STUDY Links Harassment to Cognitive Defects & Mental Health Problems; Bullying affects brain structure

Cognitive deficit ... research finds bullying affects the victims' brain structure.

They lurk in hallways, bathrooms, around the next blind corner. But for the children they have routinely teased or tormented, bullies effectively live in the victims' brains as well - and not just as a terrifying memory.

Preliminary evidence shows that bullying can produce signs of stress, cognitive deficits and mental-health problems.

Now University of Ottawa psychologist Tracy Vaillancourt and her colleagues at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario plan to scan the brains of teens who have been regularly humiliated and ostracised by their peers to look for structural differences compared with other children.

"We know there is a functional difference. We know their brains are acting differently, but we don't know if it is structural as well," said Vaillancourt, an expert in the biology of bullying.

She says she hopes her work will legitimise the plight of children who are bullied, and encourage parents, teachers and school boards to take the problem more seriously.

Vaillancourt has been following a group of 17-year-olds since they were 12. All 70 of the children were routinely bullied during those years - teased, harassed, threatened or excluded.

Physical violence is relatively rare, she says, because their tormentors are smart enough to know it will get them into trouble.

"For many of these kids, every day is a nightmare," she said. They go to school and no one will talk to them. Someone deliberately bumps into them in the hallway, and all the other children laugh. They get called horrible names.

The researchers will start with brain scans of 15 of the extreme cases, like the child who stood in her gym uniform while other kids put her school clothes in the toilet and urinated on them.

There are also teenagers in the study who have been bullied for five straight school years.

The scientists have already shown that children who are bullied are more likely than other kids to have cognitive deficits.

They score lower on tests that measure verbal memory and executive function, a set of skills needed to focus on a task and get the job done. Mental-health problems, such as depression, are also more common.

Vaillancourt suspects they will also have a smaller hippocampus, a part of the brain involved in memory. Depression has been shown to be related to a smaller hippocampus. As well, animal studies have shown that chronic high levels of stress can kill brain cells. Vaillancourt says this kind of damage may help explain why children who are bullied often perform poorly academically.

She will also be looking for a smaller prefrontal cortex, which plays a role in being able to pay attention and other executive functions.

These kinds of differences have been documented in functional magnetic resonance imaging, or MRI, studies of children who have been neglected or abused. Vaillancourt suspects the chronic stress of being bullied will have a similar impact.

She and her colleagues have already published research showing that boys who are bullied tend to produce more of the stress hormone cortisol. It is as if their system is in permanent overdrive.

It's the opposite for the girls; they tend to produce less cortisol than average, as though their stress response system is overly subdued.

"At some point, their brains stop reacting," said Vaillancourt, who holds a Canada Research Chair in children's mental health and violence prevention.

These changes to the brain's stress response system may be linked to the higher rates of depression among children who are regularly picked on by their peers, especially girls. The adolescent years are when peer relations are most important and when girls, more than anything, want to belong, Vaillancourt says.

News Source

Beyond the blow to self-esteem, bullying can hurt the brain, too
Study links harassment to cognitive deficits and mental-health problems

Worst Real-Life Bosses - from the list of BossWatch Founder

Some playground bullies grow up, wear suits and become bosses, but don't really grow up at all.

That's the type of person who would become an attorney at a prominent Richmond, Va., law firm and -- allegedly -- put a cucumber in his pants, hug a female employee and shove it into her thigh. And then laugh.

But there's an organization named BossWatch, founded by Asher Adelman in 2007, that's determined to help job seekers avoid these toxic bosses like the cucumber-pusher (pictured below).
BossWatch (tagline: "Nobody should have to work with a jerk") provides a platform for employees to sound off on these bosses and anonymously rate individual bosses, "using a respectable and focused evaluation form." BossWatch also assembled a panel of workplace experts which selected and ranked the 25 Worst Bosses of 2009.

Adelman spoke with Asylum to get his hand-picked list of the most shocking and appalling boss stories, as well as some advice for dealing with awful bosses.

-- Bank of New York Mellon -- Secaucus, N.J.
The bank's vice president and supervising assistant manager were accused by the New Jersey Attorney General's office of racial and sexual harassment that included name-calling and derogatory comments about the victim's sexual orientation. The victim's complaints to management allegedly fell on deaf ears, and he claims that he was ultimately fired for complaining.

