I was reading a news article describing a very important court decision in Ellas, my country, against Piraeus Bank. It’s the largest financial institution by customer loans and deposits. A giant.

Think of this article as a “wake-up call” for many companies.

What happened.

This is the case details.

A female employee, Natalia K., sued Piraeus Bank. She said the bank’s system of unrealistic work targets and constant pressure made her very sick – both mentally and physically.

What the court decided.

The court agreed with her. It ruled that the bank’s aggressive “target culture” (setting impossible goals) and demanding work pace caused serious harm to her health.

This is a bomb.

The court said an employer cannot destroy an employee’s mental health just to make more profit.

Human dignity and health are more important than business goals.

You can read that again if you are a business owner.

The result?

This is now a legal precedent in Ellas. Other employees can use this ruling to fight back against similar abusive work practices. The bank was condemned for damaging her health.

The court protected the worker from a system it called psychological violence and work exhaustion.

I started researching national and international labour laws and related cases.

Profits vs. People: Employee Health Is Not Negotiable

Similar Cases Worldwide

Similar cases have happened in other countries. This is actually a growing trend worldwide – courts are increasingly saying that employers can’t work people to the point of mental breakdown.

🇨🇦 Canada – Zorn-Smith v. Bank of Montreal.

This case is almost identical to the one in your country! A female employee has worked for the bank since she was 15. The bank kept reducing staff while increasing her workload. She suffered burnout, exhaustion and depression. The court found the bank knew she was struggling but kept piling on the pressure with callous disregard for her health.

The judge ruled that the bank had a duty to provide a safe workplace – one that doesn’t make employees sick. The bank had to pay damages.

🇯🇵 Japan – The Dentsu Case (Supreme Court, 2000)

This is the most famous “karoshi” (death from overwork) case. A young employee worked incredibly long hours – sometimes not going home at all. He developed severe depression and died by suicide.

Japan’s Supreme Court ruled that employers have a legal duty to organise work so employees don’t get sick from excessive fatigue or stress. The court said companies can’t just work people to death. The family received about ¥168 million (around $1.6 million USD).

🇬🇧 United Kingdom – Walker v. Northumberland County Council

This is a landmark UK case. A social worker had a nervous breakdown because of an impossible workload. He went back to work after recovering but the employer gave him the same crushing workload again – and he had a second breakdown.

The court ruled that employers must protect employees from reasonably foreseeable psychiatric damage caused by stress and workload. If an employer knows an employee might break down and does nothing, that’s negligence.

🇯🇪 Jersey (Channel Islands) – MacLeod v. Channel Islands Coop (2025)

A very recent case – just decided in late 2025! A CEO suffered PTSD because the board bullied him and set him up to fail. The court awarded him £40,000 plus lost earnings, ruling that the harm was foreseeable and the company breached its duty of care.

There are more countries worth noting here.

Netherlands: Courts require employers to maintain a safe workplace but employees must prove working conditions were objectively harmful, not just subjectively stressful. In a 2023 Samsung case, the employee lost because she couldn’t prove the conditions were truly dangerous.

Denmark: The Supreme Court ruled in 2026 that employer liability depends on a specific negligence assessment – just because an injury is work-related doesn’t automatically mean the employer is at fault.

France: Has a right to disconnect law – employers must negotiate rules about after-hours work emails. The Supreme Court ruled that work during holidays must be compensated.

United States: No specific federal burnout law yet but burnout can lead to claims under disability laws or workplace safety rules if it causes accidents or severe depression.

I believe there is a recurring theme here.

Courts are recognising that employers have a duty of care for mental health, just like physical safety. Unreasonable workloads that cause foreseeable harm are not acceptable. Plus, mental health is a legal right, not just a nice-to-have.

The big difference between countries is how hard it is to prove – some courts require very strong medical evidence, while others accept employee testimony more easily.

International Law

Can an employee in any country file a lawsuit under international labour laws or do they need first to appeal in their country?

Here’s the procedure.

