title for Bullying note
home | about | site use | resources | publications | timeline   spacer graphic   blaw

overview

studies

abusers

institutions

e-kids

e-workers

Aust law

cases 1

cases 2

cases 3

damages

responses

elsewhere

landmarks


















related pages icon
related:


Australian
Law


Human
rights


Discrimination

Messaging

Defamation

Stalking

Suicide

Blogging

Censorship

Security







section heading icon     Australian bullying law

This page outlines the shape of Australian law about bullying.

It covers -

The following pages discuss specific cases that illustrate that law, highlight damages awards and identify some landmarks in Australian bullying litigation.

section marker     introduction

As indicated in preceding pages, the conceptualisation and acceptability of bullying in Australian law has varied significantly over time: what was considered in the 1850s, 1900s or 1950s to be unremarkable is now often penalised.

Legal frameworks regarding bullying are diverse. There is no single national anti-bullying statute and no definitive nationally-acceptable legal characterisation of what constitutes bullying. The federal nature of law in Australia means that recognition of bullying varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Targets of bullying accordingly rely on a range of statute and common law in dealing with the problem.

Legal responses to bullying have essentially taken three forms.

The first is action by the state, acting on behalf of targets and the community in addressing egregious abuses (primarily under criminal law).

That action is generally punitive and provides little or no compensation for targets. It may punish perpetrators and deter future offenders buy does not necessarily provide any compensation for suffering experienced by the target and his/her associates.

The second response is action by targets, for example suing the perpetrators of bullying in order to stop the particular offence, gain some compensation for suffering and send a signal to potential offenders.

The third response is articulation of industry codes, best practice statements or statements of principle, such as the WorkSafe Western Australia 2006 Code of Practice: Violence, Aggression and Bullying at Work and the WorkSafe Victoria 2005 Guide to Managing OHS in Community Services.

In practice those statements may be ignored by perpetrators and by the employers of perpetrators (commitment by the Australian Defence Force to recurrent aspirational statements is questionable). However, they are important as a mechanism for ensuring that organisations are aware that bullying in the workplace or schools is unacceptable. They may also be tied to statutory insurance schemes, with some workplace insurance not covering organisations that have failed to protect employees under occupational health & safety legislation.

section marker     remedies

Legal remedies in Australia have included action under -

  • Anti-Discrimination Legislation
  • Common Law (eg for physical and/or psychological injury)
  • Constructive Dismissal aspect of Industrial Relations Law
  • Occupational Health & Safety Law
  • Workers Compensation schemes
  • Criminal Law

Those remedies reflect expectations about individual responsibilities and restrictions on things such as assault and workplace discrimination. Sodomising a cadet as part of military hazing, setting fire to an apprentice as part of workplace initiation or leaving pork chops in a Muslim colleague's locker is frowned on; physical injury may be rewarded by criminal sanctions against the perpetrator. The bullying that occurs among university academics and in the professions may simply go unreported and be accepted as appropriate industrial discipline aka professional practice.

They also reflect expectations about duties of care and recognition that employers may be in a position to prevent particular abuses or track malpractice (for example articulate and implement a policy that prohibits use of a corporate network for sending/receiving obscene, defamatory or threatening content). Notions of teacher and employer responsibility are evident in New South Wales v Lapore; Samin v Queensland; Rich v Queensland [2003] HCA 4.

Remedies are inevitably an area of disagreement in Australian law.

One reason is that the scale of compensation for many offences (and penalties on the perpetrators of those offences) is low. Some targets will accordingly seek to use tort law (particularly regarding physical and psychological injury) rather than Commonwealth or state/territory anti-discrimination law, which in practice is somewhat toothless.

Another reason is the cost of personal litigation in Australia. As mentioned elsewhere in this note, it is likely that some targets have been deterred by the financial cost (solicitors, barristers, expert witnesses) and emotional cost (time, stress) associated with taking perpetrators and bystanders to court. That cost is particularly significant if any compensation awarded turns out to be lower than the target's legal fees.

Not all litigation is successful. In the UK, for example, Becky Walker was unsuccesful in action against Derby County Council, being awarded to ordered to pay the Council's costs (estimated at £30,000). The judge in that case revealed that if she had won she would only have been awarded £1,250 ... far less than her own costs, which would have been upwards of £15,000.

section marker     discrimination law

The Commonwealth and state/territory governments have established a range of statutes regarding discrimination in the workplace and other environments, reflecting expectations about human rights.

Those statutes recognise that some discrimination is legal (eg blind people and their guide dogs cannot pilot passenger aircraft). They also seek to prevent and punish illegal discrimination, ie discrimination in employment, finance, access to facilities and so forth based inappropriately on attributes such as gender, sexual or religious affinity, age and ethnicity.

Courts have acknowledged that bullying may embody discrimination, with someone for example being targeted on the basis of faith, ethnicity or identity as a GLBT person. Targets can thus potentially deploy discrimination law to address bullying, typically through a mediation process in the first instance and thereafter through a court.

Courts have also acknowledged that an organisation's response to bullying - in particular a failure to respond - may be subject to discrimination law. One example is FP and FQ on behalf of FR v Department of Education & Training; FP v Department of Education & Training [2003] NSWADT 68 (17 April 2003).

Primers include Discrimination Law & Practice (Leichhardt: Federation Press 2004) by Chris Ronalds & Rachel Pepper. Other works are highlighted here.

section marker     workplace safety law

State/territory 'workplace safety' or 'occupational health & safety' (OH&S) law covers relationships in the workplace, including those in factories, educational institutions and professions.

It typically imposes a duty on employers to ensure the health, safety and welfare at work of all employees. That duty has been interpreted broadly - in for example Burazin v Blacktown City Guardian Pty Ltd (1996) 142 ALR 144 - and encompasses systems of work and the working environment, including supervision and instruction.