-- American Legion Post -- Wheaton, Minn.
The female kitchen manager was accused of sexually harassing a male bartender, grabbing his groin, trying to kiss him, and sexually propositioning him. The victim's complaints to supervisors were not investigated, and the victim ultimately quit several months later after developing ulcers and suffering from nightmares and depression. In a settlement negotiated with the Dept. of Human Rights, the Wheaton American Legion agreed to pay the victim $10,000.

-- Alamos Verdes Restaurant -- Arvada, Colo.
The 57-year-old male co-owner allegedly sexually harassed and groped a 16-year-old female employee. He was sued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for the repeated acts, and for then firing her in retaliation after she complained about the abuse.

Stanford Professor Robert Sutton and author of "The No A**hole Rule" describes these productivity- and morale-sapping bosses as -- you guessed it -- a**holes. Unfortunately, Sutton says there are a lot of them in the modern workplace. You may even work for one. They thrive on aggression, make demeaning remarks and create hostile work environments.

While the above are some of the worst cases, it doesn't mean that less-severe incidents of abuse are excusable. "The main thing," Adelman says, "you want to get out of a toxic workplace as quickly as possible. It's rare for an employee to be able to change a work environment or impact a person and make them change their behavior."

"Even in a tough economy," Adelman adds, "it's not worth a person's well being to be stuck in an abusive environment. While an employee is still there, they should document everything that happens -- every one of the boss's comments and abusive actions. Copy emails and voice messages too, so they're available if it becomes necessary to file a complaint."

And don't forget the universal rule that applies to all -- don't be an a**hole. Don't attempt to get back at your boss by cucumber-poking him/her with a bigger and/or sharpened cucumber.
source

LEGAL - Third Party Costs Order on £1m School Bullying Claim

I am looking back at some of the big legal cases from 2009... to find out what verdicts were delivered, often you will not see anything written again by way of a news report due to confidentiality, though if you dig enough you may see a commentary report or assessment made by legal or HR firms who use the cases as guidelines for advice.

The Story as reported on 3rd March 2009

Ex-pupil sues leading public school for £1m over claims bullies called him 'poor little rich boy', claims mental scarring.

A former pupil is suing a leading public school for almost £1million after he claims he was bullied by pupils who called him a 'poor little rich boy'.

'Taunted': Thomson as a teenager

John Thomson, 23, has launched a landmark High Court case claiming he has been left mentally scarred and his career ruined by repeated bullying and humiliation he endured at Berkhamsted Collegiate School. The university graduate is accusing staff of failing to protect him from fellow pupils who taunted him about living in a large house.

He claims he was picked on from the age of 11 by various boys who 'made his life hell' and the ordeal led to him developing a major depressive disorder. The school, which charges fees of £15,000 a year and whose alumni include Graham Greene, Michael Meacher and Emma Fielding, has insisted that the incidents were too trivial to be considered bullying.

The court heard that Mr Thomson-who lives in Meadway, Berkhamsted, Hertfordshire, attended the school between 1994 and 2002. After leaving he went on to study at Imperial College London but he says the abuse overshadowed his career prospects and he graduated with a second class degree when he had the potential to get a first.

Lawyers for the school, which is prized for its Christian values, pointed out that it is only two years since Mr Thomson graduated. Andrew Miller said it was unrealistic to suggest someone with his qualifications - 11 GCSEs, with ten at grade A* or A , four A-grade A-levels and a second-class degree - would have difficulty getting a job.

The alleged abuse began around 1996 when various boys 'started to pick on and tease him mercilessly', the court heard. His QC, Robert Glancy, told the court that the matter was reported to a senior teacher but no action was taken. His parents also complained to the school. Mr Thomson-an above-average student whose parents hoped would go on to Oxbridge, became withdrawn and subdued.

He would often be anxious and distressed at the start of a new term. He told a counsellor he felt 'his life was not worth living', Mr Glancy told Mr Justice Blake in London.

The chapel at Berkhamsted School , which is being sued by Thomson

The bullying took a new turn in 2001 - his GCSE year - when one fellow schoolboy 'manipulated various social circumstances him embarrassment and distress'. 'In particular, he received invitations to parties unexpectedly where he was subjected to sexual approaches by young women,' Mr Glancy added, claiming the girls were 'associated' with boys who made Mr Thomson's life a misery.

