Skip to main content

$1,703,530 in damages against an employer in bullying matter

The Queensland Supreme Court last month awarded $1,703,530 in damages against an employer, whose Chief Executive Officer's "unjustified blaming, humiliation, belittling, isolation, undermining and contemptuous disregard" of the plaintiff employee resulted in serious psychiatric injury. The employer was found vicariously liable for the CEO's actions and to have breached its own duty of care.

Repeated mistreatment and harassment of employee by CEO

Ms Robinson was the District Director of Nursing for the Cape York Health Service and brought her claim against the State of Queensland for negligence and vicarious liability. Ms Robinson complained that, from March 2010 to 17 January 2011, the CEO repeatedly harassed and mistreated her. This conduct included:
  • unjustified, loud and aggressive disciplining and belittling of her in public and in front of other staff on multiple occasions;
  • failing to inform her of allegations against her and failing to provide those allegations in writing despite repeated requests;
  • isolating her on many occasions, including by failing to address her reasonable queries, failing to meet her for requested private discussions, and circumventing her in communications with staff; and
  • humiliating her by making substantive decisions about her employment and communicating these decisions to staff without first consulting or advising her.
This mistreatment caused the plaintiff to develop a chronic adjustment disorder. The plaintiff never returned to work and subsequently entered into compulsory retirement due to her injury.

Employer liable

Justice Henry found that the CEO's conduct constituted unlawful workplace bullying and harassment, and a breach of the employer's own Workplace Harassment Human Resources Policy, which required managers to continually model appropriate and ethical behaviour.
His Honour stated:
"In an era when the potentially grave psychological harm done by workplace harassment and bullying is well known, unjustified blaming, humiliation, belittling, isolation, undermining and contemptuous disregard of an employee by a CEO was conduct collectively raising a foreseeable and not insignificant risk of psychiatric injury".1
Because the perpetrator was the CEO of the employer, Justice Henry found it "uncontroversial" that the employer be inferred to have knowledge of the CEO's conduct. However, His Honour noted that, even if the bully were not the CEO, the repetitive and public nature of the harassing conduct would nevertheless have compelled the inference that the employer failed to adequately monitor its employee's conduct.
Thus, because the "probability of potentially serious psychiatric injury" arising from workplace harassment was "sufficiently well known", the employer's failure to take timely and determinative action to prevent the conduct made it vicariously liable, and was a breach of its duty to take reasonable care to avoid psychiatric injury.2
Justice Henry awarded the plaintiff $1,703,530 (less the amount of workers' compensation payments already received). This sum accounted for past and future economic loss, medical and rehabilitation expenses, and general damages for pain and suffering.

Key lessons for employers

This decision is yet another reminder for employers of the importance of ensuring that they have appropriate policies and procedures in place to address workplace bullying, including psychological bullying.
  • However, having well drafted policies and procedures and nicely-worded messages of support from the Executive will not be enough on their own for an employer to avoid vicarious liability. Employers must also ensure that employees understand how to raise, and feel comfortable raising, any concerns they may have in this regard.
  • Further, leaders have a critical role to play and must convey the message that bullying behaviour is unacceptable – no matter who you are – and will not be tolerated under any circumstances.
Most importantly, where the alleged perpetrator is a senior executive or manager, the employer must ensure that its procedures provide for a prompt and impartial investigation and for appropriate disciplinary action to be taken if the allegations are substantiated.

Link to case on AWPTI download page - http://awpti.com.au/downloads/
AWPTI - workplace investigation Sydney and through-out NSW, QLD and Victoria. Workplace training national wide


Misconduct investigations, bullying investigations, harassment investigations & sexual harassment investigations, complaint investigations, grievance investigations, discrimination investigations
www.awpti.com.au
http://awpti.com.au/investigations/
http://awpti.com.au/training/
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Lorna Jane vindicated after two-year, $570,000 bullying case

Legal experts are urging businesses to train their staff in up-to-date social media policies this year, after activewear brand Lorna Jane won a two-year legal battle in November against a former employee who claimed the company was responsible for the psychiatric impacts of bullying at work. Former Brisbane store manager Amy Robinson filed a legal claim against Lorna Jane in 2015, seeking $570,000 in damages. The former manager claimed Lorna Jane was negligent and should be held responsible for her being bullied by a learning and development manager at the company, which led to psychiatric illness and a loss of employment and future employability. The company came out swinging against the claims early on,   posting a later-deleted Facebook post in 2015 defending itself against the claims  and saying it had been “very disappointed” by what had been reported in the media about the case. The claims included that Robinson was bullied and called a variety of names while...
Post a Comment
Read more

Recent decisions at the Fair Work Commission

Knowledge is power when it comes to managing claims risk Unfair dismissal applications are all too common and employers regularly find themselves in hot water when they are on the receiving end of one. Whilst the outcome of every unfair dismissal case tends to turn on its own individual merits, opportunities to learn and refresh one’s knowledge consistently arise – and knowledge is power when it comes to managing claims risk. To assist you in managing your unfair dismissal claims risk, this article set out some important lessons and reminders compiled from a number of recent unfair dismissal decisions made by the Fair Work Commission. If an employee has “gotten away” with certain conduct in the past, it can be difficult to later justify their dismissal for such conduct. In West v Holcim (Australia) Pty Ltd [2017] FWC 2346, the applicant employee allowed a casual labour hire worker to operate a crane without adequate supervision. This was despite the fact that the labour hire wo...
Post a Comment
Read more
The serious threat SMEs are ignoring: One in two small businesses don’t have a policy for bullying claims One in two small businesses do not know how they would respond if bullying allegations were raised by their staff, according to new research, leaving them open to significant costs and productivity issues. But workplace experts say these concerns can be prevented with forward planning A survey of 400 businesses from employment relations advisory Employsure found one in two Australian small businesses don’t have a “defined action plan” for when bullying is raised at work, with many unaware that they could face costs related to dispute resolution or even penalties relating to bullying cases in some states. The research, which surveyed businesses with up to 15 employees, found those businesses with between two and four employees were the most likely to be unaware of best practice processes for dealing with bullying claims, with only 40% of businesses saying they know the st...
Post a Comment
Read more