Bullying and Harassment in the Workplace : A Waverley Social Enterprises Story
Psychosocial hazards are the non-physical factors in the workplace that can affect workers’ mental and emotional well-being.
Bullying and harassment (including sexual harassment) often fly under the radar within organisations especially in the event that the person who is experiencing these stresses does not feel comfortable raising them to their supervisor or manager.
The employer has a legal responsibility under Fair Work, occupational health and safety and anti-discrimination laws to provide a safe workplace. The employer has a duty of care for the employee’s health and wellbeing whilst at work.
A Waverley Social Enterprises Story
Over the past couple of months, I have received over 20 emails from employees, former employees and participants (parent/guardian) of Waverley, specifically in regards to the culture at Waverley.
Despite each detailing unrelated grievances, the recurring characteristic in all the information was the significant psychosocial hazards Waverley have created and maintained in their workplace.
Older Employees
An extract of a report that senior management developed was provided to me. A copy of the report was left at the public printer in the office (intentionally or otherwise), accessible by all employees in the office. Below is an extract from the report
“Long time staff hold to ways of working that include manual cycles in almost every function particularly Sales and Payroll with an unintended bias for pushing back new vendors, new schools of thoughts and new ways of working”.
The “long time staff” referred are in the mid-50s to 60s. These employees were never consulted when this report was being developed, and were just as surprised when they found out how negatively they were represented in the report.
In fact, the only possibility for this deduction is that these older employees might have questioned the justification for the “new schools of thought” in general discussion, as is allowed in any democratic workplace. And for that, they were labelled as rabble rousers.
From the information on hand, the younger “short time staff” tend to nod their heads, grin and fall in line. And they are considered innovative.
A workplace where you cannot question your manager for fear of being labelled as “biased”, is not a safe workplace.
The psychological harm that was created by this report was significant. The statement was targeted at a specific group of employees, in Sales, where they had 3 older employees, and Payroll, where there is only one employee.
To further exacerbate the harm, Waverley summarily dismissed one of the older employees in Sales. The reason for the dismissal related to something that happened while the employee was away and had no control over. Despite the explanation, Waverley insisted on the dismissal.
This put the fear of God into the remaining older employees, with an understanding that there doesn’t need to be a valid reason for dismissal.
It is not a safe workplace where an employee is constantly worried about losing their only source of income and their job is constantly threatened.
Kiss the Ring
A clear theme from the information that was provided was that Waverley’s culture was that of a “kiss the ring” autocracy.
The executive management team seemed to follow what their boss says, and were rewarded accordingly. They collectively kiss the ring, and they are safe.
There was a clear picture that the employees who kissed the ring were in the inner circle, were recognised for their work and were generally treated better. The ones that did not kiss the ring felt they were always targeted, through belittling, isolation, veiled threats and disrespect.
One employee compared the current situation to that when a certain Frank was CEO. There were similarities, but they felt that the current one was worse. Apparently, with Frank, you knew when he didn’t like you, and so you would stay out of his way. With the current leader, he would smile at you, yet knowing that he has supported one of his senior managers to put you on the “chopping list”. The lack of transparency and genuineness makes it worse.
When employees cannot be confident that their job safety is only based on their performance, and not on how well they bow to the supreme leader, then the psychosocial hazards created by Waverley here make it an unsafe workplace.
The Chopping List
I am advised that there was a list of employees who were on the chopping block for about six months. The chopping list was developed by the executive management team. Some of the employees on the lost included the older employees referred to before.
Somehow, the existence of this list was known by most employees, despite employees not being sure who was on the list.
Employees assessed themselves daily to try to figure out whether they were on the list. They would constantly watch any small misstep that might get them fired, if they were indeed on the list.
One can only imagine the extreme stress caused to employees who thought they were on the list.
One employee described how they would have sleeping difficulties, or wake up with heart palpitations each time the alarm sounded on a workday.
When employees left Waverley, and I am advised that 9 have left in the current year (out of approx. 30 corporate staff), it was either they were pushed out (unfairly), or they had reached the limit of what stress they could take, with no support from management.
Many of these employees would have stayed, for the love of the work that they did with the participants with disabilities. Unfortunately, the work environment became so hazardous that it was impossible to continue.
Participants Complaint
Information provided to me around participants’ well-being in the workplace relates to how participants (with a disability) are being treated.
Participants are understood to have disabilities that affect their behaviour in the workplace. The purpose of the NDIS funding is to ensure that they are supported in spite of their varying behaviours that are caused by their disability.
I was advised of participants being given warning letters in regard to their behaviour, which is caused by their disability, which they have little or no control over.
Are the participants capable of understanding these warning letters? Is this going to cause them anxiety in the workplace?
Is Waverley in a situation where it doesn’t have enough support workers to manage the participants’ behaviour as per their NDIS funding plan? And so the behaviour deteriorates because it is not managed until it’s too late?
The participants referred above have been with Waverley for a long time (5+ years), and have never had a warning letter, until the new management came in.
Waverley is not creating a safe working environment for its participants.
Bullying
I have been advised of an employee who was bullied into resigning from their position. Unfortunately, I have been asked that I do not include much information while they consider legal action.
I still welcome confidential information on WhistleblowKev@proton.me.