Mr Miller said the incidents at two out-of-school parties involved 'consensual sexual conduct'. His to cause ordeal culminated in a 'purported suicide attempt' shortly afterwards during a school trip to Greece, the court was told. A month later he sent a letter of complaint to the school governors and stood up in his science class, announcing he had been bullied.

In 2002, he moved to Aylesbury Grammar School where he did well. But he claims the bullying at a critical period of his adolescence led to a struggle finding suitable work.

Doctors said Mr Thomson was shy and had poor self-esteem and difficulties forming relationships, said Mr Glancy, adding: 'The claimant and his parents trusted the school to nurture and develop him intellectually and personally and the school has let him down.'

Hundreds of photographs showing Mr Thomson looking happy as a teenager may be used in evidence against his claims, it emerged last night. Many are believed to have been taken from social networking site Facebook.

The school denies it was negligent or in breach of its duty of care. source

DECISION

Third Party Costs Order

Where family had funded a claimant's litigation, there was a reasonable prospect of success in obtaining a third party costs order where the family were directly concerned with the facts of the claim, had taken an active role and gained a benefit from the litigation, and had sought to control its course.

JOHN THOMSON (Claimant) v BERKHAMSTED COLLEGIATE SCHOOL (Defendant) and (1) IAN THOMSON (2) GRACINDA THOMSON (Interested Parties) [2009] EWHC 2374 (QB)

Background

Mr & Mrs Thomson's son, John (J), a former pupil at Berkhamsted Collegiate School (BCS), had brought a claim for damages against BCS for failure to take proper measures to prevent him from being bullied whilst he was at the school. Two weeks into the trial, J discontinued his claim and BCS sought its substantial costs in defending the action which it alleged was wholly misconceived. J was unemployed and the costs of his litigation had been met by his parents (P). Accordingly, BCS wished to claim its costs from P pursuant to the Supreme Court Act 1981 s.51 and CPR r.48.2. Pursuant to that application BCS sought orders requiring P to file and serve disclosure statements setting out correspondence between them and J's solicitors, experts and counsel; in addition they sought orders against J with respect to disclosure and his claim of legal professional privilege.

Decision

On 2^nd October 2009 Mr Justice Blake held that...

(1) Before considering whether it was necessary to make the Orders sought by BCS, the Court needed to consider when a third party costs order was likely to be made in cases such as the instant one. The law as to third party costs was sufficiently stated inDymocks Franchise Systems (NSW) Pty Ltd v Todd (Costs) (2004) UKPC 39, (2004) 1 WLR 2807 and the following principles were relevant: (i) such an order was exceptional (ii) the application should normally be determined by the trial judge (iii) pure funders with no personal interest in the litigation would not normally have the discretion exercised against them, Hamilton v Al-Fayed (Costs) (2002) EWCA Civ 665, (2003) QB 1175 applied (iv) it was relevant but not decisive that the defendant had warned the non-party of the intention to seek costs or the non-party's funding had caused the defendant to incur costs it would not otherwise have had to incur (v) the conduct of the non-party in the course of the litigation was of relevance (vi) in a family funding context courts had been reluctant to impose third party costs orders against those family members who assisted a party for philanthropic and disinterested reasons and (vii) the inherent strength of the application was always a relevant factor, Dymocks applied. In this case, P were not merely funders but were directly concerned with the facts of the claim and played an active role in the litigation. There was substance to the suggestion that the litigation was speculative as to its prospects of success. It was doubtful that it would have been funded if T had not made funds available themselves. Accordingly, an application for third party costs had a reasonable prospect of success. The only doubt was over whether P gained a benefit from the litigation and sought to control its course.

(2) BCS could only demonstrate the element of control if it knew what communications P had had with the solicitors, counsel and experts in the case. Restricting the period of time during which the disclosure was required reduced the scale of the disclosure sought and any practical difficulties.

(3) J had claimed legal professional privilege but it did not normally exist in communications between a solicitor and third parties that were not immediately connected with that third party's witness statement or the giving of legal advice to the claimant. An analysis of the documents was required to determine which attracted privilege. The correspondence sought was likely to be probative and not privileged in its entirety and it was not disproportionate for the material to be sought.

Link to Judgment

source

Judge grants application over disclosure of correspondence

John Thomson v Berkhamsted Collegiate School (Defendant) & (1) Ian Thomson (2) Gracinda Thomson (interested parties)

(Queen's Bench Division — 2 October 2009)

John Thomson, the claimant, brought a claim against his former school for failure to prevent bullying. He subsequently discontinued at trial. The defendant sought to obtain a third-party costs order against the claimant's parents (interested parties) pursuant to rule 48.2 of the civil procedure rules as interested parties. The defendant applied for disclosure of the correspondence that passed between the claimant's solicitors and his parents. The parents opposed the application on the grounds that such documents were privileged.

