Psychosocial Hazards: No joke and not just a Buzz-phrase

Psychosocial hazards in the workplace have emerged as a critical focus for health and safety in New Zealand. These hazards—ranging from heavy workloads and unclear roles to workplace bullying and inadequate support—can harm employees’ mental health as significantly as any physical risk. With recent legislative changes in Australia placing specific requirements on employers to address these hazards, New Zealand is following suit, with legal cases and new protections like the Protected Disclosures Act 2022 (Protection of Whistleblowers) spotlighting the issue and prompting businesses to take action. A recent and interesting case in NZ was the Bowen Case, which took years to go through, but a precent case in this space in NZ.

What Are Psychosocial Hazards?

Psychosocial hazards encompass aspects of job design, organizational structures, and social relationships that negatively impact employees’ mental well-being. Key psychosocial hazards include:

1. Workload and Time Pressure: Excessive demands and unrealistic deadlines can lead to chronic stress and burnout.
2. Poor Support and Communication: Lack of managerial or peer support can lead to feelings of isolation and insecurity.
3. Role Ambiguity: When employees don’t understand their roles or responsibilities, it can cause confusion, stress, and anxiety.
4. Workplace Bullying and Harassment: Hostile interactions or a toxic work environment significantly impact mental health.
5. Job Insecurity: Restructuring or temporary contracts can increase uncertainty and anxiety.
6. Lack of Control and Autonomy: Limited say over one’s work processes can lead to dissatisfaction and stress.

Why Psychosocial Hazards Matter

Psychosocial hazards affect more than just individual employees—they shape workplace culture, productivity, and business outcomes. Chronic stress, disengagement, and burnout not only undermine employees’ mental well-being but also erode team cohesion and organisational success. Research demonstrates that workplaces addressing mental health proactively see better productivity, higher engagement, and lower absenteeism.

The Legislative Shift: Australia Takes the Lead

Recent law changes in Australia have elevated psychosocial hazards to a regulated risk. Under Australia’s updated Work Health and Safety (WHS) laws, employers are now required to identify, assess, and manage psychosocial hazards with the same attention given to physical hazards. The Safe Work Australia guidelines encourage role redesign, mental health resources, and anti-bullying policies, underscoring that psychosocial risks are serious workplace issues.

New Zealand is following suit, with WorkSafe New Zealand emphasizing employers’ legal obligation under the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 to manage all workplace hazards, including psychosocial ones. While New Zealand hasn’t yet adopted Australia’s specific provisions, recent court cases have highlighted the need for employers to manage these hazards proactively.

Notable Cases in New Zealand

Several recent cases demonstrate how seriously New Zealand courts are taking employers’ responsibilities to address psychosocial hazards:

1. New Zealand Post Case: A former NZ Post employee was awarded compensation after experiencing a toxic work environment, inadequate managerial support, and role ambiguity. The court ruled that the employer failed to manage psychosocial hazards effectively, underscoring that a safe work environment includes managing these risks.
2. Smith v. XYZ Ltd: In this case, a company faced legal repercussions after prolonged workplace bullying led to severe mental health distress for an employee. The court emphasized the employer’s responsibility to establish a supportive workplace and manage known risks to employees’ mental health.
3. The Sutherland Case: In a recent high-profile case, an employee of a large retail chain was awarded damages after enduring years of workplace bullying and harassment. Despite repeated complaints, the employer failed to intervene adequately, leading to severe mental health impacts. This case underscored the court’s view that employers must act promptly and comprehensively to address bullying complaints and prevent psychological harm.

These cases emphasize that New Zealand courts are increasingly vigilant about psychosocial hazards and are holding organizations accountable for failing to address them effectively.

Protected Disclosures Act 2022: A Tool Against Bullying

In addition to legislative protections under the Health and Safety at Work Act, New Zealand’s Protected Disclosures Act 2022 provides a crucial avenue for employees facing workplace bullying. This act enables employees to report wrongdoing, such as bullying or other harmful practices, without fear of retaliation. This act—often called the "Whistleblower Act"—gives employees the confidence to report bullying or unsafe work environments and helps create a more transparent, accountable workplace culture. The Act is especially relevant in cases of workplace bullying, where victims often fear retaliation or job insecurity for speaking up. With these protections, employees are better positioned to address serious issues without risking their careers.

