Law Society Nsw
Employment Law - Workplace Bullying
By Frank Egan - LAC Lawyers
Workplace bullying has been with us ever since the advent of the Industrial Revolution. Interestingly in New South Wales the Office of Industrial Relations of the NSW Department of Commerce provides scant information about this anti-social workplace behaviour. Research indicates that workplace bullying is widespread and that it is more prevalent that harassment. What is also interesting is that in New South Wales there is no statutory definition of bullying. In point of fact Butterworths Australian Legal Dictionary is also mute on this point. The Law Society of NSW has offered the following definition of bullying: "Unreasonable and inappropriate workplace behaviour includes bullying, which comprises behaviour which intimidates, offends, degrades, insults or humiliates an employee possibly in front of co-workers, clients or customers and which includes physical or psychological behaviour." Importantly, employees have a duty under Occupational, Health and Safety laws to find out about bullying and take steps to prevent it. Under the NSW Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 an employer has an obligation to ensure the health, safety and welfare of all employees and this extends to bullying. Employers also have a duty to take reasonable care for the safety of their employees at work. Essentially bullying is repeated inappropriate behaviour directed against a person by one or a number of other employees in the course of employment which could reasonably be regarded as undermining an individual's right to dignity at work.
Bullying Behaviour
Bullying behaviour is not only restricted to employees but it may involve anyone with whom employees of the business come into contact in the ordinary course of their employment whilst at work. Bullying may be active or passive, direct or indirect, physical or psychological but it does include:
- Unacceptable language and rudeness;
- Coercive behaviour directed against someone including their property;
- Unreasonable teasing;
- All forms of intimidating behaviour including physical assault or threats;
- Marginalising or ignoring someone;
- Any form of demeaning behaviour whether business or personal which serves to denigrate the individual being attacked;
- Abuses of authority.
What is not Bullying
Employers have the right to supervise, direct and control work and they have the responsibility to monitor workflow and gauge performance. They are entitled to set reasonable goals and standards including KPIs and deadlines which have to balanced against the responsibility to look after the health, safety and welfare of their workforce.
The Consequences of Bullying
Different employees react differently. Bullying essentially may result in unwarranted stress, ill health, inability to make decision, incapacity to work, depression, physical injury and more. Wherever bullying occurs there is the potential for legal action. There is a body of law which is developing which suggests that an employee can sue his employer for a breach of an implied duty of trust and confidence. Bullying and harassment seems to fit squarely written this. Employers need to exercise care!
General Legal Requirements
Legislation, Australian Workplace Agreements, Certified Agreements, Industrial Awards and the Common Law cover the field. Primarily Industrial, Occupational Health and Safety and Anti- Discrimination Legislation applies to this area. In the latter bullying may sometimes involve harassment or discrimination where a person unreasonably picks on a personal characteristic such as race, sex, pregnancy, marital status, religious beliefs, disability or age which causes another to feel embarrassed, humiliated, offended or intimidated.
Action
Bullying should never be tolerated under any circumstances. Employers can develop clear workplace guidelines, practices and policies to safeguard everyone. Reducing the risk of exposure to workplace bullying would assist employers to satisfy their general duty of care to protect themselves and their employees.
Irrespective whether employer or employee where workplace bullying arises there is a legal exposure and the advice of an experienced employment lawyer needs to be secured.
January 2, 2011
2:48 pm
no
January 4, 2011
8:06 pm
Can a lawyer who is only registered with NSW law society act in QLD?
January 20, 2011
10:20 am
Usual penalty for underage drinking in Australia, NSW?
Well I’m 15, I have heard of a party when it’s obvious under-age drinking will occur (probably among other less tasteful things). Being the person I am, who believes in good morales and overall obiding by the law, and how I think it’s contemptible the rate at which society is heading, I believe I should report this to the authorities, for their sake, even if they don’t realise why yet. However, I need to be sure this won’t be damaging to the future of their lives, and that they’ll be able to learn from the mistake rather than hold a grudge for it.
Thanks.
January 21, 2011
5:33 am
Since you’ve been a member and have generated answers for so long I’m somewhat surprised you didn’t notice your cap locks key was on.
The not-so-simple answer is that as a good citizen “they” don’t believe you should even question these ideals. I think this has two facets:
1) it really is for the good of society
2) most individuals cannot bring themselves to question authority
1 – Laws are laid down for the betterment of society. It is their purpose and their function. (Hammurabi, Genghis Khan, the 12 Tables of Rome etc.) Laws provide a society with stability, clearly stating what is allowed and what is forbidden. This allows freedom in a sense in that a citizen is capable of determining their own actions within that framework. They know what is allowed and what the punishments will be if they fail to comply.
