The utterances and behaviours which were exhibited by our elected officials in Parliament during the recent budget debate have once again ignited the public discourse on bullying. This topic seems to have the artful means of always capturing the national interest.
Bullying is clearly not limited to the conventional schoolyard arena, as we have been witnessing the claims and counter claims about such deviant conduct within the hallowed halls of our legislators. These exchanges in Parliament bring to our awareness the deficiencies in our social policies and even our legislation.
When we examine workplace cultures and norms of behaviour, it becomes clearer that certain actions can be classified as bullying in the workplace. This has driven more developed countries to act by establishing legislation and codes to directly treat with undesirable conduct, which at times can be exhibited in the work environment.
Workplace bullying is defined by the US Workplace Bulling Institute as “repeated, health-harming mistreatment of one or more persons (the targets) by one or more perpetrators.
The draft Model Code of Practice on ‘Preventing and Responding to Workplace Bullying,’ released by SafeWork Australia in July 2012, sets out examples of bullying such as: excluding, isolating or marginalising a person from normal work activities and setting tasks that are unreasonably below or beyond a person's skill level.
In T&T, we have had no new legislation since the Industrial Relations Act of 1972, which attempts to regulate workplace behaviour and conduct. Therefore, we have found ourselves guided by legislation which was not written for this modern era. Our act is considered to have broad implications for the conduct of parties in the workplace. For example, the employer is generally required to act in accordance with good industrial relations principles and refrain from harsh and oppressive conduct. The problem therefore, is that these are general workplace principles which are open for interpretation and determination in the absence of explicit provisions restricting offensive conduct. What is stopping us from adopting contemporary progressive legislation? I am convinced that for most industrial relations practitioners and other stakeholders, such legislation would be welcomed as it would bring predictability and certainty in the outcome of certain types of trade disputes.
Courtney Arthur Mc Nish