News
Sticks and stones: workplace bullying
First published in the Independent, 13 November 2008.
Our traditional image of a "bully" is the playground thug who steals a pupil's lunch at the threat of a dead leg.
This character is, of course, beloved by Hollywood – and probably conjures up all sorts of images from our own childhood experiences.
In the context of the New Zealand workplace therefore, our traditional image of a "bully" can often be perceived as a most unusual thing indeed.
How often is it, for example, that you have worked alongside someone who would (in effect) threaten you with violence in order to achieve some sort of desired personal outcome?
Surprising though it may seem, this sort of behaviour is prevalent in many New Zealand workplaces.
Equally, however, over recent years the term "bully" has attained some currency – and has been occasionally misused – usually to overstate common situations of workplace disagreement or performance management.
So where is the line drawn? A recent case gives us some guidance.
The case is McCullough v Otago Sheetmetal and Engineering Limited (Unreported, Employment Relations Authority, Christchurch, 14 October 2008). McCullough was employed as an office administrator. In her role she was required to work alongside a foreman, Mr Hurring.
McCullough referred to a litany of incidents in the workplace, each of which combined (in her opinion) to give rise to a relationship of bullying. She said that Hurring generally spoke to her in a rude manner, that he was generally unhelpful when responding to work inquiries, that he regularly referred to her in derogatory terms (such as "the dragon" and "useless"), and that on at least one occasion he threatened violence (by using the phrase "plant me one").
McCullough also said that on several occasions she overheard Hurring telling other staff that McCullough would not last long in her employment – or words to that effect.
For his part, Hurring denied bullying McCullough or treating her badly. He admitted that he had a poor relationship with her, but said that this was because she was incompetent and unfocussed – gossiping about social matters rather than focusing appropriately on her work.
Hurring also said that McCullough was unwilling to take direction from anyone in the business, notwithstanding the fact that she made regular mistakes.
Hurring also made allegations about the appropriateness of some of McCullough's behaviour. He said that she made constant queries about his home and social life, which he regarded as intrusive.
In a case such as this, the Authority's task is to investigate the matter, and to make a decision about the validity of the employee's claims. In this case, the Authority found that while Hurring was passionately committed to the business of his employer, he was also completely intolerant of people that he regarded as being less able than they ought to be.
In fact, the Authority found that Hurring was a person who would not suffer fools - and that he would say precisely what he thought if given any opportunity.
The Authority's task was made somewhat easier by the evidence of two younger staff members who had worked in the workplace during University holidays. They confirmed that Hurring was a difficult man to deal with – and also that McCullough was correct in that he referred to her as "the dragon" and occasionally gave her a "telling off".
In general, the evidence established that Hurring was a person who "picked on" people.
On this basis, the Authority was satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, Hurring had in fact bullied McCullough. Its next task was to consider another factor – being McCullough's attempts to raise this issue with her employer.
McCullough had written to her employer, setting out her concerns about Hurring's behaviour. The person to whom she sent the letter had, unfortunately, recently undertaken surgery and, for one reason or another, there were delays in the information getting through. Finally, when the matter was raised, there was an undertaking that it would be investigated – but the Authority concluded that little had occurred as a consequence of McCullough raising the issue.
The Authority concluded that the employer did not, therefore, deal properly with McCullough's attempts to raise her complaint.
Regrettably, the outcome for McCullough was a decision that she had no other option but to resign from her employment. The Authority accepted that this amounted to a constructive dismissal. The Authority awarded McCullough $13,000 in lost wages, $12,000 to compensate her for her distress for her constructive dismissal, and $7,500 to compensate her for the disadvantage that she suffered during the time of her employment.
The Authority did, however, stop short of imposing a penalty against the company (effectively a fine to punish it for its behaviour). It found that the company's breaches had been inadvertent – and that it had not acted in a deliberately wrongful manner justifying the imposition of a penalty.
This case serves as a reminder about the importance of dealing with bullying allegations – and around the importance of correctly identifying those workplace situations which require serious and immediate intervention.