We’ve touched on a crucial point in international law.

The short answer is…

Almost always, an employee must first try to resolve their case in their own country’s courts before going to any international body.

Think of it like this.

National courts are the first responders for legal disputes. International courts and bodies are a last resort, not a first option.

Let me explain why and how.

There’s a “Golden Rule”. Exhaust local remedies first.

This is a fundamental principle in international law called the “exhaustion of local remedies” rule.

What it means.

Before an individual can bring a case to an international court or body, they must have used (and exhausted) all the legal options available in their own country. This usually means losing your case at the final level of appeal in your national courts.

Why does this rule exist?

It gives the country a fair chance to fix the problem itself, using its own laws and courts, without international interference. It’s a matter of respect for national sovereignty and legal systems.

The exceptions to this rule are very rare. An international body might accept a case without exhausting local remedies if it is obvious that the local procedure is unduly prolonged. 

Meaning it’s taking an unreasonably long time or if it’s clear that the local remedies would be completely ineffective.

So, for an employee suffering from work exhaustion, like in the Piraeus bank case, the first step is always to hire a local lawyer and file a case in the national labour courts.

When and how can you go international?

Once you have exhausted local remedies (or in the extremely rare case that you don’t have to), there are a few specific international paths, but they are very narrow. The employee in the Piraeus case would have almost no chance of using these but let’s be thorough.

I created a table describing the main procedures available, primarily through the International Labour Organization (ILO).

As you can see, an individual employee has no direct path to file a complaint with the ILO.

These are systems for states, unions and employer groups to resolve disputes about national laws and policies, not for individuals to get compensation for personal suffering like in the Piraeus case.

Other international courts? Similar rules apply.

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) and the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights. The same principle applies.

These courts protect fundamental human rights, like the right to a fair trial or freedom from torture. While severe work-related harassment might theoretically touch on these rights, they are not designed for standard labour disputes.

Crucially, these courts also have the “exhaustion of local remedies” rule written into their rules.

The European Court of Human Rights, for example, will simply reject a case if the applicant hasn’t first tried to solve the problem in all the courts of their home country.

The one exception!

International organisations’ employees.

There is one major exception to all of this. Employees of international organisations themselves (like the UN, the World Bank or the European Patent Office).

These organisations have their own internal justice systems. An employee of, say, the UN in Geneva cannot sue the UN in a Swiss court. Instead, they must use the organisation’s internal appeals process. If that fails, they can then appeal to a specialised international tribunal, such as the ILO Administrative Tribunal (ILOAT).

For these specific workers, the international route is the first and only route. But for the 99.9% of employees who work for a private company like a bank, this does not apply.

Here’s the reality.

The bank employee at Piraeus bank. Her case is perfect. She used the national labour courts in our country. That was the correct and only realistic procedure. She won a landmark case here. The international bodies are not relevant to her situation.

An employee in another country?

Their path is exactly the same. They must first use their country’s own labour courts. International law provides a high-level framework (e.g., ILO Conventions on health and safety) that national courts should consider but it is not a separate court system you can directly file a lawsuit in.

For an individual employee fighting their employer, the national court is the only real game in town. International law can provide powerful arguments for a lawyer to use in that national court but it cannot provide a separate lawsuit.

I hope this clears things up! It’s a complex area.

International Legal Framework

At this point, I started challenging myself.

If I were assigned the project of crafting an international legal framework for employees’ work standards and practices, what would I do?

That’s a fascinating and ambitious project.

Let’s draft a new international treaty or soft-law framework from scratch.

My 5-Step Plan For An International Framework On Work Standards

Step 1: Start with what already works – don’t reinvent the wheel.

Before writing anything new, I would take the best pieces of existing law and combine them. We already have…

I would consolidate these into one clear, modern document. No contradictions. No vague language.

Step 2: Define the core rights – simple, measurable, enforceable.

I would propose five fundamental rights for every employee worldwide.

Right #1: The right to a reasonable workload.

