News
There's nothing quite like a kick in the teeth
Our experience of the Employment Relations Act has taught us that sitting down and talking through our problems really does help us solve them. 90% of all employment problems go no further than mediation.
What this statistic neglects to record, however, is the apparent prominence of the Mike Tyson school of problem-solving. Sometimes in life, there's nothing quite like a solid round-house punch to sort out your differences (particularly if it can be cleverly thrown at a press conference).
We need no reminders about the prominence of violence in our society - or indeed, the presence of violence as part of our culture. For example, one hardly imagines that when grabbed in a headlock by that speedy South African flanker, Caleb Ralph was recommending the virtues of the Department of Labour's Mediation Service.
What may come as a surprise to many, however, is the apparent prominence of violence in our workplaces. In fact, the situation is so dire that it has given rise to its own expression - "office rage".
A recent survey in the United Kingdom reveals the extent of the problem there.
We are told that more than half of all office staff have become so angry at work that they have nearly punched a colleague. 53% of workers surveyed said that they had been brought to the brink of violence at work - with loud-mouth colleagues been given as the main cause. Other factors inclining violence included malfunctioned computers, excessive workloads and interruptions during telephone conversations.
Remarkably, the survey found that women were the most likely to incline to violence - with male employees more likely to shout.
When asked how they coped with their anger, nearly a third of the employees said that they ignored the person responsible. 20% said that they made a cup of tea to distract themselves from their rage. Only 15% admitted to cursing under their breath at a colleague.
IT problems caused 53% of employees to lose their temper - and 8% admitted to punching their computer!
Perhaps the strongest result in this survey concerned the effects of office rage. 74% of employees said that they did not work well while angry. The vast majority of the employees also said that anger had a detrimental effect on morale in their workplace.
While one would imagine that loss of tempers and violence in the workplace were not unusual events in New Zealand workplaces, it is comparatively rare to come across employment cases involving violence at work.
In Hawkins v Aussie Butcher Ltd (Unreported, Employment Court, Auckland, 2 August 1995) the Court was asked to consider an employer's decision to dismiss an employee following a fight at work between two co-workers. In that case, the Court determined that the employer had acted correctly, and that there was sufficient evidence about the incident to justify dismissal. In Rota v Transportation Auckland Corporation Ltd (Unreported, Employment Court, Auckland, 26 February 1999) the Court considered a relatively complicated background involving what appears to be an ongoing dispute between two co-employees. Amongst other things, there had been incidences of verbal abuse and some allegations of fighting. The case before the Court involved the question of disparity of treatment for one of the employees.
These decisions illustrate that violence does occur in the workplace in New Zealand - and that workplace problems arise for employers as a result. Many employees may connclude that the results of the survey referred to above could apply equally to employees in New Zealand.
What obligations are owed by employers in this area?
First, an employer has an obligation to provide its employees with a safe working environment. This obligation is confirmed by the general requirements upon an employer under the Health and Safety in Employment Act.
Many employers may say that it is difficult to ensure against violence occurring in the workplace - because employees' behaviour cannot be readily predicted. They may also say that some apparent causes of stress, such as IT problems, cannot readily be eliminated.
The answer is that an employer is required to take all practicable steps to ensure the safety of its employees. This standard is not a counsel of perfection but it does require employers to do whatever is reasonable to ensure against incidents of violence and anger at work. Known cases of anger and intimidation (such as bullying) may require an employer to take action. Obvious sources of frustration and distress (such as malfunctioning equipment) should also cause an employer to take some action.
Ultimately, if there is an explosive or angry employee in a workplace, the employer should take action - both for the safety of its other employees, and to ensure the good name of its own business.
Alternatively, perhaps if an employee feels like a kick in the teeth is the best problem-solving mechanism available, he or she could be introduced to that other master of the art - Mike Tyson - for the event to be properly televised!
