Commonwealth Employer Fined for Failing to Manage Psychosocial Risks Under Federal WHS Laws
*WARNING: Content that might be distressing
The Australian Department of Defence has become the first Commonwealth employer to be convicted and penalised for failing to manage psychosocial risks under the Federal Work Health and Safety laws.
Following an investigation by Comcare, an NSW local court found that Defence failed to properly identify or address the psychosocial hazards that resulted in the death of a Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) technician employed under them. The court ordered a $188,000 fine and issued an adverse publicity order, requiring Defence to publicly share the details of the offence, its impact and the penalty imposed. (Source: Comcare)
What Happened?
In July 2020, a RAAF technician stationed at RAAF Base Williamstown, NSW, took his own life while on duty. The subsequent investigation revealed that in the six months leading up to his death, the worker had been placed on four separate Work Plans as part of an extended performance management process. Throughout this period his well-being had visibly declined, and he had displayed clear signs of increasing distress.
The investigation determined that Defence breached its primary duty of care towards the worker under section 19 (1) of the WHS Act in this instance. It noted that supervisors administering the Work Plans did not have sufficient training to recognise when the process itself was creating psychological harm or when intervention, such as pausing the process or arranging support, was required. (Source: Comcare)
Key Findings from Comcare’s Investigation
According to Comcare, several critical shortcomings were observed in how Defence had managed the worker’s situation. This included.
1. Supervisor capability and training
Supervisors implementing the Work Plans lacked proper guidance or training on identifying psychosocial hazards arising during performance management. They did not have proper guidance on when to pause the process or refer a worker for medical assessment or other support if needed. As a result, they were not properly equipped to identify, assess or respond to the worker’s deteriorating condition.
2. Policies not applied in practice
Although Defence had documented procedures that outlined how to manage psychosocial hazards, these controls were not consistently followed. Comcare noted that despite obvious signs of distress, the worker was not placed on leave, directed to available support services or provided with measures that could have reduced the pressure he was experiencing.
“The risks were obvious and known to Defence through existing policies and guidelines. These policies can only ever mitigate risk if they are applied and followed in practice and if they are supported by training those responsible for implementing them,” Comcare CEO Colin Radford
3. Forceable risks were not met with timely action
Comcare CEO Colin Radford also noted that Defence knew the worker was struggling both personally and professionally, yet no meaningful intervention occurred despite clear warning signs. Given the foreseeable nature of the risks, timely intervention was required but not delivered by the Department of Defence. (Source: Comcare)
Important Takeaways
1. HR processes can create psychosocial risks
Routine HR processes, such as performance management, can place significant pressure on workers. Organisations need to recognise how processes such as performance management, performance improvement plans and disciplinary action could impact the psychological safety of workers. Key questions to consider include:
Are performance management processes designed with psychological safety in mind?
Are there safeguards and escalation points in place when signs of distress appear?
2. Training for supervisors is critical
Policies alone do not prevent harm, people responsible for implementing them must have the adequate training and confidence to act. Supervisors must be given practical training to spot early warning signs of distress, respond appropriately and escalate concerns where necessary. Training is essential to ensure they understand both risks and their responsibilities in preventing or minimising harm that they can create. Key questions to consider include:
Do supervisors know what early signs of psychosocial hazards look like?
Are they aware of when and how they can pause a process such as a performance management plan?
Are support services readily available and communicated?
3. Policies must be translated into practice
Having a set of documentation does not mean that you are meeting your WHS obligations. It requires active and consistent implementation. It is important for organisations to ensure that their internal policies and procedures are followed in practice, not just sitting as a bunch of documentation. Key questions to consider include:
Are decisions and observations monitored and documented?
Is their mechanism to raise an alarm when repeated or back-to-back performance plans are initiated?
Stay Compliant with Certex iSafe & iMind
Certex has two safety compliance assessments – iSafe (general WHS in the workplace) and iMind which is all about psychosocial and mental health risks.
Both these types of assessments can help you stay compliant. Our independent assessors can perform workplace assessments and help assess and identify gaps in your WHS systems, including how psychosocial risks are managed. Once risks have been identified, we can then provide you with the information you need to meet your legal obligations as well as take better care of your workers.