In considering the application, the judge identified the relevant factors as: the strength of the application for third-party costs on present evidence; whether it would be obvious on summary assessment that the documents will be privileged; the potential value of the documents sought to determine the application; and whether an order would be just and proportionate in the circumstances.

The judge found that on the face of it the application was a strong one, as the interested parties were more than disinterested funders and had a vested interest in the claim succeeding. He was also convinced that the documents were potentially relevant, albeit he limited the period of time for which correspondence should be disclosed.

The judge did not consider that the documents were likely to be subject to legal professional privilege save for those relating to the interested parties' role as witnesses to the claim.

He noted the Catch-22 situation that if the correspondence was privileged in that it related to advice between a solicitor and his client, it would assist the defendant's case that the interested parties were, in fact, claimants.

In terms of proportionality, the judge recognised the exercise of disclosure would be carried out by the solicitors, in that they could extract such correspondence from their own files, and was not, therefore, an onerous duty on the parties. The judge thus granted the application for disclosure.

Comment

This is a potentially very important decision for schools and their insurers. Parents who believe that they can litigate through their children, and thereby avoid an effective adverse costs order, should take very careful note.

- Richard Wilkins, partner, BLM London. source

Looking a little further, this case started back in 2002

Fee-paying school faces legal test on bullying

An independent school that prides itself on Christian values is threatened with being taken to court by a 16-year-old boy who claims he was bullied because he lived in a big house.

John Thomson, 16, claims the school failed to protect him from the bullies who made his life a misery, laying in wait for him and ridiculing him as a "poor little rich boy" and a "social incompetent".

If the case against Berkhamsted Collegiate school, in Hertfordshire, reaches the High Court it will be the first legal test of the law relating to bullying in independent schools. Though lawyers say there have been "scores" of claims on behalf of pupils bullied in fee-paying schools, they have been dropped or settled out of court.

The boy's parents, Ian and Gracinda, of Berkhamsted, claim the school, which charges nearly £10,000 for day pupils and £15,000 for boarders, did not take sufficient steps to ensure his wellbeing and failed to implement or review its policy to tackle bullying. But the school says its solicitors have been unable to get details of the proposed claim, despite being notified three months ago that it was being made.

Though it did not want to comment on issues concerning a child's welfare, the school said it had taken the complaints by the pupil and his parents "very seriously".

"After a thorough investigation following established procedures, the parents disagreed with the conclusions and threatened to sue," it said in a statement from Berrymans Lace Mawer, the solicitors instructed to represent it.

"Ours is a caring school and the boy has received considerable pastoral support throughout."

Mrs Thomson said she and her husband had spoken to teachers at the school and Priscilla Chadwick, its principal, many times. However, she claims no satisfactory conclusion was reached.

"They seem to believe that it is just John's perception of the behaviour of the pupils and deny that bullying goes on there," said Mrs Thomson.

"John remembers quite clearly that it started when he invited three pupils home who then started to tease him about being a poor little rich boy.

"We do live in a big house, but we are not snobs. Last week someone came to the door when I was cleaning the letter box and asked if the lady of the house was in," she said. "Plenty of the pupils have well-off parents but this boy decided to pick on John."

Their son reported the bullying and a master spoke to the boys. "Two of them stopped but the other one carried on," said John. "He used to wait until I was on my own and say things, or just laugh at me.

"I tried to deal with it and kept thinking that I only had to keep going until I was 16 and then we would be split up in the sixth form."

But he claims it got worse last year, when he reached the sixth form, and one of the boys started to intimidate him by standing outside the door of his "house room", a rest room for students, who are divided into groups, or "houses".

The school, whose former pupils include Graham Greene, Michael Meacher and Emma Fielding, prides itself on its Christian ethos and aims to provide a good, all-round education, including a strong entry to the Duke of Edinburgh's Award Scheme.

But John claims that it started to take the problem seriously only recently.

"The ethos of the school is great for those who feel confident and are strong characters. Those who are not confident as a result of bullying in the school and those who are slightly weaker in character are having a terrible time," he told the chairman of the school's governing body in a letter last November.

