One definition of workplace bullying is "the repeated less favourable treatment of a person by another or others in the workplace, which may be considered unreasonable and inappropriate workplace practice. It includes behaviour that intimidates, offends, degrades or humiliates a worker". (Source ACTUQ/QCCI/Qld Govt Dept of Workplace Health and Safety.)
Bullies usually utilise power attributed to their status, skills or position in the workplace, and both men and women can be the targets and/or the perpetrators. Workplace bullying can occur between a worker and a manager or supervisor, or between co-workers.
Bullying behaviour can range from very obvious verbal or physical assault to very subtle psychological abuse. This behaviour may include:
- physical or verbal abuse;
- yelling, screaming or offensive language;
- excluding or isolating employees;
- psychological harassment;
- intimidation;
- assigning meaningless tasks unrelated to the job;
- giving employees impossible jobs;
- deliberately changed work rosters to inconvenience particular employees;
- undermining work performance by deliberately withholding information vital for effective work performance.
Every case will be different. Below is a newspaper report from the Sydney morning Herald 24 June 2005. This case is but one extreme example. The Judge awarded $1.9 million in damages.
Example #1: An Indo-Fijian security guard has successfully sued his former employers over the seven years of racial vilification and bullying he endured from a superior.
Devander Naidu worked from 1990 to 1998 for Group 4 Securitas Pty Ltd, which contracted him to work for News Ltd at its offices in Surry Hills, Sydney, and at the publisher's office at Parramatta.
He claimed his immediate boss from 1990 to 1997, News Ltd's security and fire manager, Lance Chaloner, racially vilified him and bullied him.
Naidu, 45, sued both Group 4 Securitas and News Ltd in the NSW Supreme Court for negligence, claiming they were liable for "injurious acts" committed in the course of his employment.
Justice Michael Adams agreed and found both News Ltd liable for 65 per cent of the damages and Group 4 Securitas 35 per cent, but has not yet awarded a final amount of damages.
Mr Naidu claimed that Mr Chaloner continually verbally abused him, calling him "a black c***, a coconut head, a poofter, monkey face and a black man".
He also said Mr Chaloner masturbated in front of him and on a few occasions indecently assaulted him, verbally abused his wife and made him get permission to go to the toilet.
On other occasions Mr Chaloner forced him to do labouring work at his home and drive him to work, Mr Naidu said during the hearing.
Mr Naidu claimed the behaviour caused him to suffer from chronic depression and post-traumatic stress disorder, which eventually led to his resignation in 1998.
News Ltd had already dismissed Mr Chaloner the previous year.
Justice Adams found that Mr Chaloner would have been aware of the psychological affect his behaviour was having on Mr Naidu.
But he also pointed out that Mr Chaloner did not give evidence in the hearing and was therefore not able to dispute the allegations.
"Moreover, I have concluded that so extreme was Mr Chaloner's behaviour that he well knew, or would have known had he reflected as any reasonable man would have, that prolonged misconduct of the kind he exhibited towards the plaintiff could reasonably be expected to expose him to the real risk of such psychological injury," he said.
Justice Adams said he believed that Mr Chaloner's behaviour reduced Mr Naidu to a position of "powerlessness".
"It is perhaps difficult for a judge chosen from a bar known, if not notorious, for its robust attitude to adversarial confrontation to understand how a person might be reduced to the plaintiff's profound sense of powerlessness - how and why he remained a victim for so long," he said.
"At the same time, I do not have any real doubt that this is precisely what happened to the plaintiff." Naidu v Group 4 Securitas Pty Ltd [2005] NSWSC 618
Example #2: In this case the employer was ordered to pay compensation of three months wage because bullying is unlawful unfair and unacceptable.
The worker told the Court that in the first couple of weeks at work all was well until Jeff started bullying, threatening and intimidating him. The worker was of an average height, however, it was agreed that Jeff was very tall, possibly as tall as 6ft 8".
The worker claimed that at first he was subjected to verbal bullying and he tried to ignore it and get on with his job in the first few months. However, it got so bad that on one occasion he was picked up by the other employee and shaken. Because of this incident and the verbal bullying, some days later when a position became vacant in the company in about April 1995 as a result of another employee, Lisa, going on maternity leave, he went and saw Edwards and applied for the position. The position was in administration. He was interviewed by Edwards who at the same time asked him why he was applying for the position. In response the worker explained to Edwards in some depth the extent of the threats and bullying he was experiencing from Jeff as well as mentioning the lifting and shaking incident.
The worker was not offered the alternative position because, according to Edwards, the applicant had no data entry training. This allegation was disputed by the worker who claimed to have done some data entry training at a TAFE college whilst he was unemployed. Hudson v Jambro Pty Ltd 317/96