Staff have said the workload is too high. Management has circulated a survey and offered stress-awareness training. What should happen next?

A work-related stress risk assessment should identify what is happening in the work, who may be affected and what needs to change. The useful result is an action plan that addresses the causes, gives named people responsibility and checks whether the changes help. Survey results and training attendance are evidence of activity; they do not, by themselves, show that the underlying problem has been addressed.

For Irish employers, the starting point is to examine how work is organised and listen to the people doing it.

Why is work-related stress receiving attention now?

EU-OSHA launched its Together for mental health at work campaign on 13 October 2026. The Health and Safety Authority's events programme also lists a conference on managing psychosocial risks for 12 November 2026. These initiatives put prevention and the organisation of work firmly on the agenda. They do not introduce a new Irish stress law. See the EU campaign announcement and the HSA events programme.

There is a practical reason for the attention. In EU-OSHA's 2025 survey of 1,009 workers in Ireland, 35% reported exposure to severe time pressure or work overload, while 33% reported poor communication or cooperation within their organisation. These are responses from the surveyed workers, not a diagnosis of the Irish workforce or a measurement of any particular business. The Ireland survey factsheet sets out the findings and methodology.

The question for an employer is whether similar pressures exist locally, and whether the arrangements already in place are adequate.

What does Irish health and safety law require?

The relevant duties are established ones under the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005, as amended:

Section 8: protect employee safety, health and welfare so far as is reasonably practicable, including through the management of work and safe systems of work.
Section 19: identify hazards, assess the risks in writing and implement necessary improvements. Review the assessment after a significant change or where there is reason to believe it is no longer valid.
Section 20: prepare a safety statement based on those assessments, setting out how safety, health and welfare will be managed.
Section 26: consult employees and, as appropriate, their safety representatives about relevant measures, risk assessments and the safety statement.

The HSA's guide to work-related stress explains how a risk-management approach applies to this subject. A general promise to support wellbeing needs to be backed by an examination of the work and suitable preventive measures.

What should the assessment look at?

The term psychosocial hazards describes aspects of work design, organisation and relationships that can create risks to psychological or physical health. An assessment should examine the circumstances, rather than start by deciding that an individual needs to cope better.

The HSA's WorkPositive framework considers six areas. The questions below illustrate how management could explore them; they are not a substitute for the tool's questionnaire.

Area	A practical question to explore
Demands	Can the work reasonably be completed with the time, staffing and resources available?
Control	How much say does the employee have over the way the work is done?
Support	Is help available when workload, decisions or difficult situations exceed what the employee can manage?
Relationships	Are conflict and unacceptable behaviour being addressed?
Role	Are responsibilities clear, or do different managers give conflicting instructions?
Change	Are employees informed and consulted when changes affect their work?

A useful assessment records the circumstances behind an answer. "Workload is high" needs investigation. "Reception staff must answer incoming calls while completing time-sensitive records, with no agreed cover during busy periods" identifies something management can examine and change.

How can management turn concerns into a workable plan?

The following sequence is a practical way to organise the work. It is not a prescribed legal form or a promise that one method will suit every workplace.

1. Agree who will act on the findings

Before asking staff to describe problems, identify who can authorise changes. A supervisor may be able to adjust the daily allocation of tasks but may not control staffing, opening hours or commitments made to customers. The assessment needs a route to the people who make those decisions.

Set a clear scope: the whole organisation, a department or a particular work activity. Include the interfaces with other teams. Restricting the review to one team will miss a problem if another department continually changes its deadlines.

Explain to staff why the assessment is taking place, how they can contribute and when management will respond. Do not promise that every suggestion will be accepted. Commit to considering concerns, explaining decisions and reporting progress.

2. Gather information from the people doing the work

Use a combination appropriate to the workplace: staff discussions, consultation with safety representatives, observations of work, and relevant operational information. A structured survey can help, particularly where management needs to hear from a large or dispersed workforce.

