News

To complement our successful Respectful Workplace Series, PEEL brings you the Diversity and Inclusion Introductory Workshop. PEEL believes inclusive cultures and a diverse workforce can drive innovation and collaboration, create trusted partnerships with your customers, suppliers and community partners, and contribute to the success and sustainability of your organisation.

Although there is more to workplace diversity than a single workshop can provide, our introductory Diversity and Inclusion Workshop does have the ability to increase awareness, impart knowledge, and educate employees on how to accept differences among fellow employees. It keeps the team talking about Diversity and Inclusion and how it applies to the work they perform every day, thereby assisting to break down the barriers.

The Introductory Diversity and Inclusion Workshop will support your internal D&I and EEO strategies and represents an opportunity for you to educate your employees about the importance and benefits of a diverse and inclusive workplace.

Rather than focusing on telling people what not to do, what not to say and what not to believe, this 2-hour introductory workshop focuses on helping people to work out what they can do - how they can proactively build inclusive workplaces.

Specifically the workshop covers….

• What is Diversity and Inclusion about
• The benefits of valuing Diversity and Inclusion within the workplace
• What we each can do to encourage an inclusive workplace
• Generalising v Stereotyping – what’s the difference and why does it matter
• Unconscious Bias – what is it?
• To have an awareness of your individual biases

Mediation for One….try Conflict Management Coaching as an alternative.

Conflict Management Coaching (CMC) is another option organisations can access through PEEL to support the resolution of conflict in the workplace. Conflict coaching supports the early resolution or management of conflict and restoration of working relationships. Using the CINERGY® Conflict Coaching Model, CMC is a structured process designed to adopt a supportive and problem solving approach to managing conflict.

A specially trained coach works one-on-one with the coachee who is experiencing conflict with another person, working with them to improve the way they manage and interact in their interpersonal workplace conflicts and disputes. It is a future-oriented process that focuses on each person’s specific conflict management goals. CMC is not therapy or counselling. The CM Coach does not provide advice or act as a representative but rather, helps people gain increased competence and confidence to manage their interpersonal conflicts. CMC enables the coachee to talk about the conflict with a neutral third party (the conflict coach), consider options for managing the conflict and explore options for managing the conflict with the other person.

CMC is designed to help people shift their thinking, perspectives and behaviour in relation to the conflict. It is about empowering the person in dealing with their conflicts. As people generally are unable to change other people’s behaviour, coaching assists them to work out strategies that they can use in dealing with the person with whom they are in conflict.

CMC is a voluntary and confidential process which generally encompasses a series of individual sessions (the number of session will vary depending on the particular brief). The CM coach can work with both parties to the conflict or one party. CMC is can be used when you first have grumblings of conflict manifesting or post a workplace investigation when parties need to move forward with their relationships.

Organisations are increasingly utilising their social media platforms to encourage customer feedback.

So what happens when the feedback provided is abusive, defamatory, demeaning or belittling?

Can the employer be liable for bullying or harassment from customers?

Under the Fair Work Act repeated unreasonable behaviour by an individual or group of individuals towards a worker, where the behaviour creates a risk to health and safety whilst at work, could amount to bullying. The Act however, is silent in relation to who the perpetrator of the unreasonable behaviour may be.

There are also obligations on employers under Work Health and Safety legislation to monitor and address workplace risks, including risks to an employee’s psychological wellbeing.

It would be prudent for employers to be mindful of customer comments about employees on official social media sites as well as having methods in place for monitoring and addressing any comments which may be considered offensive or abusive. This may include a statement on the social media platform that the organisation does not condone, abusive, derogatory or offensive comments in relation to its employees as well as removing the offensive feedback as soon as possible. Having a social media policy that defines acceptable use and how to deal with abusive and offensive social media posts is also increasingly important.

A recent Canadian example

A Canadian labour arbitration ruling highlighted an organisations responsibility to effectively manage social media accounts to protect employees from customer abuse. The union representing employees of the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) filed a grievance demanding the TTC’s Twitter account be permanently shut down as it created a platform for passengers to harass, demean and belittle employees.

