Recent court cases show how businesses are paying a price for bullying, writes Gabrielle Monaghan.
The dog-eat-dog nature found in some companies, where staff are encouraged to compete against each other instead of working as a team and managers rule by fear or intimidation, is contributing to the number of bullying claims in the Irish workplace, according to a leading expert on the issue.
"We know that certain work environments encourage bullying," says Jacinta Kitt, a researcher, lecturer and organisational consultant. "Some companies have a high level of competition, where there is a 'survival of the fittest' mentality, authoritarian management practices and a low level of motivation."
The fallout for the employee and the employer can be spectacular. While the Health and Safety Authority (HSA) handles some 360,000 queries on bullying a year, research has shown that more than 70 per cent of bullied employees leave their job rather than deal with the problem. The consequences for them can be far-reaching - workplace bullying is the top cause of suicide in Ireland, a conference on the issue heard in Dublin in October.
Irish businesses, meanwhile, lose an estimated €3 billion annually as a result of staff replacement costs, sick leave and lost productivity.
Bullying has come under the spotlight in Ireland of late, with a string of high-profile court cases brought by employees making the news. Microsoft Ireland, for instance, was recently ordered by the High Court to pay about €348,000 in damages to former manager Breda Pickering after finding she was constructively dismissed by the company.
Pickering had worked with Microsoft for 13 years and became head of its localisation division in Europe. In her action, she sought damages for alleged negligence, breach of contract and failure to grant her redundancy entitlements and stock options.
In February, a former investment manager at Goodbody Stockbrokers withdrew his claim of unfair dismissal and the associated allegation of bullying.
John Looby, who joined Goodbody in 2003 to run a hedge fund management project, had said the behaviour of one of his colleagues forced him to quit his €124,000-a-year job. Goodbody said Looby resigned of his own free will and refused other positions offered to him.
A former chauffeur to multi-millionaire Robert "Pino" Harris in March settled a High Court action against his former employer for what was believed to be €100,000. Robert Roche said he was bullied and intimidated by Harris while working for him, claiming Harris called him names including "chicken brain", "fool" and "eejit". His claims were denied by the defendant.
"In my experience, since the 1998 Employment and Equality Act came in, there has been a huge learning curve for employers about the equal treatment of employees," says Paul Glenfield, a partner at Matheson Ormsby Prentice (MOP) who advises employers on staff issues.
"There has been an increase in the manifestation of bullying and harassment claims, mixed up with other issues, in the last few years." A survey carried out in 2001 by the Economic and Social Research Institute showed that one in every 14 people in the workplace had experienced bullying.
Minister of State for Labour Affairs Tony Killeen is preparing for a nationwide study of harassment, exploitation and ill-treatment of employees that is due out later this year. He says the survey will determine whether the high level of workplace bullying is due to a growing number of incidences or merely greater awareness that this behaviour is unacceptable. "Increasingly, organisations are understanding that this is destructive behaviour that affects both employees and the level of effectiveness in a company," he says.
"Heretofore, people were fearful of taking action against bullying. One reason was that they were regarded subsequently as a troublemaker or a person who couldn't stand the heat of the kitchen. The myths and misconceptions associated with it are gradually being dissipated."
Research has shown there is no single profile of someone who is targeted by a workplace bully, Kitt points out. However, colleagues or subordinates who are popular, confident, effective and ethical are often bullied because they are seen as threats to an insecure colleague or boss, according to the expert.
MOP's Glenfield says, though, that employees can bring complaints of bullying or harassment against their employers if their managers say they are not performing up to scratch. Employees sometimes use accusations of bullying to "deflect attention" away from their own shortcomings or conduct at work. "Employers frequently seek our advice when they have difficulties with employees, and they have to be seen to follow certain steps or it can get complicated internally," the MOP partner says.
"We find that at the early stages of proceedings, employees are insisting on bringing in their own solicitors and on the employer only corresponding with them through that solicitor."
Organisations that find themselves in this situation should first define whether the employee's claim is a grievance or one of bullying, Glenfield says.
Complaints that turn out to be grievances may be dealt with informally, often by pointing out to the person concerned that their behaviour is not appropriate.
A manager may not even realise their behaviour amounts to bullying if they are unfair in a performance assessment, have micro-managed the employee or have been unduly critical of them.
"There is a fine line between what constitutes bullying and what constitutes management," Glenfield says.