The HSA describes WorkPositive as a free, voluntary process for assessing and managing work-related stress. It provides a structured option; it is not the only possible way to assess the risks.

A survey should lead to questions about the work. If staff report conflicting priorities, establish who allocates work and what happens when deadlines clash. If staff report insufficient support, examine what help is available during the busiest periods, including evenings or weekends where relevant.

Include employees whose arrangements differ from the main office: part-time staff, shift teams, remote workers and people working alone. Make participation possible during their working arrangements, rather than assuming everyone can attend one daytime meeting.

3. Check what the information actually shows

Look for patterns and follow up apparent contradictions. A low number of formal complaints does not establish that the work is well organised. Equally, an increase in reported concerns after management encourages people to speak up does not, by itself, establish that conditions have worsened.

Operational records may help to explain the circumstances: repeated overtime, an accumulating backlog, last-minute changes to duties or recurrent cover problems. Use them alongside consultation. An absence figure on its own does not identify the cause of absence and should not be used to diagnose staff.

Avoid reducing the assessment to a league table of departments. Different tasks, reporting cultures and team sizes can affect the results. Ask what the evidence shows about exposure and existing controls, and record where the information is incomplete.

4. Choose measures that address the source

For each significant concern, ask what would reduce the problem in the work itself. Possibilities include changing how priorities are agreed, removing duplicate tasks, improving cover, clarifying authority or reviewing commitments against available capacity.

Training may help a manager handle difficult conversations or an employee recognise when to seek support. Counselling and employee assistance services can also be valuable. Their role is different from correcting an unmanageable allocation of work. The HSA distinguishes prevention at source from measures that help people respond to or recover from stress in its employer guide.

Consider the effects on other people before agreeing a measure. Moving unfinished work to another team may simply move the exposure. Protecting time for one task needs workable cover for the duties that remain. Consult the people affected by the proposed change.

5. Record responsibilities and check the result

Give each action an owner with the authority to deliver it, a realistic completion date and a way of checking whether it works. Record any resources or approval needed. Where a permanent change will take time, consider what interim arrangements are necessary.

Prioritise the findings by the risk they present. The easiest administrative task should not automatically come first while a more serious problem remains open. Where information is incomplete, identify what needs to be established and who will do that work. Avoid treating uncertainty as a reason to take no action where a credible concern has been raised.

Separate completion from effectiveness. Publishing a new allocation procedure is a completed task. Establishing that employees now receive consistent priorities, and that unresolved work is escalated promptly, tests whether it is helping.

The HSA's WorkPositive implementation guidance includes action planning and review after assessment. Agree the review arrangements when assigning the actions, rather than waiting for the next survey to discover whether anything changed.

Bring a short progress record to the next management meeting: the concern, the agreed action, the responsible person, the due date and the evidence available so far. If a decision is needed, state it plainly. For example, an unresolved request for additional cover should reach the person who can approve it, with the consequences of leaving it unresolved explained.

Staff should hear the outcome through the consultation arrangements as well. If an action has been delayed or changed, explain the reason and the interim arrangements. This gives employees an opportunity to say whether the revised plan deals with the issue they originally raised.

Four colleagues discussing their work around a table in an office.

What would an action plan look like in practice?

Consider a hypothetical administration and reception team. This is an illustration, not a Phoenix client case or a report of measured results.

Staff describe frequent interruptions, competing instructions from different managers and difficulty completing records before leaving work. Management initially proposes a stress-awareness course for everyone.

Further discussion identifies a more specific problem: urgent requests arrive through several channels, nobody decides which request takes priority, and reception cover is informal. The same employee is expected to answer calls and finish work that requires sustained attention.

An assessment would need to examine the actual workload and available resources. Subject to those findings, an initial plan might include:

Finding	Proposed management action	How to check it
Conflicting instructions	Nominate one role to resolve competing priorities and explain the escalation route to all managers.	Ask staff whether priorities are clearer; review requests that still remain unresolved.
Repeated interruptions	Trial protected periods for records work, with agreed reception cover.	Check whether the time is available in practice and whether the cover creates difficulties elsewhere.
Work repeatedly carries over	Review incoming demand, staffing and deadlines together; agree what will change if capacity remains insufficient.	Compare the outstanding work and additional hours with the starting position, alongside staff feedback.
Staff do not know whether concerns are acted on	Give a short progress update through the agreed consultation arrangements.	Confirm that staff know what changed, what remains open and who is responsible.

