Workplace bullying is unfortunately a not uncommon occurrence in many people’s lives. According to Federal Government statistics, 9.4% of Australian workers have been bullied at work in the last six months, 37% of Australian workers have been sworn or yelled at in their workplace, and according to a study from the University of Wollongong, 50% of Australians will be bullied at work at least once during their lives.
Every employer has an obligation to ensure that its employees are provided with a safe, bully and harassment free work environment. This includes taking steps to manage the risks of bullying, such as having appropriate reporting mechanisms and processes, and also dealing with any complaints quickly and effectively. An interesting note, however, is that even if an employer has appropriate reporting and anti-bully mechanisms in place, if an employee is bullied at work, regardless of whether the employer takes steps to mitigate and remedy the situation, they may be held legally responsible for any bullying that occurs and be ordered to pay the employee compensation.
An example of this is a recent case, in which a former accounts manager from Allianz, Mr Ward, was awarded almost $1.4 million, as a result of being bullied by his former boss, Mr Smith. The judge ruled that Allianz was not negligent in how it handled Mr Smith because as soon as it was made aware of his behaviour, he was removed from his position. Nevertheless, the Court found that Allianz was still responsible for Mr Smith’s bullying behaviour, due to his position as State Manager.
Mr Smith came to Allianz from the military, and according to his former colleagues, he brought a very militaristic style of management to the company. He was responsible for approximately 100 staff and upon attaining his position, he told them that any account manager who failed to meet their targets would be “dragged out” by human resources. Mr Smith also said that he was hired by Allianz to “kick them in the head” and he would often yell at Mr Ward and publicly tell him that he was the worst performing accounts manager. The Court also heard that Mr Smith physically abused Mr Ward in the office on a regular basis, hitting him across the back of the head and “shoulder charging” him whenever they would walk past each other.
Mr Ward never reported the bullying to his superiors at Allianz and instead worked from home whenever possible. It was only when another employee, who was also bullied by Mr Smith, reported his behaviour, that Mr Ward came forward. Allianz subsequently removed Mr Smith from his position, promoting him to a national role! Mr Ward continued to work at Allianz for a further six years, however, Mr Smith’s bullying had caused him to develop a Major Depressive Disorder and PTSD. He left in December 2010 and did not work again.
Allianz did not dispute the above, however, it said that it could not be held liable for Mr Smith’s actions, as the company never authorised him to act in that way. Allianz also argued that when it became aware of Mr Smith’s behaviour, he was removed from his role, and as such, it ought not be held liable for his prior behaviour.
The Court rejected his argument, stating that as Mr Ward’s employer, Allianz was obliged to provide him with a safe working environment. Further, the Court also stated that as Mr Smith’s harassing behaviour was conducted, at least in his mind, to better the productivity of those reporting to him, it was done in his capacity as State Manager, and Allianz was thus responsible and required to pay Mr Ward compensation.
This is a very interesting principle and one that many employers and employees may not be aware of. In simple terms, even if a company has anti-bullying policies in place, and those policies are enforced in an effective manner, it can still be held liable for bullying that occurs in the work environment. The mere fact that an employee is deliberately bullied at work, and that they receive injuries in the course of their employment, is potentially all that is needed for an employer to be held legally liable for that behaviour.
The contents of this publication are for reference purposes only. This publication does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon as legal advice. Specific legal advice should always be sought separately before taking any action based on this publication
