Comments on: Momentum increases for tangible action on workplace bullying

By: edward t guida

edward t guida — Tue, 12 Mar 2013 06:19:38 +0000

a company can bully and sack u without notice once u are off the workplace workcover state the bullying no longer exists\’\’ leaving the worker to
Most unlikely succeed for damage s other issues of death threats to life if reported by desperate companys and negligent union delegates etc the system for me after 5 years of fear near death injury from stress caused after 6 months of abuse folloew by unfair dissmissall inc assault false imprisonment\’ not rported by witness now in constant fear of life threats and courts further vilifuing victim\’ stay tuned to public release of my destrutive loss of 35 years etc by arrogant company backed thug

By: Julie McLoughlin

Julie McLoughlin — Fri, 28 Sep 2012 00:37:49 +0000

The 2010 Victorian Equal Opportunities Act explains clearly the positive duty that we have for preventing unacceptable workplace behaviours.
I think the prevention of bullying cannot be understated. This means all organisations should have
a. behaviours policy
b. complaints procedures
c. action plan which includes extensive awareness training and data collection and appointment of contact officers.

By: Bernie Altholfer

Bernie Altholfer — Wed, 26 Sep 2012 23:55:15 +0000

There is an element of risk in providing \’legal advice\’ via a blog as Kevin has alluded to. Each incident needs to treated on its merits and investigated accordingly.

Providing \’blanket\’ or \’generic\’ advice may not address the specifics of the incident for any of the parties involved. Whilst there may be a range of options available for an individual or an organisation, the advice that is relevant and appropriate to one incident, may not be for another.

From past experience, the educative role undertaken by key support personnel varies. In some cases, they only provide \’limited\’ advice e.g. stick to the policies with no detailed explanations of the implications of the various options including seeking legal advice. In other cases, attempts to explain how the WorkCover claims process works, is not seen as being relevant to what the support person does e.g. Harassment Referral Officer.

When employees have little faith or trust in organisational systems or processes and seek advice from external sources, then one might argue there is a ticking time bomb of potential claims or reports that may impact on individual or organisational reputations. It does not help when complaints are \’flick passed\’ or \’fobbed off\’ to someone else, or are not treated seriously.

By: Felix Nater

Felix Nater — Wed, 26 Sep 2012 14:26:01 +0000

Workplace bullying can be managed with the multiple interdiction strategies mentioned in the article. Key to effective Ant-bullying Strategy is establishing acceptable and unacceptable behaviors and holding offenders accountable. While regulations impose sanctions the ultimate objective is self-accountable management behavior of which includes the use of independent assessments in those instances where implications thwart resolution.

All too often bullying is dismissed as \”exuberance\”, \”unintentional\” \”rationalized\”. The real problem is the employer\’s reluctance to hold the bully accountable. In the end the issue shouldn\’t be whether the allegations can be proven but rather that all complaints will be taken seriously.

By: Kevin Jones

Kevin Jones — Wed, 26 Sep 2012 07:56:08 +0000

In reply to Dave.

Dave, you are right about the 7.30 case. From the information available, there were more deniers of the alleged bullying than evidence in support. I was surprised that the apprentice\’s employer was not named or interviewed. Also, given the level of criticism of WorkSafe, Leigh Sales did not say that WorkSafe had been approached for comment.

There is always more to workplace bullying cases than is revealed in the media. If a tribunal is established to \”deal with\” workplace bullying, it should also consider how the judgements or settlements of any complaints are publicly shared. Without sharing, the tribunal could become a process for punishment with little educative or harm prevention role.

By: Dave

Dave — Wed, 26 Sep 2012 07:20:29 +0000

Kevin, I think the report on last night\’s 7.30 about the apprentice bricklayer being bullied is a demonstration of the limitations of legal action in these situations. Ultimately the case boiled down to the apprentice\’s word against all the other people who were employed by that firm. It wouldn\’t matter how well resourced the regulator was, the weight of evidence is against the apprentice and the regulator is hamstrung. I doubt that this provides much solace or would be accepted by the apprentice\’s family but perhaps they should vent their rage at the employer who is legally responsible for ensuring a safe work environment in all aspects of the term rather than at the regulator who is responsible;e for enforcing a piece of legislation.

By: Kevin Jones

Kevin Jones — Wed, 26 Sep 2012 03:11:58 +0000

In reply to mick.

Mick, there is a whole area of poorly managed RTW matters, too many to cover on this blog. The Parliamentary Inquiry into Workplace Bullying heard many presentations about \”bullying\” by poor workers compensation insurers. I am sure the inquiry will include something on this submissions and concerns in their final report.

Also SafetyAtWorkBlog has never been a site of legal advice and probably never will be. Since starting this blog plenty of legal blogs and legal info websites have appeared but few if any provide online advice. That path is fraught with enormous legal liability risks and I can\’t see anyone setting one up any time soon.

I think your point about the six year limit is valid but the focus of this blog has always been to try prevent injuries and harm. With that aim, it can be possible to minimise interactions with lawyers and avoid serious injury. It is an aim I support and advocate as it makes life simpler and provides a better quality of life.

By: mick

mick — Wed, 26 Sep 2012 02:51:03 +0000

Another little crack in the system is that ,if an employee who has had a workplace injury ,who has their case accepted by the employer stays at the firm on limited duties but does not put in a claim for compensation may six years down the track be subject to ongoing pressure of a demeaning nature being forced out, and find that the six year time limit is up and and they have no legal claim despite a ongoing physical and mental condition from the injury identified by doctors ,this gives employees the opportunity to clear injured workers legally from their payroll legally .
This makes a mockery of RTW ,is there a scrapheap out there of injured workers legally expunged from the firms after a period of time who then end up on centrelink funded by the taxpayer .
Kevin this is something maybe some legal advice to your site could be addedbecause Im sure a lot of injured workers will not know about the six year time limit on injury claims .