The responsible manager would add names, dates and any resource decisions to the plan. Those details must come from the workplace, rather than from a generic template.

Training could support the agreed changes. It should not become the response that allows the competing instructions and lack of cover to continue unexamined.

At review, the question is whether the changes reduced the identified exposure. If protected time was repeatedly cancelled, management needs to understand why. If the backlog fell only because staff worked additional hours, that is not sufficient evidence that the workload problem has been resolved.

How should confidential information be handled?

Explain what information will be collected, who will see it and how the findings will be reported. In a small team, a job title or a detailed comment may identify someone even when their name is removed. Management should not promise anonymity that the chosen process cannot provide.

The Data Protection Commission's principles include limiting personal data to what is necessary, using it transparently and protecting confidentiality.

As a practical precaution, keep the shared action plan focused on hazards, controls and responsibilities. Individual health information belongs in an appropriately restricted process, rather than in a risk register circulated to the team. Obtain suitable advice where sensitive information is involved.

How does this work in a small business or a care setting?

In a small business, management can use a short, structured discussion and a proportionate written assessment, provided employees have a suitable way to contribute. An independent facilitator may be useful where staff would find it difficult to raise concerns directly. A small workforce does not remove the need to address the risks.

In a care setting, the assessment should reflect the work as it is delivered across shifts. For example, management could examine whether handover arrangements, access to assistance or competing care and administrative duties create avoidable pressure. The needs of residents and safe staffing arrangements must be considered when changing tasks; work should not simply be left undone or passed to the next shift.

Managers should be included in the assessment as employees too. A manager with responsibility for several teams may also face conflicting expectations or lack the authority to resolve the pressures reported. Escalation arrangements should reach someone able to make the necessary decisions.

Frequently asked questions

Is a staff wellbeing survey a risk assessment?

It can provide evidence for one. Management still needs to assess the hazards and risks, decide on controls and record the necessary action. A completed questionnaire does not establish that those steps have been taken.

Must every employer use WorkPositive?

No. The HSA describes it as voluntary. The employer needs an appropriate assessment and action process; the suitability of a particular tool depends on the work and the people involved.

Is an employee assistance programme enough?

It may provide valuable individual support. Management still needs to examine work-related causes and act on the assessment. Access to counselling does not resolve an avoidable conflict over responsibilities or priorities.

Does management need a medical diagnosis before acting?

Management can investigate reported hazards in the work and improve arrangements without waiting for someone to become unwell or provide a diagnosis. Individual health concerns may also need appropriate professional support, handled separately and confidentially.

How often should the assessment be reviewed?

Agree review dates that fit the actions and the level of risk. Separately, the Act requires review where there is a significant change or reason to believe the assessment is no longer valid. The guidance does not replace those triggers with a single survey interval.

What evidence shows that management has followed through?

Keep the assessment, consultation findings, agreed actions and review records. Look for evidence that the relevant working conditions changed. Record unresolved concerns and further action, rather than closing an item solely because a policy was issued or a course was completed.

How can Phoenix STS help?

Phoenix STS provides health and safety risk assessments, health and safety consultancy and support with safety statements. Management can contact Phoenix STS to discuss the work, the concerns raised and the scope of support required.

Keep up to date

Subscribe to the Phoenix STS newsletter for practical health and safety articles and updates.

Important note

This article provides general information for workplaces in Ireland. It does not replace a workplace-specific risk assessment, competent professional advice, legal advice or individual medical care. The example and suggested actions are illustrative and must be assessed against the circumstances of the workplace. Sources were checked on 10 November 2026; legislation and guidance should be checked again when making decisions.