John left the school after his AS-level exams and started at another one earlier this month. source

Workplace bullying – a problem for employer and employee alike

On 21 February, the government ran an advertisement in a Sunday newspaper, encouraging employers to visit its website for free employment advice on preventing workplace harassment and violence. It seemed almost too ironic then, when Christine Pratt, chief executive of the National Bullying Helpline, went public with allegations that No 10 staff had phoned the charity for advice about bullying.

The row erupted after allegations in a book by the Observer's chief political commentator, Andrew Rawnsley, in which he discussed Gordon Brown's behaviour towards staff. Although employers of all shapes and sizes are familiar with the issue of bullying, it rarely hits the headlines. But against the backdrop of a fast-approaching general election the issue is gathering momentum.

Forms of bullying

A 2009 Unison survey suggested that bullying at work has doubled in the past 10 years, with one in three staff surveyed claiming to have been bullied in the previous six months. The most common forms of bullying included excessive monitoring and criticism, exclusion and isolation, intimidation, public humiliation and being treated in a rude and disrespectful manner.

I have seen a number of cases where managers have belittled employees in front of colleagues, set unreasonable targets, and in recent times used e-mails and text messages outside office hours to put pressure on particular individuals.

Claims at employment tribunals

Employees who have been subjected to bullying by a work colleague, often by someone in a senior position, can bring claims for bullying or harassment at an employment tribunal. Now is probably not the time to remind the government that, despite calls from businesses, there is no fee payable for pursuing such legal claims. In fact, individuals can easily launch legal proceedings by filing a claim online.

An employee who has been bullied may, if they have completed a year's employment with their employer, resign and claim constructive dismissal - effectively arguing they have been forced out of their job by unacceptable behaviour. In such cases they could recover compensation of up to £65,300. In addition, the employee may suggest that the bullying behaviour has been based upon, for example, their race, sex, age, sexual orientation, religion and/or a disability.

Such conduct can amount to unlawful discrimination, unlawful harassment, or both - and in those cases the employee isn't even required to have completed a year's employment. The individual can remain on the payroll, leaving the employer with the somewhat difficult task of continuing to employ the person while at the same time defending a claim that they have made against the business.

The employee, meanwhile, can not only name the employer as a respondent to the tribunal proceedings but can also name the individual who bullied them. That individual could ultimately be found liable to pay compensation to the employee.

Adverse publicity

It is worth remembering that tribunal hearings are held in public and regularly attract the attention of the press. Such adverse publicity can be extremely damaging for any business, particularly at a time when many are under significant economic pressure.

Minimising bullying

To minimise the risk of bullying, employers should encourage appropriate behaviour from all employees in the workplace. They should not tolerate unacceptable conduct, should address complaints promptly and appropriately, and should provide reassurance to potential victims that concerns will be taken seriously.

Some companies encourage the use of free helplines such as the National Bullying Helpline, which provide confidential support for employees who have problems either within or outside of the workplace.

Since her original media appearance, Pratt's stance has changed a little, but it remains the case that the confidences of the employees concerned have been broken.

Helplines of this sort succeed on the basis that employees are reassured that the matters that they raise will be treated in confidence.

Anyone who manages people should remember that there can be a very fine line between being 'demanding' and being a 'bully'.

source

Further reading:

How to deal with bullying and harassment in the workplace

Bullying needs to be tackled head-on

Employee Health and Getting the Work-Life Balance Right - Finally Business is Taking Notice

Below is a collection of current articles and information about how the workplace is changing (America-Australia). The pressure within a workplace to maintain long hours, increased workloads pressured with employer inflexibility creates a toxic workplace, and can cause imbalance as some workers are given more leeway over others based on discriminating factors ie: parents v's single or people without children, people who choose to live further away from work than those who live around the corner, or those who have been in the company longer who are on older employment more 'giving' agreements than the newer 'bare bones' work conditions. It is good to see that there are some employers now willing to give everyone equal access to more flexible working conditions. Also that governments are willing to lead the way for industry to take care of employee health and working conditions. All this contributes to a more positive and productive work environment where people want to be.

WORK-LIFE BALANCING

Years ago I interviewed for a job where the HR Director told me point blank, “this job will be your life. I have family too, but this job comes first.”

Thankfully, I didn’t get the job. Another colleague did, and less than a year later she was hospitalized for anxiety as a result of the stress associated with the position.

