Hi Rebecca,

Safe Work Australia has free, national guidance material on bullying - and also on psychological health and safety, which explicitly refers to bullying and sets out a three stage intervention framework. To be frank, neither are particularly great re: evidence-based interventions or risk mngt, especially at preventing harm level e.g., through candidate mandatory disclosures, clear employment termination clauses in contracts, comprehensive due diligence, and or psychometric profiling to identify ‘Dark Triad’ personalities that will, inherent to their personality, engage in bullying and harassment behaviours, BUT they still might be useful to you as a starting point.

Out of interest, what are you hoping to achieve by delivering the PP session?

Providing information on what bullying is, etc to workers is necessary (and good on you for taking action!), but it is insufficient in isolation. Any deliberate perpetrators (the likes of the Dark Triad for example) won’t pay any attention to it, nor will they abide by any Zero Tolerance type policies (I’m with Andrew on this one - respect is crucial, and that’s not something that can be policy and procedured). Having reporting mechanisms is great, but they only work in a culture of voice, so people feel confident and supported to raise issues, preferably when the issue is small and there’s potential for restorative justice to take place (e.g., a sincere apology, acknowledgement of having done harm, learning, and a commitment to not engage in the same behaviour again) - and any disciplinary actions ‘threatened’ must be enforced; else it’s just all just shiny paperwork.

Is the PP session the start of a wider OSH initiative to prevent bullying? If not, it is likely to backfire I’m afraid. My unsolicited advice is a collegial word of caution - sometimes providing information without other tactics in place as well just gives bullies more fodder to work with. To what extent depends on your org’s specific situation of course, but something to bear in mind perhaps?

If I can help in any way, or if you’ve got any questions, feel free to comment here or LinkedIn me.

PS great name by the way :-)

Kindest regards, Dr Becs

Hi everyone, further information on Bunnings Onion Gate.

It has now been reported that the farmer did not pursue damages for an injury per se - but for emotional distress. Apparently the slipping incident - which did not require emergency care, did not involve any broken bones and no medium to long-term medical needs - was enough to induce a phobia of attending Bunnings, and lead to panic attacks.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-11-14/farmer-applauds-bunnings-onion-advice-after-slip/10496568

'Normal' people slip and trip on things all the time. Sometimes we end up on our backsides, get a bruise or three, pull a couple of muscles. Heck, maybe we even fracture something, and need a bit of medical treatment.

Developing PTSD-style symptoms is not a common outcome. I'd go as far as to say I find it hard to believe any 'normal' person would find slipping over so traumatic they develop said symptoms. Ill draw a line at overtly suggesting the smell of a rat, but I will say that if one can get a financial settlement for what I will refer to as a very unreasonable stress response to slipping over that easily, and get such a (ridiculous) OSH response to occur as well, well.....

I feel compelled to comment also on a more serious note, given I work specifically in psych hazard management.

Juxtaposition this Bunnings story against what has been and continues to go on regarding sexual harassment (including sexual assaults - groping, unwanted touching, so on), harassment, bullying and violence / trauma-related (i.e. PTSD type) psych injury cases. The predominant response to such a claim or hazard complaint is to immediately blame the target, find a range of individual level risk factors to argue primary cause of the injury is not work-related psych hazard exposure related but can be put down to ineffective coping abilities, certain personality types, other stressors in their life, so on, question if the claimant is lying, question what the claimant was wearing, drinking, doing, and broadly do whatever it takes to NOT address the actual safety hazard.

I wonder if the farmer was asked anything about why they didn't keep an eye on the floor, especially after walking past a food area, whether the tread on their shoes was worn, why they didn't proactively avoid entering the store knowing food was being served in the vicinity, why they didn't proactively report the allegedly foreseeable food production hazard they walked past it to mngt, whether they were even fit-to-be-in-Bunnings-or-anywhere-public-not-cotton-wool-lined after a hip replacement if they didn't posses the mobility capability to even respond to a minor slipping hazard in a way that didn't involve them ending up on the floor and severely traumatized, or why they didn't take more active precaution to watch their feet given their known-only-to-them hip vulnerability.

Better still, did anyone ask if there was anything else that might better explain their PTSD-style symptoms - did anyone even test these symptoms clinically and actually link them to the Bunnings slip-over incident, versus say hangover effects from a previous injury that required hip surgery and may have been quite debilitating and painful for 'some time' leading into actually getting the surgery?

Slip on an onion, and the OSH response is - well - *ridiculous* - seemingly no questions asked about the farmer's role in his own injury, nothing on pre-disposing casual factors, let alone an assessment of whether the emotional distress was a reasonable response by a reasonable person. Nothing - just a financial settlement and safety changes.

Develop anxiety, depression, suicide ideation, and or engage in self harm after (usually repeated) exposure to a hazard such as bullying or sexual harassment, and get put through the veritable wringer as any and every other possible causal mechanism or contributing factor is considered - typically resulting in the injury claim being refused, be it via a legal technicality or simply because a PCBU or insurer has the power to just refuse a claim knowing most victims don't posses the mental nor financial resources to launch an appeal. No treatment, no financial compensation and more often than not, ongoing psychological issues that ruin one's life longer term.

I am left scratching my head.

Kindest regards, RM

As a PS, the farmer was 62 years of age at the time. Today, a nurse (age, etc unknown) has come out with claims of what she is calling a near death onion-slip experience (but no details on what injuries she actually sustained....) - and announced she (now) intends to sue Bunnings as well.

Kindest regards, RM