However in the civil sphere where workplace law resides, intent is generally not an issue. With some understanding of the risks of running a business, the law aims to provide a relatively even-handed method for sorting out accidents, injuries and mistakes at work. Intention to cause harm tends to go on the backburner in these situations.
In the case of bullying claims, it can come as a surprise for many employers that innocent slip-ups and unpopular leadership methods on the part of management can nevertheless be construed as bullying. The recent matter of Carroll v Karingal Inc  FWC 3709 (8 June 2016) demonstrates that even though no harm might be intended, the words and actions of managers and employees can certainly lead to a successful claim of bullying.
In this matter, Commissioner Tanya Cirkovic heard numerous reports from staff about unfair process requirements, micromanagement and inappropriate comments that accompanied the appointment of the business’s audit and risk manager in 2013. His staff pointed to a manager who ‘said all the right things’ yet embarked on a process of markedly inefficient changes, unrealistic expectations for the team and troublingly racist remarks directed towards a team member.
Significant issues identified by Commissioner Cirkovic included the introduction of an inefficient system that resulted in double-handling and a demoralising spate of under-performance for the team. Further, inappropriate remarks and behaviour included laughing at an employee’s accent and remarking on her “Checklish” – a comment on her Czech heritage.
Most significantly, the Fair Work Commission (FWC) took note of the manager’s relentless micromanagement of the employees under his supervision. Ultimately, faced with a sub-standard new system and a supervisor who both demanded compliance and monitored staff with excessive attention to detail, two staff members were able to successfully establish that workplace bullying had occurred.
Interestingly, the FWC noted that in all probability the manager had not intended to cause harm through his behaviour. His endeavours to please the employer and provide strong leadership were clear in the evidence produced. However, his seemingly innocent and even industrious intentions were irrelevant to the finding of bullying. The cumulative nature of his indiscretions was also key.
"I am satisfied that the cumulative effect of his conduct and behaviours was one of significant and systematic micromanaging," Commissioner Cirkovic said.
Carroll v Karingal Inc provides a salutary example of the complex realm of workplace bullying claims. For employers, it pays to understand which behaviours within the team could be seen as bullying – no matter how well intentioned. Nuanced training regarding appropriate behaviour and potential bullying in supervisory roles should be provided throughout the organisation.
Workplace bullying can be a subtle situation of human interaction gone wrong, and should be front-of-mind in any analysis of potential risks in the workplace.
If you need to address bullying issues at your organisation, Wise Workplace can provide risk analysis and tailored training. Contact us to find out how.
Add a Comment