Fast forward 15 years, and not much has changed. When a class conflicted with a weekend office event and I chose the class (after giving management ample notice), my manager asked me if I was telling her that my life outside of work was more important than my job. Her question shocked me, and knowing that my answer was a resounding “YES”, fueled my determination to leave that environment as quickly as possible.

But it finally seems that some employers at least, are attempting to make room for life and work. In a recent NPR interview, Katie Sleep discussed why her company, List Innovative Solutions, lets employees telecommute and set their own hours. As a mom herself, accustomed to long commutes and managing the nightmare of transporting kids to and from school and daycare, Sleep was determined to offer better options for her own employees. Not only does she have an unheard of 95% retention rate, she finds that employees still get their work done.

The problem with 9-5, is that it’s based on an outdated model of work. Back in the day, the workforce was largely male, and women stayed at home. In 2010, most households are dual income, and women are increasingly becoming the breadwinners. Sadly today, most companies, particularly those run by bad bosses, don’t trust their employees to work independently and out of sight. Allowing for flexibility and freedom in the workday is almost seen as a sign of weakness. As a result, both productivity, and employee moral suffer.

Not every type of job is conducive to flex time and telecommuting, but many are, and unless companies begin doing a better job of helping their employees balance work and life, we’ll continue to see a U.S. workforce at odds with itself.
You can listen to the entire NPR story here.

Options On The Flex-Work Menu

For those who think working 9 to 5 is all takin' and no givin' (as Dolly Parton once sang), there are options for a more flexible work arrangement. Don’t know your flextime from your job sharing? Here's a quick primer.

Flexible Working Benefits Offered By Some U.S. Companies

	Organizations that offer the benefit	Plan to eliminate or cut the benefit within the next 12 months
Casual dress day	59%	2%
Flextime	54%	1%
Telecommuting (ad hoc)	45%	1%
Break arrangements	43%	2%
Mealtime flex	41%	1%
Compressed workweek	37%	1%
Casual dress every day	36%	2%
Telecommuting (part time)	34%	2%
Shift flexibility	21%	3%
Telecommuting (full time)	19%	1%
Job sharing	16%	2%
Seasonal scheduling	16%	1%
Alternating location	4%	9%
Results-only work environment	3%	0%

Source: Society For Human Resource Management

Flextime is when employees choose their own work hours within limits set by their employer — for example, working an 11 a.m. to 7 p.m. schedule instead of the traditional 9 to 5 schedule, or working extra hours one day to make up for shorter hours worked another day.

Telecommuting is when employees work outside the office — say, at home or on a laptop in a coffee shop. The benefit can be offered on a one-time or ad hoc basis — for example, when a commuting crisis such as a snowstorm keeps workers away from the office — or as a part-time benefit.

Job sharing is when two or more employees share one full-time job; the employees can either alternate weeks, split the workday in half or work 2 1/2 days each week, with one overlapping day.

Still another option is a compressed workweek, which means, for example, working a four-day/10-hour-day workweek or a three-day/12-hour-day workweek.

Companies can also give employees flexibility when it comes to when they take their breaks or meals. For example, mealtime flex allows employees who take shorter lunch breaks to leave early. Employers can also let workers adjust their schedules by picking up shifts or trading them with co-workers, an option called shift flexibility.

Seasonal scheduling is when employees work only a certain number of months a year. And some companies allow employees to work part of the year in one location and part of the year in another location.

Finally, a results-only work environment basically turns the traditional workplace model of work hours and meetings on its head. Under this arrangement, employees can work where and whenever they wish, as long as projects are completed on time.

Work-life experts caution that many flex-work programs appear more generous on paper than in practice and can be highly dependent on individual supervisors.
source

EMPLOYEE HEALTH

In AUSTRALIA the Victorian Government has a a number of Work Health programme initiatives that employers can adopt into their workplace including the WorkSafe's employee health and wellbeing program.

WorkSafe launches major WorkHealth campaign
This Sunday February 7, a major WorkHealth advertising campaign will commence, including the first ever WorkHealth television commercial. Watch TV Commericals Here

Focusing on WorkHealth checks, the campaign will target both Victorian employers and employees and will demonstrate the benefits of participating in the program.

The campaign, which will run in metropolitan Melbourne and across regional Victoria, was launched by the Minister for Finance, WorkCover and TAC, the Hon. Tim Holding at Flight Centre head office today. Flight Centre have been identified as a leading employer, as they are currently rolling out a health and wellbeing program across 315 workplaces in Victoria.