2 – Studies and broad human behavior have shown time and again that people will, for the most part, do what they have been told to do. (see the top three links below) Keep this in mind in relation to the first point. It suggests that simply having the law in place will prevent, or more accurately discourage, people from breaking these laws.
So…
The laws are good laws, whether they are or not. They may appear to be enforced sporadically, but really they are enforced in every situation possible. The times in which it looks like a person has received lax enforcement is typically a case in which the person has successfully argued that the law was unjust, unclear or not applicable. A parent taking a picture of their child in the tub isn’t child porn, but if they start selling the picture it quickly becomes such.
As to the second part of your question, the suggestion that some law makers are hiding they own guilty feelings, holds some merit. Look at Mark Foley. The man spearheaded the broadening of what could be considered child porn. He was a tireless crusader for children. Then it was revealed he had what some would have to call a predatory nature.
January 21, 2011
11:21 am
homework help could you re right this?
Since the European invasion until very recently government policy relating to Aboriginal people has been designed and implemented by non-Aboriginal people. The common justification for most policies for Aborigines was that they were “for their own good”. There have been policies of protection, assimilation, self-determination and reconciliation. It is now clear that none of these policies have actually made the condition of Australia’s Indigenous people any better than it was prior to the invasion.
When the six Australian colonies became a Federation in 1901, white Australia believed that the Aborigines were a dying race and the Constitution made only two references to them. Section 127 excluded Aborigines from the census (although heads of cattle were counted) and Section 51 (Part 26) gave power over Aborigines to the States rather than to the Federal Government. This was the situation until the referendum of 1967 when an overwhelming majority of Australians voted to include Aborigines in the census of their own country.
In 1902, women in NSW were granted the right to vote, but this did not apply to Aboriginal women. And when compulsory voting was introduced in NSW in 1929, Aboriginal people were still excluded from voting under the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918. In 1962, the Federal Government gave Aborigines the optional right to vote. State laws, however, still classified “natives” as “wards of the state” and as such they were denied the right to vote in State elections.
In 1881, George Thornton MLC was appointed the first NSW Protector of Aborigines. Under the NSW Aborigines Protection Act 1909-1943, this position was abolished and replaced by the Aborigines Protection Board. This became the NSW Aborigines Welfare Board in 1943. The Board administered government policy, dictating where Aborigines could live and work, their freedom of movement, their personal finances and their child rearing practices.
The NSW Aborigines Welfare Board controlled Aboriginal lives until the 1960s, pursuing policies that are now acknowledged as having contributed to the destruction of Aboriginal families and society by separating children from their parents. These children became known as ‘the stolen generations’ and are still searching for their families. They now number between 15,000 and 20,000 in NSW alone. During the First World War, some four to five hundred Aboriginal people enlisted in the armed forces. During this time, the State government continued to remove Aboriginal children from their families, including youngsters whose fathers were serving overseas.
The NSW Aborigines Protection Act subsumed a number of previous Acts, including the 1867 law prohibiting alcohol being sold to Aborigines. It also provided for Aborigines of “mixed blood” to be issued with Certificates of Exemption, releasing them from the provisions of the Act and its regulations. These certificates, commonly known as “dog tags”, came at a price as individuals were forced to relinquish family connections. They were not allowed to visit their own families and were gaoled if caught doing so. Many of those who travelled to Sydney needed an exemption certificate to allow them to work. When they wanted to return home for family business like funerals, they had to get written permission from the Manager of the station or mission to do so. The Welfare Board saw the increase in the number of certificates issued as proof of the success of its assimilation policy.
The Board’s policy was based on a belief that “protection” of Aborigines would lead to their “advancement” to the point where they would eventually fit into the white community. Protection and segregation policies were enforced until the1940s, when they were replaced with policies of assimilation and integration. Features of the administration of the Board included the implementation of the assimilation policy, and, from 1950/51, the movement of Aboriginal people to stations where they could be prepared for absorption into the general community.
The policy of assimilation meant individual families were persuaded to share the life in the towns with whites. Earlier government policies had relocated Aborigines from their homelands to reserves. The assimilation policy aimed at breaking up these reserves and “encouraging” people to give up seasonal and casual work, replacing this with regular work for wages (which remained unequal). The stations were considered as “stepping-stones to civilisation”.
The Aborigines Welfare Board of NSW consisted of 11 members, with two positions designated for Aborigines, one “full-blood” and one having “a mixture of Aboriginal blood”. The amendment to the Aborigines Protection Act in 1911 established Kinchela Boys Home and Cootamundra Girls Home for Aboriginal children removed from their families. In these homes, Aboriginal children were taught far
January 21, 2011
11:23 am
Do you mean ‘rewrite’?
January 21, 2011
2:31 pm
Is this homework? We don’t do homework here on Yahoo Answers – it is sort of an “unspoken” rule.
Ask your classmates.