No employer may assign tasks that predictably cause mental or physical illness. Workload must be objectively achievable by a reasonably competent employee. Targets must adjust if the employee has a health condition.

Right #2: The right to disconnect.

No work emails, calls or messages outside agreed working hours. No penalty for ignoring after-hours contact. Exception only for true emergencies (defined narrowly).

Right #3: The right to mental health protection.

Employers must provide stress risk assessments (just like physical safety inspections). Regular anonymous surveys on employee burnout. Confidential access to mental health support paid by the employer.

Right #4: The right to predictive scheduling.

Work schedule posted at least 14 days in advance. Compensation for last-minute changes. No “on-call” without pay.

Right #5: The right to challenge targets.

The employee can request a review of unrealistic goals. Independent mediator if employer and employee disagree. No retaliation for challenging targets.

These are not vague ideals. Each one can be measured in court.

Step 3: Design a realistic enforcement system – this is the hardest part.

We need a tiered system. Why? Because most international agreements fail. They say nice things but have no teeth.

Tier 1: National courts first (exhaust local remedies – as we discussed earlier).

Employee must first sue in their own country. But the international framework gives them clear legal arguments. National judges can use the framework to interpret local law

Tier 2: Regional enforcement bodies.

Within the EU, use the European Court of Justice. Within Africa, use the African Court on Human Rights. Within the Americas, use the Inter-American Commission. These regional courts already exist – we just give them jurisdiction over work standards.

Tier 3: A new International Labour Court (for serious cases only).

Only after national and regional options are exhausted. Only for cases involving systemic violations or gross harm. Can award damages against employers (not just governments). Small claims procedure for individual workers (no lawyers required for simple cases).

Penalties I would include.

Compensation for medical costs and lost wages (mandatory minimum). Punitive damages for intentional or reckless violations (2-3x actual damages). Public naming of repeat offenders. For very serious cases, temporary suspension of government subsidies or contracts.

Step 4: Address the big practical problems.

Problem 1: Small businesses.

One-size-fits-all doesn’t work. I would phase in requirements: businesses with fewer than 50 employees have longer compliance periods. But no complete exemption – even small employers cannot knowingly destroy someone’s health.

Problem 2: Gig economy and platform workers.

This is crucial. Many workers are misclassified as independent contractors. I would define “employee” broadly. Anyone who depends on one platform for the majority of their income. Platforms like Uber, Deliveroo and Amazon Flex would be covered.

Problem 3: Enforce against multinational companies.

Where do you sue a company incorporated in Ireland, headquartered in the US, with servers in Singapore? 

My solution. The employer can be sued in any country where they have significant operations.

The employee chooses the most favourable jurisdiction (called “forum shopping” – companies hate it but it protects workers).

Problem 4: Countries that refuse to join.

No international law can force a country to participate. 

But I would use trade agreements as leverage.

Any country that wants a trade deal with the EU, US or China must adopt the framework.

This is exactly how labour standards improved in Vietnam, Mexico and Bangladesh.

Step 5: Create a practical path from today’s world to this framework.

I cannot just write a document and expect change. Here is my step-by-step rollout plan.

Year 1-2: Build a coalition of willing countries (starting with EU members, Canada, UK, Japan, Australia, Brazil).

Year 2-3: Pilot program in one sector (e.g., banking and finance – using the Piraeus case as an example).

Year 3-4: Full treaty negotiation at the ILO.

Year 5+: Integration into trade agreements (USMCA, EU trade deals, CPTPP)

Ongoing: Publish an annual “Work Standards Report Card” ranking countries and major employers – public pressure matters more than many lawyers admit.

A Draft Framework

The International Convention on Healthy Work Standards (2027).

Article 1 – Purpose: Every worker has the right to perform their job without suffering foreseeable mental or physical harm from workload, targets or work pressure.

Article 2 – Prohibited practices: Unrealistic targets designed to cause exhaustion. Systematic after-hours contact; retaliation for challenging work conditions; scheduling practices that prevent rest.

