Garry Brack, The Voice of AFEI
In his latest blog, Dr Carlo Capponecchia, a highly respected expert on workplace bullying makes mention of an alarming suggestion made by Mr Garry Brack, the chief of the Australian Federation of Employers and Industries, at the recent Sydney hearing into workplace bullying. Brack suggested that “some people who don’t “fit” in a workplace should just leave it” – referring to targets of workplace bullying in general. However, this was the same man who referred to the tragic suicide of Brodie Panlock caused by horrific bullying, as the unfortunate result of a lovers tiff gone wrong…
Although Carlo doesn’t mention Brack by name, many targets, including myself, who were there at the hearing could not forget the contemptuous remarks coming from someone who supposedly represents employers. Yes, his testimony was alarming and nauseating
I am now wondering whether Mr Brack should be held up as a poster boy for workplace psychopaths. He did seem to have a distinct lack of conscience – in fact, when many targets of workplace bullying had their chance to tell their stories many referred to Mr Brack’s testimony in less than glowing terms. The media weren’t allowed to report on this portion of the inquiry. Though many who told their stories wanted the media present!!!!! I was one of them.
https://meanbusinessblogger.wordpress.com/2012/07/17/updates-on-the-national-bullying-inquiry/
The House of Representatives inquiry into workplace bullying is underway, with hearings being held already in Sydney, Melbourne and Tasmania.
I was able to observe parts of the Sydney hearing last week. The transcripts of all hearings should soon be available online, and will prove interesting reading.
I was surprised by some of the suggestions made regarding the definition of workplace bullying, or more particularly, that there was no definition. Australian jurisdictions have had working definitions of bullying, which have been largely consistent with one another, for several years (eg. since 2003 in Victoria). They basically comprise the notion that to be called bullying, behaviours must be repeated, unreasonable and cause a risk to health and safety. In many ways, that we have such a degree of consistency in approach puts us ahead of many other countries.
It’s a bit of a broken record, but these criteria are quite conservative, and attempt to remove subjectivity as much as possible, which is a major argument against the bullying problem. Someone other than the target/complainant has to assess the reasonableness of otherwise of the alleged behaviours, a notion which is regularly performed within the legal system.
Also alarming was the suggestion from some that people who don’t “fit” in a workplace should just leave it. This is a less catchy version of “if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen”. Targets were cast as the orchestrators of their own demise, with bullying being seen as just a personality clash. The role of the environment in workplace bullying was, well, what environment? Nauseating. I was alarmed because I thought we had come further than this on the bullying issue, an indeed in how we saw safety at work more generally. This kind of commentary would indicate not.
You’re excused if you’re feeling deflated. However, the fact that we are having a national inquiry, and the fact that we are about to get a national code of practice on workplace bullying seems to indicate that misconceptions on unacceptable workplace behaviours are about to be seriously challenged.
http://wp.me/p1MA9G-2W4
Oh Yes this is the poster boy for every manager/ boss out there who bullies harasses intimidates and victimises any member in the workforce. Barry may even keep a poster of him under his mattress for some alone time.
Go Barry Pull that poster out and go for it, but you will have to prove that your repetitive strain injury is work related.
Thankfully the federal government is tackling this very important workplace unlawful activity practised by so many Managers and Bosses.
I am very angered that Unions NSW and the Opposition Party, have not mounted a legal challenge against the O’Farrell governments work cover changes. Each day that goes by makes me feel that the so called fight will surface in 2014- 2015 just before the election.
Re: WorkCover changes – I share similar frustrations, however, I strongly suspect that there is a fair bit of strategising happening behind the scenes. I know that many unions remain very angered. UNIONS NSW did actually meet with Pearce on Monday – not sure about what transpired but I do know that things are due to become increasingly heated. We can only wait and see. That doesn’t help when your an injured worker desperate for answers.
I will keep posting as soon I hear anything
I Hear you John. but meeting with Pearce is really no help to the injured. wasnt he quoted in saying “they go to work, get injured then get a prize”. this thought pattern is detrimental to any person who sustains a injury. does he think rape is a prize for wearing a short skirt?
I know that there have been many attempts made for a national definition of workplace bullying.
I also heard that apparently the definition of bullying as applied in OHS legislation for over a decade in Victoria is found insufficient. This definition is “Repeated unreasonable behaviour directed toward a worker or group of workers that creates a risk to health and safety.”
I know that this (above) definition of bullying was recently and rightly questioned by Ms Moira Rayner of the Law Institute of Victoria, at recent public hearings into workplace bullying.(June 20120).
Moira Rayner said that “unreasonable” is indefinable as it varies from person to person and that, to be applied, “unreasonable” would need case studies, examples and scenarios that provide better clarity of this term.
I know that SafeWork has tried to do just that in their Draft code last year (Sept 2011) of “Preventing and responding to Bullying at work“.
Interesting, if you look at the definition of bullying, let’s say on Comcare’s website and then on the Human Rights Commission site, they all are different… Is it a wonder that the whole thing is so bloody muddled and that the laws are not enforced? I mean if there is not even a national definition of what bullying really consists of?
Also, researchers have repeatedly stated that a lack of a national definition of bullying is a major reason that there has been so little research into workplace bullying
I’m amazed at the tardy response and lack of definition Mr Garry Brack has presented to a parliamentary inquiry. Surely he could have prepared his testimony appropriately to define what he meant by “fit in”. One could assume many scenarios from this sweeping statement. For example: if I don’t “fit” the right social, political, residential, physical, religious and nationality that makes violence by bullying an acceptable means of encoraging me to” move on”? He permits my employer to do this? It’s possible to assume that discrimination is legal in Mr Brack’s statement. He certainly wasn’t commenting on a persons ability to perform work duties.This was in an inquiry into workplaceb bullying? Mr Brack needed to define to working Australia and honest empolyers exactly what he meant by ” fit in”. Maybe he should have shown some consideration and spent some more effort in preparing his documentation to give a better impression.