During the case the union presented tweets that showed customers using abusive, racist and homophobic language to describe employees. Three employee’s testified with one stating a customer took his picture and posted it to Facebook and Twitter, with a message about her displeasure in relation to how he handled her complaint. His picture was deleted by the customer but was then posted by another Twitter user with the message “this douchebag needs some disciplining”. The photo and the comment remained on the Twitter site for 12 months after the incident.

The TTC defended the grievance on the basis that they had legitimate objectives for creating and operating the Twitter account, and noted increasing expectations by customers to provide such a platform. The TTC’s position was that it was impossible to regulate the dialogue on the social media site and there were no reasonable steps they could have taken to address the offensive tweets.

The arbitrator agreed there would be little to prevent customers from posting offensive message but found the evidence showed inadequate responses by TTC, including ignoring some offensive comments from customers. The arbitrator found the TTC had failed to take all reasonable and practical measures to protect its employees from customer harassment via its Twitter account. While the arbitrator did not order the shutdown of the Twitter account, he did order the TTC to create a social media policy that would effectively address inappropriate tweets made to the Twitter account.

Although this case was heard via a labour arbitration ruling, the Canadian laws are similar to Australia in that an employer has a legal obligation to take all reasonable steps to prevent harassment of employees. This decision clarifies that duty in Canada extends to comments made by the public via the employer’s social media platforms.

A Respectful Workplace can be hard to define or verbalise in concrete terms. You know it when you see it and you know what it’s not. 

It’s inclusive of diversity, it’s where people feel valued, where conflict is addressed early and disrespectful behaviours are not tolerated. 

Creating a respectful workplace requires a commitment from your Organisation. It’s a strategy which involves a number of platforms. 

Written and designed by experts in conflict, the PEEL HR Respectful Workplace Suite is a combination of programs and tools you can use in your people and cultural strategies to build Respectful Workplaces.

To find out more about The Respectful Workplace Series please contact us on 1300 665 144.

On the 27^th June 2013, the Fair Work Act 2009 was amended to give the Fair Work Commission anti-bullying powers.  They will come into effect on the 1^st January 2014.

What does this mean?

The amendments to the Fair Work Act:

1. Allow workers to apply directly to the Fair Work Commission for an order to stop the bullying. The worker must reasonably believe they are being bullied. There is no income cap restricting those who can apply.
2. Define “bullying at work” to be “repeated unreasonable behaviour by an individual or group of individuals towards a worker (or group of workers of which the worker is a member), where the behaviour creates a risk to health and safety whilst at work”.
3. Require the Fair Work Commission to deal with an application for an order to stop bullying within 14 days of an application being made. In the process, employers and co-workers may be summonsed to attend a hearing or conference, or to produce documents.
4. Give the Fair Work Commission the power to make any order it considers appropriate, other than financial penalties, reinstatement or compensation.

There is no time limit for an employee to make of an application to the Fair Work Commission. The worker needs only to remain in the workplace and still be exposed to circumstances that pose a risk.  Additionally, the worker will not be precluded from commencing other actions under the Fair Work Act such as unfair dismissal or general protection applications.

The first step for the Fair Work Commission before making an order will be to satisfy itself the worker was bullied and there is an obvious risk the bullying will continue. They will consider:

1. The outcome of any prior investigations into the matter.
2. Whether there are any other procedures available to the individual to resolve the grievance and/or dispute.

What could this mean for Employers?

1. There is no requirement for a worker to first raise a bullying concern internally.
2. There will be greater scrutiny and expectation around performance management processes.
3. It will be an imperative to thoroughly document all workplace investigations and ensure they are procedurally fair.
4. The lack of clarity around what constitutes “bullied at work will possibly expose employers to claims arising from social media interactions or as a result of flexible work arrangements that are not clearly defined.
5. This amounts to a new workplace right triggering general protection provisions and increasing exposure to adverse action claims.
6. A order from the Commission may increase the success of workers compensation claims for psychological injury.

What do you have to do to be ready for 1 Jan 2014?

Peel has developed an Action Plan to assist with your preparation for 1st January 2014. Check it out here.

The bottom line is to ensure that all complaints made are responded to quickly and in sufficient detail.