Article 3 – Employer duties: Conduct annual stress risk assessments; provide mental health coverage; publish workload metrics transparently.

Article 4 – Enforcement: National courts have primary jurisdiction. Regional courts have secondary jurisdiction. A new International Labour Tribunal hears appeals and systemic cases after local remedies are exhausted.

Article 5 – Remedies: Compensation for medical costs and lost wages; punitive damages for intentional violations; injunctive relief to change work practices.

But I would also add a practical note to every government that signs…

“This Convention creates rights. It does not create miracles. You must fund labour inspections, train judges and support unions. Without enforcement, this is just paper.”

Business Response

How do you think businesses would respond in Ellas and abroad if more courts compensate employees in more cases?

Not just what the law says but what actually happens in the real world when courts start protecting employees.

If more courts follow the Piraeus example and compensate employees for burnout, unrealistic targets and work-induced mental harm, you would see a gradual but fundamental shift in business behaviour. Not because companies become kinder overnight – but because the financial risk becomes too big to ignore.

Medium-term responses (1-3 years).

We’ll see new metrics for managers. Bonuses for managers will start including team retention and mental health surveys, not just sales targets.

Automated monitoring backlash. Companies using software to track keystrokes, mouse movements or bathroom breaks will face lawsuits – those tools will become too risky.

The “targets ombudsman” role. Large companies will create internal positions where employees can secretly report unrealistic targets without retaliation.

Settlement culture. Companies will settle burnout cases quickly rather than risk bad precedents in court – but this means the problem stays hidden.

Long-term responses (3-10 years).

We’ll witness business model changes. Some high-pressure industries (call centers, sales-driven banking, logistics) will have to fundamentally change how they operate. You cannot run a company on fear if fear is illegal.

Competitive advantage for good employers. Companies that genuinely treat workers well will use this as a marketing tool – “We won’t burn you out” becomes a recruiting advantage.

Offshoring pressure. Some companies may try to move stressful jobs to countries with weaker protections. But global brands will still face lawsuits in their home countries for harm caused abroad.

New consulting industry. Workload compliance experts will emerge – similar to safety consultants but for psychological risk.

What will not change quickly.

We’re not going to see mass bankruptcies. Companies will adapt, not collapse. The Piraeus bank is still standing after losing this case.

No end to stress. Work will always have pressure. The goal is to stop unreasonable, health-destroying pressure.

No perfect enforcement. Many employees will still suffer in silence. Courts only see the cases brave enough to file.

Message To Business Owners, Executives & Employees

From someone who has seen what work exhaustion does to real people, here is my final message.

Business Owners & Executives.

I understand the pressure you face. Shareholders want growth. Competitors are aggressive. The market does not wait.

But here is what the courts are telling you, clearly now. Your employees are not disposable batteries. You cannot drain them completely and simply replace them.

When an employee has a panic attack at their desk. When they cry in the bathroom before a meeting. When they cannot sleep because of an impossible target you set. When their children stop seeing them smile. When their marriage breaks under the weight of exhaustion.

That is not “cost of doing business.” That is harm. And increasingly, that harm has a legal price tag.

The smartest business leaders I have advised understand something others miss. Exhausted workers are not productive workers. Burnout destroys creativity, increases errors, kills customer service and drives away your best people.

You do not need to choose between profit and humanity. The companies that last – the ones people actually want to work for – already figured this out. They set ambitious but achievable targets. They reward effort, not just outcomes. They treat rest as part of work, not the enemy of it.

Change now, voluntarily. Or wait for a court to force you. But either way, the old way – work them until they break – is dying.

Related:

• Rewarding Employees For A Healthy Working Environment
• Tech Services That Your Employees Appreciate
• Build Strong Relationships With Remote Employees

Employees.

I know why many of you will not speak up. You need the job. You have rent. You have children. The mortgage does not pause for burnout.

I understand. Truly.