The expectation is that employers are responsible for what takes place within the workplace and thus, for example, cannot comprehensively escape liability by claiming that they were unaware of what managers were doing to subordinates or staff were doing to each other.

The salient legislation is -

  • Occupational Health & Safety (Commonwealth Employees) Act 1991 (Cth)
  • Occupational Health & Safety Act 1989 (ACT) - here
  • Occupational Health & Safety Act 2000 (NSW) - here
  • Workplace Health & Safety Act 2007 (NT) - here
  • Workplace Health & Safety Act 1995 (Qld) - here
  • Occupational Health, Safety & Welfare Act 1986 (SA) - here
  • Workplace Health & Safety Act 1995 (Tas) - here
  • Occupational Health & Safety Act 2004 (Vic) - here
  • Occupational Safety & Health Act 1984 (WA) - here

In applying those statutes courts have accepted characterisations of bullying highlighted in preceding pages of this note, for example WorkCover Victoria's characterisation of workplace bullying as "repeated, unreasonable behaviour directed towards an employee or group of employees that creates a risk to health and safety" and the NSW Law Society's

behaviour that intimidates, offends, degrades, insults or humiliates a worker, possibly in front of co-workers, clients or customers and which includes physical or psychological behaviour.

As the following page indicates, OH&S legislation has been used to address instances of bullying, with financial penalties for those who directly abused people in the workplace and for company directors or managers who were not directly involved in that abuse but who turned a blind eye to bullying.

It is typically complemented by statutes that mandate workplace insurance, including -

  • Workers Compensation Act 1951 (ACT) - here
  • Workplace Injury Management & Workers Compensation Act 1998 (NSW) - here
  • Workers' Rehabilitation & Compensation Act (NT) - here
  • Workers' Rehabilitation & Compensation Act 2003 (Qld) - here
  • WorkCover Corporation Act 1994 (SA) - here
  • Workers Rehabilitation & Compensation Act 1988 (Tas) - here
  • Workers Compensation Act 1958 (Vic) - here
  • Workers' Compensation & Injury Management Act 1981 (WA) - here

That legislation is significant because it may feature caps on damages awards.

section marker     industrial relations law

Most Australians are employed under contract law (an agreement specific to the relationship between the employer and employee) or under an enterprise/industry agreement (covering some/all employees as a class of people).

Irrespective of OH&S protection, industrial relations law covering such agreements is relevant because bullying - exacerbated by indifference on the part of the employer - may become so unbearable as to force an individual to resign from their job. That undesired departure (which on occasion means the individual forgoes share option vesting opportunities, loses sick/holiday leave or becomes unemployed) can be characterised as constructive dismissal and potentially allow the person to claim compensation under industrial relations law and contract law.

One example is Dillon v Arnotts Biscuits (1997) AIRC, discussed in the following page, where the court found that incessant bullying by a manager had resulted in constructive dismissal through the empoyee's resignation. Another example is Police Service of NSW v Batton [2000] NSWIRComm 79, where a detective was victimised for whistleblowing after refusing a bribe from a colleague, thereafter being incapacitated through a psychiatric disorder that forced his retirement.

section marker     common law

Much injury - whether physical or psychological - in Australia is dealt with through common law, ie by courts ruling on the basis of precedent provided by decisions in earlier courts or superior courts.

Common law has traditionally provided little, if any, protection against harassment. It does however address injury. Targets of bullying may thus use common law in seeking compensation for physical injury (eg scarring incurred through a workplace hazing) and loss (eg destruction of personal property) or for psychological injury incurred through bullying in the workplace, as a student or other environments such as participation in a team sport.

Points of entry to the literature include Law of Torts 3 ed (Sydney: Butterworths 2004) by Balkin & Davis, Torts: Cases & Commentary 5 ed (Sydney: Butterworths 2002) by Harold Luntz & David Hambly, Luntz' Assessment of Damage for Personal Injury and Death: General Principles ( Chatswood: LexisNexis Butterworths 2006), Damages for Psychiatric Injury (Leichhardt: Federation Press 2004) and Employer Liability for Workplace Trauma (Aldershot: Ashgate 2002) by Des Butler, and Stewart's Guide to Employment Law (Leichhardt: Federation Press 2008) by Andrew Stewart.

Common law may also provide protection (and potential damages) in relation to employment contracts, with employers for example being held to have made a commitment to a bullying-free workplace through an employment contract and an associated human resource manual or code of practice. One instance is the decision in Goldman Sachs JB Were Services Pty Ltd v Nikolich [2007] FCAFC 120, where the Full Federal Court upheld a substantial damages award to Nikolich over breach of contract in the finance sector. That case is discussed in the following page.

section marker     criminal law

Criminal law is discussed in more detail here. It encompasses offences such as -

  • theft
  • assault (including threats and physical contact)
  • unauthorised confinement
  • destruction of property

and other matters that are addressed by the state.

section marker     other

It is useful to recognise that bullying on occasion involves action that may be more appropriately addressed as another offence. Persistent harassment via SMS, email and phone calls might for example be dealt with as stalking, covered under state/territory anti-stalking legislation such as the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT).

State/territory governments have on occasion, albeit with little publicity, withdrawn authorisation of organisations/individuals to train apprentices, for example under the Vocational Education & Training Act 1990 (Vic).

Australian courts have not held intermediaries (such as Telstra, Australia Post, MySpace and BigPond) responsible for bullying when those entities have been unaware that bullying is occurring.






icon for link to next page   next page  (Australian bullying cases)








this site
the web

Google

 

 

version of December 2008
© Bruce Arnold
caslon.com.au | caslon analytics