To assist you in the implementation of your action plan you will find a copy of the following document on our website www.peelhr.com.au

·  Draft Code of Practice Preventing and Responding to Workplace Bullying

·  Safe Work Australia Workplace Bullying – Draft -  A Workers Guide

·  A sample investigation file note template

Keep ahead of the change and start implementing steps now. If you require any assistance in relation to workplace investigations or training in Respectful Workplaces feel free to contact us at email@peelhr.com.au or call (02) 4963 7373.

Central to collaboration are the notions of TRUST, RESPECT, and RESPONSIBILITY & ACCOUNTABILITY. Where there is a lack of these elements the way is paved for the formation of a ‘toxic environment’, which breeds hostility, creates pessimism, drives away talent and prevents your organisation from reaching its potential. However, to have these characteristics in your organisation you need for your leaders and your staff to be able to have healthy conversations with each other, diffuse conflict and demonstrate behaviours that allow responsibility and mutual accountability to flourish

“People are not your greatest asset. Our ability to manage people – to create an environment for them to succeed is our greatest asset.”
(T.Wilson: Jack and the Team that Couldn’t See.)

Q: How then do you create an environment for your people to succeed?

A: You need to work toward developing the structures, systems and behaviours that align with collaborative principles. Organisations need to be able to create the knowledge, skills, attitudes, and support systems necessary to create collaboration.

Collaboration is more than just sharing information, it is a process by which people and organisations work together, efficiently and effectively. When you have a collaborative organisation it means that you are able to:

• Have robust and healthy conversations that challenge and develop ideas
• Have conversations with your people that are open and honest
• Have a richer understanding of people’s interests earlier thereby preventing unhealthy conflict
• Ensure an alignment of values and behaviours
• Manage for positive performance
• Have goals and objectives realised

Consider the quote by T. Wilson above and then ask these questions about how your leaders interact with their teams.
Are your leaders able to….

• Clarify what is important?
• Set expectations?
• Give honest feedback?
• Hold people accountable?
• Diffuse conflict early?

Are your employees able to…

• Take responsibility and participate in resolving conflict?
• Model the behaviours expected of them?
• Have open and honest conversations with each other?

Collaborative organisations capitalise on the abilities of their people at all levels of the organisation. At PEEL we focus on building capability that supports collaborative principles across three branches – Employee Development, Leaders Development and Support Development. PEEL have upcoming programs in Newcastle and Melbourne during February and March that focus on developing the capability of your people in skills that support the foundations of collaboration. Our Managing for performance Program is running in Newcastle on 25 & 26 February and Melbourne on 21 & 22 March.

Collaboration is the key to winning gold and having a successful fulfilled team ! The review into culture and leadership in Australian Olympic Swimming and their tribulations at the London Olympics reinforces that the management of collaboration is a critical element for a team to achieve success. The findings contained in the Culture Review into Australian Olympic Swimming submitted to Swimming Australia by Bluestone Edge was released to the public last week and reflects on some of the key gaps in the team’s values, behaviours and supporting systems.

Collaboration not only means a richer understanding of people’s interests earlier which can be harnessed to prevent unhealthy conflict and ensure alignment of values and behaviours, but it also means robust conversations that leverages differences in perspective, experience and knowledge to generate new ideas and new solutions to achieving goals and objectives.

Does your team collaborate ? Do you lead collaborative behaviours within your team ?  If you see the following behaviours in your team, you know you are on the right track.

• Team members spend time with each other supporting achieving each others goals, that is, they have a commitment to the success of the team and not just themselves individually
• Team members initiate healthy conflict and robust discussion that is topic based
• They respectfully and constructively question whether there is another way
• Team members constructively explore their differing opinions and approaches and search for solutions beyond their own
• Team members have a priority for learning from within and across teams and so provide honest constructive feedback
• Team members make efforts towards inclusion such as sharing experiences, knowledge and techniques, not hoard it
• Team members seek out and build strong and sustainable relationships outside their team
• Team members have knowledge of each other’s work, communication and learning styles
• Team members call each other on their behaviours when they are un-collaborative
• Team members take accountability and personal responsibility

Your behaviour as a leader would expand upon these and reflect your modelling of a responsive, inspiring and ethical leader.  You certainly would be willing to have hard conversations.  Your behaviours would reinforce the importance of the team behaviours, such as, responding immediately to un-collaborative behaviours identified by you or escalated to you.