But here is what I want you to know. The law is beginning to stand with you. The Ellenic court decision is not alone. Cases in Japan, Canada, the UK and elsewhere say the same thing – your health matters. Your dignity matters. You are not just a number on a spreadsheet.

If you suffer, document everything. Save those emails with impossible targets. Keep a diary of your hours and your symptoms. Talk to a doctor. Talk to a union if you have one.

And when you are ready – if you are ever ready – know that courts in more and more countries will listen.

You are not weak for struggling. The system that made you struggle is what is broken.

Families of Employees.

You see it. The person you love comes home hollow. They are there but not there. Dinners are silent. Weekends are just recovery, not rest. They snap at small things because they have nothing left.

You are not imagining it.

Work exhaustion does not stay at the office. It follows your loved one home and sits at your table.

Support them but do not carry them alone. Encourage them to see a doctor. Encourage them to document what is happening. And if they decide to fight back – in court, with a union or just by setting boundaries – stand behind them.

And take care of yourself too. Loving someone who is burning out is exhausting in its own way.

The Ellenic court said something simple but powerful.

A company’s profit is not worth an employee’s health.

That idea is spreading. It will not spread overnight. But it is spreading. And one day, working yourself sick will be seen as unacceptable – not just legally, but morally (which should have been the case to begin with).

Epilogue

Too sad we have employees’ health damaged to gain profits. We should have known better. Health should have been the #1 priority worldwide, in business or any sector.

It’s something that bothers many of us who are in business and see the human cost up close.

We should have seen this coming. Humanity has known for centuries that overwork destroys people. Ancient philosophers wrote about balance. Every major religion warns against greed that harms others. Medical science has proven the damage for decades.

And yet.

Why did we let this happen?

Not because people are evil. Most business owners are not monsters. Most managers are just trying to survive themselves.

It happened because of short-term thinking. This quarter’s profits matter more than next year’s burned-out workforce, a manager said.

Fear is everywhere. “If I don’t push my team, I’ll be fired and replaced with someone who will”, said another executive.

Invisible harm? A broken arm is obvious. A broken spirit is hidden behind a polite smile.

Normalisation? “Everyone is exhausted. That’s just work now”, a business owner said.

Power imbalance? The employee needs the job more than the employer needs that specific employee, many outsiders thought.

None of these is a good reason. But they are real reasons.

But here is what gives me hope.

The law is slowly catching up to what you already know.

50 years ago, smoking in offices was normal. Now it’s banned almost everywhere.

30 years ago, sexual harassment was “just how men are.” Now it has legal consequences.

20 years ago, workplace safety meant hard hats, not mental health. Now courts like the one in Ellas are saying… psychological safety matters too.

Change is slow. Too slow for the people suffering right now. I don’t pretend otherwise.

But the direction is clear. More countries. More courts. More cases like Natalia K.’s.

A small shift in thinking.

You know what would change everything? One simple idea.

An employee’s health is not a resource to be spent. It is a trust to be protected.

If businesses treated employee health like they treat customer data or intellectual property – something valuable, something to safeguard, something with legal consequences if damaged – everything would be different.

Imagine performance reviews that asked, “Did this manager’s targets cause anyone to seek medical help?”

Or “Did this department have more than X% sick leave for stress?”

Or even “Did anyone quit citing exhaustion?”

Imagine bonuses tied not just to profit but to how that profit was made.

Your sadness is not weakness.

I’ve seen the worst of what workplaces do to employees.

That sadness? That feeling that we should have known better?

That is not weakness. That is moral clarity.

That matters. People who feel this sadness are the ones who eventually change things. Not overnight. Not alone. But together, over time.

Health should be #1. Business exists to serve human beings, not the other way around. Any system that destroys people for profit is not successful – it is broken.

The good news? More people are realising this every day. Workers, judges, even some business leaders.

The Ellenic court decision is a small stone dropped in a large pond. But the ripples spread. And you, by reading this and researching things on your own, are part of those ripples.

Take care of yourself. And if you work anywhere that pushes you too hard – please, set a boundary.

Your health is not negotiable.