  • S.2(e) “The provision and ‘maintenance’ of a working environment for his employees that is, so far as is reasonably practicable, safe, without risks to health, and adequate as regards facilities and arrangements for their welfare at work.”
  • S.7 “It shall be the duty of every employee while at work – (a) to take reasonable care for the health and safety of himself and of other persons who may be affected by his acts or omissions at work.”

Conclusions:

.

If you can’t face going through the grievance process alone and would like to discuss your workplace problems with us, reach out to us. Sometimes, just talking through your employment issues can give you a new perspective on what to do, and furthermore, how to go about doing it. We can write your grievance letter for you. We can hold your hand throughout the entire grievance process from beginning to end. We can assist you in avoiding the common mistakes which we see employees make when going through the grievance process with their employer. You don’t have to be alone in this process. Reach out to us on 07775943414 or email us at myrightsuk@protonmail.com

My wife Amy and I have over the past 15 years helped thousands of clients address their grievances with their employers. Please read our testimonials page. Amy & I can assist you in writing a grievance letter for any of the following work-related matters:

We work 7 days a week, 9-5 UK time, because we know all too well that your employment problems don’t just end on a Friday afternoon! Go on, pick up the phone and call us! 

Visit our testimonials page.

Go on, reach out to us at: myrightsuk@protonmail.com or call during working hours 9-5 on 07775943414.

We charge £35 for an initial telephone consultation up to one hour, and £50 an hour thereafter.

Disclaimer:

The author of this web site and sub-domains accepts no liability arising from the use of, or any part of, or reliance on the information contained within this web site, and its respective pages or downloads.

The content is not intended to be legal advice, and you should not rely upon it in any respect to any specific situation you may be facing. Therefore, the content of this web site will serve as a good springboard to get professional legal advice from a solicitor.

Moreover, any discussion with Sam or Amy does not amount to ‘legal advice’. Any opinions expressed verbally or in writing are ‘opinions’.

© Copyright 2011 – 2026 All rights reserved. Sam Stone 07775 943414. You may (as long as the reason is for personal use) use the pages of this website germane to any internal procedures with your employer, whether as a worker, contractor or employee.

However, and for the avoidance of doubt, any redistribution or reproduction of part or all of the contents of this website in any form for commercial use is strictly prohibited. You may not print, download or share the content of this website or send to any individual or third parties other than for the purposes of personal use.

You may not, except with express written permission from Sam Stone, distribute or commercially exploit the content of this website. All rights reserved.