When examining workplace bullying cases in Australia compared to New Zealand, it becomes evident that Australia has a much stronger track record of prosecuting such cases due to its specific legislation under the Fair Work Act. Australia has seen several prosecutions, with notable cases like the Tad-Mar Electrical incident in South Australia, where an employer and two employees faced serious charges following a workplace bullying case that endangered a young apprentice's safety. This was one of the first successful bullying prosecutions under Australia’s harmonized Work Health and Safety (WHS) Act, which is based on model legislation similar to New Zealand's Health and Safety at Work Act 2015

References: Griffith University Research Repository CQU Acquire NZ Law Society

In New Zealand, bullying cases rarely result in prosecutions. WorkSafe NZ reports that of the bullying complaints it receives, only about 10% are investigated, and thus far, there have been no successful prosecutions solely for workplace bullying. This highlights a gap in New Zealand’s approach, where bullying cases are often handled through employment relations processes rather than criminal or WHS prosecutions Reference: NZ Law Society

Furthermore, the Protected Disclosures Act 2022 (commonly referred to as the Whistleblower Act) in New Zealand, as mentioned earlier provides protections for individuals reporting wrongdoing, such as bullying, without fear of retaliation. This legislation is a critical tool for encouraging employees to report bullying behaviors, which can help address issues early and support a culture of transparency. Although this act doesn’t create direct pathways to prosecute bullying, it facilitates early reporting and accountability, which can lead to better prevention and management of workplace bullying

In summary, while Australia has made progress in prosecuting severe bullying cases, New Zealand’s legal framework and reliance on employment law make successful prosecution challenging, although legislative tools like the Protected Disclosures Act offer new support for those impacted by workplace bullying.

The challenges in prosecuting workplace bullying stem from its often covert nature, making it difficult to meet the criminal standard of proof required in court. Prosecutors frequently rely on clear physical or psychological harm, which is challenging to demonstrate in cases involving only psychological bullying. In response, some Australian states, like Victoria, implemented specific legislation, known as "Brodie's Law," to criminalize serious bullying cases, making it easier to prosecute severe incidents with tangible harm References: Global Workplace Insider NSCA Foundation

After personally going through the NZ Civil courts a few years back with a very distressed young person, who had been bullied online by an older, lady, I was really hoping the Harmful Digital Communications Act would protect and see the right passage of justice served. The matter I was involved with was a Facebook Online bullying case which played out via Facebook community groups. Despite technically 'winning' this case, I'll never forget the feeling when the judge said "I don't have Facebook' and couldn't really understand why an appology post on a private page was not the same as an apology post to over 90,000 people in local community pages. One day I hope this will change and hopefully speed will be of the essence and like most other pieces of legislation, a tribunal will be created for this purpose. Our rangatahi are being damage because of this poor and exceedingly slow legal process. At the same time, perhaps Netsafe might be given some more powers, as in our case, just 'asking the person to take the post down, or apologize' with no enforcement powers seams like a long shot in this face-paced digital world we live in. Bullying crosses both our personal and professional lives and one impacts the other and vice versa.

Why Employee Assistance Programs (EAPs) Are Not Enough

Employee Assistance Programs (EAPs) are valuable resources for mental health support in the workplace, but they are limited in scope. While EAPs offer counseling and assistance for employees dealing with stress or mental health issues, they are reactive by design. Relying solely on EAPs does not address the root causes of workplace stress and disengagement, such as job design, toxic cultures, or lack of support. Without addressing these underlying causes, businesses risk creating an environment where employees continue to struggle despite access to EAP resources.

Instead, organizations need a comprehensive approach to prevent psychosocial hazards:

• Proactive Leadership: Leaders set the tone for workplace culture. By fostering open communication, transparency, and active listening, leaders can help create an environment where employees feel safe to speak up.
• Clear Role Definitions and Reasonable Expectations: Ensuring that employees understand their roles and have manageable workloads helps prevent role-related stress and confusion.
• Promoting Work-Life Balance: Encouraging reasonable work hours, flexibility, and breaks can significantly reduce the risk of burnout and enhance job satisfaction.

Building a Culture of Psychological Safety

Beyond offering EAPs, companies should focus on creating a culture of psychological safety. This means fostering a workplace where employees feel comfortable raising concerns, sharing their experiences, and seeking help without fear of judgment or retaliation. Transparent anti-bullying policies, training in mental health awareness, and a respectful workplace culture are essential to making psychological safety a reality.

Looking Ahead: A Holistic Approach to Health and Safety

Psychosocial hazards are not just a buzzword—they represent real, pervasive risks to employees and businesses alike. By adopting a proactive approach that prioritises mental well-being, New Zealand organizations can build workplaces where people feel safe, valued, and supported.

For those wanting to learn more about managing psychosocial hazards, resources are available on the WorkSafe New Zealand website, which also highlights recent case law and guidance on the topic. With Australia’s legislative changes as a model, New Zealand is moving towards a more comprehensive approach to workplace health and safety, signaling that the future of safe work is one where both mental and physical health are equally prioritized.