Read your textbook(s).
Talk to your professor(s).
You are welcome.
January 21, 2011
2:32 pm
DEFINITION OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHY?
CHILD PORN IS AT EPIDEMIC LEVELS WORLDWIDE. BUT DOES THE MERE PHOTOGRAPHING OF YOUNG FEMALES UNDERWEAR IN PUBLIC PLACES REALLY CONSTITUTE CHILD PORN AND JUSTIFY SEVERE PROSECUTION AND PUNITIVE PENALTIES IF SAY, THE LATTER IS VIDEOED BY AN INDIVIDUAL BUT NOT INTENDED FOR DISTRIBUTION. WOULD AND SHOULD THAT BE CONSIDERED BY LAW ENFORCEMENT, PROSECUTORS AND THE JUDICIARY AS SIGNIFICANT EVIDENCE OF CHILD PORN.? ARE THOSE BEHIND THE STRICT LAWS GENUINE CRUSADERS TO PROTECT CHILDREN, OR PUBLICITY SEEKING, SELF RIGHTEOUS, MORALISTIC BIGOTS AND HYPOCRITES.?
AUSTRALIA AND ESPECIALLY THE STATE OF NSW HAVE GONE OVERBOARD TO DILIGENTLY PURSUE, PROSECUTE AND PUNISH SEVERELY THE SLIGHTEST RESEMBLENCE OF ANYTHING RELATED TO WHAT THEY INTERPRET AS SO-CALLED CHILD PORN. ARE THERE INTERNATIONALLY, INTELLECTUALLY ACCEPTABLE GUIDELIINES OR IS IT JUST UP TO THE INDIVIDUAL COP,ETC TO DECIDE SOMEONE’S FATE BASED ON THEIR CONCLUSION OF WHAT CONSTITUTES CHILD PORN. MANY PROMINENT MEMBERS OF SOCIETY INCLUDING TOP COPS, PROSECUTORS AND EVEN JUDGES, BUSINESS LEADERS, POLITCIANS AND RICH AND FAMOUS PEOPLE ARE CAUGHT UP IN THE CHILD PORN SCENARIO, NOT JUST ORDINARY FOLK.
I’M SURE THAT MOST OF YOU OUT THERE ARE ALSO CURIOUS AND HAVE FORMED OPINIONS ABOUT THIS PHENOMENOM WHICH AFFECTS SO MANY PEOPLES LIVES. I AM NOT AN ADVOCATE OF CHILD PORN, JUST INTERESTED IN WHAT OTHERS SERIOUSLY THINK ABOUT THIS.
Single Father,
Writer, Director,
Journalist,
Broadcaster.
It is essentially neccessary and time folks for independent thinkers like myself to provoke deeper thought about extremely sensitive social matters which ultimately affect us all, rather than to sheepishly crawl along with the usual boring
subjects. I firmly believe, in doing so that I am contributing to the good of society.!
I will select Cheep Rick as best answer with some reservations. You articulately made some excellent points and arguments related to my question. (ooOps sorry bout thecaps) Of course, as a seasoned writer, I am well aware of who, what and why C.P. is. I just wanted to provoke open discussion because
so many people, inclluding prominent Citizens, the rich and famous seem entwined in it, together with their other decadent passtimes. ! Now concerning your illustrating
Rome and the Mongolian Khans, the Romans may have been among the first to make and pass laws, but they were also ruthless butchers, one only has to look at the misery endured in their collosseum and their reckless adventurisms into other folks Countries. And as far as the Mongolians are concerned, they were a bunch of violent, lowlife rabble who wrecked everything in their paths.! Other than that your explanation is very enlightening and educative, Answers needs more of this kind of intelligent, rather than critical response
January 21, 2011
8:10 pm
Legal Studies, need help understanding something?
Changing social values and composition of society:
As society changes, the challenge for the law is for it to continue to reflect and embody society’s morals and values. A criticism of the process of law reform is that it can take a long time; hence the law runs the risk of lagging behind social change.
An example of social change leading to law reform is in the area of the laws response to the multicultural nature of contemporary Australian society by amendments to the Oaths Act1900 (NSW). Swearing an oath on the Bible is no longer the only way that a witness or juror can be validly sworn in. A witness or juror may instead make an affirmation, swear an oath simply to tell the truth or swear an oath on the holy text of their faith.
An example of changing social morality leading to law reform is the decriminalisation of homosexual sex between consenting adults which occurred in NSW in 1984. A good example of law reform being overdue in terms of reflecting society’s values is the fact that it was not until 1981 that marriage, as a defence to rape was removed (by the Crimes (Sexual Assault) Amendment Act1981).
—————————–
Okay, I read this, and I cannot understand it. Can you please outline this info briefly, so I can understand it better. Kthanx (: