Integrity and fairness

Harassment and bullying

The Code requires that an APS employee, when acting in the course of APS employment, must treat everyone with respect and courtesy, and without harassment (s.13(3) of the Act).

Over the last four years, the proportion of employees reporting that they have been subjected to harassment⁶ or bullying in the workplace (in the previous 12 months) has been largely stable (15% in 2006–07).

Women were more likely to believe that they have experienced harassment and bullying than men (17% compared to 12%). Employees with disability were much more likely than those without disability to believe that they had experienced harassment or bullying (24% compared to 14%). Results were also related to classification. APS 1–6 and EL employees were more likely to believe they have experienced harassment or bullying than SES employees.

There continues to be some variation in the proportion of employees believing that they had experienced harassment or bullying across the 45 agencies with individual agency-specific results (7% to 22%). However, only one agency’s results were significantly above the APS average.

Rates of perceived harassment and bullying in the APS continue to be slightly lower in the APS than in other jurisdictions.⁷ In 2006, 22% of South Australian respondents and 20% of Western Australian respondents indicated that they had experienced harassment or bullying in the workplace. In 2005, 26% of Tasmanian respondents believed they had been subject to harassment or bullying in the workplace. This may reflect differences in the composition of the workforce between the APS and State jurisdictions.

Twenty-two per cent of APS employees believed that they had witnessed harassment or bullying or in the last 12 months. This result has remained unchanged since last year. Women were once again more likely (25%) than men to believe they had witnessed harassment or bullying. Unlike the results for experiencing harassment or bullying, there was not a significant difference by classification in witnessing harassment or bullying.

The proportion of employees believing that they had witnessed harassment or bullying varied considerably in agencies with individual agency-specific results, from 9% to 34%. Only two agencies, however, had results significantly above the APS average.

The rates of formally reporting harassment or bullying in the APS continue to be relatively low. Forty-four per cent of APS employees who indicated they either experienced or witnessed harassment or bullying in the last 12 months reported it. These relatively low rates of reporting are reinforced by the fact that the numbers of formal investigations into harassment and bullying are much smaller than the employee survey results would suggest (see Table 6.7). This disparity is not only due to low rates of reporting of harassment and bullying. Previous evaluation work undertaken by the Commission suggests that agencies deal with harassment and bullying in a number of different ways, and that in some agencies less serious cases of harassment or bullying are generally dealt with through the performance management system.

Some employees made comments about why they did not report harassment or bullying:

Harassment is not defined very clearly in this agency, finding out how to deal with it is difficult (our intranet is a bit of a maze), and management have a tendency to want to avoid conflict, so bury their head.

It is difficult to prove covert bullying.

It is my observation that persons, including the victims, who report bullying are not protected. There is a culture of bullying in … which originates from the style of Senior Management.

I didn’t take formal action when I was bullied (at previous agency) as it would have just exposed me to further bullying—I left instead and came here.

The behaviour concerned was—in each case—a mild form of bullying and I addressed it directly, courteously and discreetly with the persons concerned. So far, the behaviour has not been repeated…

I did not report it as the victim took action and I provided support to that person.

I handled it myself and it was corrected.

Some of these comments suggest that harassment and bullying is not reported because it has been dealt with effectively in other, less formal, ways. Nevertheless, there is value in agencies being proactive in creating and promoting a workplace culture which is free from harassment and bullying and in establishing mechanisms to support employees who have experienced or observed harassment or bullying. The importance of having good policies and practices in place, and the role that their implementation and ongoing operation can play in creating such a culture, was highlighted by the decision in Lee v Smith.⁸ This was a case in which the Commonwealth, as an employer, was found vicariously liable for sexual harassment under the provisions of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984.

6 For the purpose of the employee survey, workplace harassment was defined as entailing offensive, belittling or threatening behaviour directed at an individual or group of APS employees. The behaviour was described as unwelcome, unsolicited, usually unreciprocated and usually (but not always) repeated. The survey noted that there is no standard definition of workplace bullying, but stated that it is generally used to describe repeated workplace behaviour that could reasonably be considered to be humiliating, intimidating, threatening or demeaning to an individual or group of individuals. It can be overt or covert.

7 The jurisdictional comparison data from surveys conducted in 2005–06 and 2006–07 was provided to the Commission by the Department of Premier and Cabinet, South Australia, on behalf of the Commissioner for Public Employment (Workplace Perspectives Survey 2006); Tasmania (State Service Employee Survey 2005); and the Office of the Public Standards Commissioner, Western Australia (Climate Survey 2006–07). The South Australian survey covers all employees employed under the Public Sector Management Act 1995 and the Tasmanian survey covered all employees employed under the State Service Act 2000. The Western Australian Climate Survey involved 14 separate agencies in 2006–07. Each year 10–15 agencies are surveyed with each agency being surveyed approximately once every five years.

8 Lee v Smith & Ors [2007] FMCA 59.