Articulated behaviours provide a consistent approach and ensure the cohesion necessary for productive collaborative effort.  These behaviours should be further broken down and particularised for your team.  If you do this through an open and transparent process in consultation with your team you will educate them and achieve the buy-in to ensure everyone has a clear roadmap to achieve a collaborative and successful team.  Teams that have worked together to determine their shared goals, values and underpinning behaviours are in the best position possible to achieve collaboration and see their performance hum.

Collaborative teams are supported by collaborative systems.  Systems engendering collaboration range from grievance/dispute resolution systems with a strong preventative focus that encourage the raising of concerns and conflict in a direct and immediate manner, to more micro systems that are applied in team meetings prompting team feedback on collaborative successes and opportunities.

PEEL are passionate about assisting organisations to build collaborative workplaces.  We partner with you in system design, capability build, ongoing preventative support and remedial interventions.  We undertake Team Effectiveness Reviews and work with you in Team Behaviour Workshops.  To find out more about our approach contact us or by phone on 02 4963 7373

Is defending an unfair dismissal claim becoming too difficult? A recent research study conducted by Professor Oslington, of the Australian Catholic University and Assistant Professor of Economics, Benoit Freyens, of the University of Canberra, gives weight to this claim. The study conducted by the pair, compared unfair dismissal data under the last three major versions of workplace law. The research highlighted that 17,000 unfair dismissal claims are now being processed each year compared to around 6,000 under Work Choices and 7,000 under the previous Workplace Relations Act. Not only did the research show that unfair dismissal claims are on the rise, but the number of successful claims has also increased.

Specifically the study identified the following:

• Workplace Relations Act (1993 – 2006) 48 per cent of claims were successful, 35 per cent of cases won compensation and 13 per cent of claimants were reinstated in the company
• WorkChoices (2006-2009) Only 33 per cent of cases were successful with 21 per cent of claimants receiving compensation and 12 per cent were reinstated in the workplace
• Fair Work Act (2009 – present) 51 per cent of cases were successful, 42 per cent won compensation with only 8 per cent of claimants returning to their position.

This rise has principally been attributed to two things. Firstly the inclusion of small businesses in the system and secondly, claims being pursued under adverse action, thereby increasing the total number of claims. In considering this research, we need to ask: What does an employer need to do if they only have a 50:50 chance of success? What can be done to mitigate the risk in the first place?

In the majority of cases that come before the tribunals, employers have a valid reason for the dismissal of an employee but time and time again we see employers failing to give reasonable and due consideration to the broader issues. These are issues that can impact on the dismissal being seen by the tribunal as ‘harsh, unjust or unreasonable’. The case of Lambley v DP World Sydney Ltd FWA March 2012 clearly demonstrates this. Mr. Lambley was involved in a physical altercation which took place in the car park of his employer’s premises and he was subsequently dismissed for serious misconduct, resulting in him bringing a claim for unfair dismissal. At the hearing Mr. Lambley claimed he was set up; that in his 30 years of employment with the company he had never had so much as a warning or been involved in any type of altercation. An investigation was conducted by the employer and witnesses gave evidence Mr. Lambley was taunted by the other employee to meet him in the carpark. CCTV was also viewed but appeared to have been tampered with. Whilst the employer agreed the actions of the employee were “out of character”, it stuck to its position of zero tolerance in relation to the behaviour, not wanting to send a message that this type of behaviour was acceptable. FWA however agreed with the employee that the dismissal was “manifestly unjust”. In coming to this decision they gave consideration to broader issues in relation to the case:

• The employees remorse;
• His clean employment record;
• The employee being taunted by the other employee;
• That the behaviour of the employee to react like this was out of character; and
• The fact that the other employee involved no longer worked for the company.

FWA acknowledged that Mr. Lambley had breached policy yet he was reinstated.

As employers we need to be mindful of our broader obligations when making decisions in respect to terminations. Not only to be procedurally fair but to give consideration when there are potentially mitigating circumstances because if they are played out in a tribunal we need to ask, does it have the potential to make the decision appear unfair.

For advice on challenging performance management or potential termination situations, please feel free to contact us or on 02 4963 7373