How to deal with workplace intimidation
Any business that operates according to a set hierarchy - no matter how complex it is - automatically fosters an unequal power relationship between its employees. On a corporate level, the employer's influence is balanced by the union's but what recourse does the normal employee have when a superior or co-worker threatens, intimidates or abuses them?
The immediate answer is that an employee who alleges workplace intimidation should file a formal grievance and inform the company of the victimisation. Even leaving aside the possibility that the abuser may very well be the person to receive and action that grievance, this approach is problematic.
There is an implicit threat - inherent in all forms of intimidation - that the abuser will exact revenge on the victim if he resists. If the victim comes forward and doesn't prove his accusation, the abuser's revenge will be all the more severe. It's this fear of retaliation that prevents most victims from coming forward - and for good reason.
Employers are more careful of punishing their employees than ever before
In these 'legally sensitive' times, sufficient proof of wrongdoing will be required before acting. This is usually done through a disciplinary inquiry which the employee bringing the complaint will have to attend.
While a victim of workplace intimidation may enter a formal written grievance in relative safety, it's seldom they'll have the determination to face their abuser head-on, testify against them effectively or conduct their own case with any degree of skill. This is true, to a greater or lesser extent, of all witnesses in workplace intimidation cases - not only the primary victims. Even if the employer suspends the alleged abuser in an effort to avoid witness tampering, the employer has no jurisdiction beyond the company premises and may not be able to enforce this.
The abuser will often know the victim's contact details or address – or will even live in the same area as his victim. Often, the abuser has a prior violent history and has associates who will tamper with the witness on the abuser's behalf.
South African law is clear on fair process
The alleged abuser has the right not only to:
- Hear the evidence against him, and
- Cross-examine the witness.
This means that reasons, in the form of written statements, aren't sufficient evidence to secure a guilty finding which may be overturned at the CCMA and an abuser ordered to be reinstated.
To avoid this, a representative may be appointed for the victim to provide emotional support and act as buffer between victim and abuser at any inquiry. The representative will present the victim's case and field any questions directed at him.
Another technique would be testimony over distance. This is easily done in our modern times where teleconferencing and Internet voice chat are readily available. In this way, a victim doesn't need to come anywhere near his abuser and the abuser still has the opportunity to cross examine effectively.
In severe cases, where intimidation happens even across this distance, testimony via proxy may be used. A representative or even the chairman will hear questions from the abuser and relay these to the victim across the distance in intimidation-neutral tone and grammar, ensuring that the victim doesn't hear or interact with the abuser directly.
This is by no means a fool-proof method of ensuring intimidation doesn't become a factor in disciplinary inquiries but it should provide a valuable buffer that won't jeopardise the integrity of the process. It's the employer's duty to ensure the safety (both physically and mentally) of its employees. Sensitivity to abuse and intimidation cases, and these occurrences, is part and parcel of this duty.
 |
Peter did a Bachelor of Technology (B.Tech), Human Resources Management and Services at Technikon Witwatersrand (1994-1998) and an Advanced Diploma – Labour Law, Law at University of Johannesburg (2001-2002). He joined Labour Net in 1997 and was a consultant there until 2000, and has been a director and shareholder in Invictus Outsourcing Solutions since November 2001. Peter has gained extensive knowledge and experience over the past 17 years in dealing with various Human Resources (HR) and Industrial Relations (IR) matters, including but not limited to :
|