The campaign comes on the back of new research conducted by WorkSafe on the first 56,000 workers who participated in WorkHealth checks. The data shows that an alarming 40% of workers who received a WorkHealth check had one or more results indicating a high or very high risk of developing type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease (CVD).

We have a number of health and wellbeing programs you can introduce in your workplace.

The healthy workplace check
will help you select the right program for your organisation

The free online resource kit
gives you the tools you need to start building a health and wellbeing program for your workplace

The workplace programs
give you access to programs to address specific health issues in your workplace

Also see The WORK HEALTH Programme

What is WorkHealth?

WorkHealth is brought to you by WorkSafe Victoria and is the Victorian Government’s response to improving the health of the Victorian community.

The initiative will see a significant investment of $200 million over the next 5 years in the health and safety of Victoria’s workers. WorkHealth aims to support Victorian workplaces in offering voluntary programs to promote worker health and well-being.

Workhealth Checks

Workhealth Checks are delivered one-on-one by a qualified health professional at your workplace. No matter the size of your organisation if you choose Corporate Bodies International as your provider the health checks are 100% free of charge. Click here for more information

Workplace Health Promotion Grants

Companies have the option to apply for a one off grant to deliver a health and well-being program that meets the needs of the workforce. There are a range of options available in regards to health promotion. Depending on the size of your organization you may be able to apply for up to $50 per employee towards the program cost. Click here for more information

Workplace Bullying at Damascus College Victoria as WorkSafe issued notice for workplace bullying procedures

WORKPLACE bullying came under the spotlight at Damascus College last year when the school was issued with an improvement notice.

WorkSafe issued the notice for workplace bullying procedures in March last year and it was complied with by May.

Damascus College co-principal Sister Marie Davey said there had been an allegation of bullying at the school, but it was not verified.

She said there had been an anti-bullying process in place.

"As a result of the allegation, we went through the procedures and found there was no grounds, but also in the process we upgraded the documentation.''

Sister Davey said the school had not experienced problems with workplace bullying.

"I'm not aware of there being any substantiated allegations at the school," she said.

WorkSafe is holding a series of seminars across the state to re-inforce its anti-bullying guidelines starting at the end of the month.

A seminar will be held in Ballarat on May 15. The 90-minute briefing will cover areas including what is bullying, strategies to prevent it, and managment of it.

For bookings and further details go to www.worksafe.vic.gov.au

Victorian workplace bullying seminars

LEGAL - 'Bullied' City lawyer Gillian Switalski seeking £19m settles for secret payout

Deal: former head of legal affairs at F&C Gill Switalski

A City lawyer who had claimed a record £19 million in compensation over workplace bullying has settled for an undisclosed multi-million-pound sum.

Gill Switalski, 54, who earned £140,000 a year at F&C Asset Management, had already won her claims for sexual discrimination, victimisation and constructive dismissal.

Ms Switalski was head of legal affairs at F&C which controls assets of more than £100 billion, and also ran her own property development company and a legal training website.

She alleged in her lawsuit that she had been harassed and victimised by her employers from late 2004, and unable to work from August 2006, when she took sick leave following an operation. The tribunal ruled in her favour in March 2008.

Ms Switalski, a mother of two, claimed during her legal battle that she had been left almost penniless because her ex-employers were deliberately delaying her payout to “grind her into the ground”.

She said she was in a “dire financial position” and her £3.7 million house in Virginia Water was at risk because F&C launched a string of appeals against the tribunal rulings.

F&C appealed against the original decision twice, first in May 2008 and again in July 2009. In both cases the ruling was in Ms Switalski's favour.
At one stage in proceedings she was seeking £19 million though this was later lowered to £12 million.

A remedy hearing, where a judge decides on the size of the payout, was due to take place this week.

F&C appealed against the decision on the grounds that Ms Switalski had successfully applied for another job while on sick leave, thus disqualifying claims that her treatment at F&C had put an end to her career.

A spokesman for F&C said: “The parties have resolved all issues between them on the basis that all claims are withdrawn and will make no further statement.”

source

March 2010 - Lawyer who fought sexists wins millions in secret payout

July 2009 - 'Lawyer banks on record damages as panel upholds her harassment claim' - Tribunal upholds earlier ruling that Gill Switalski suffered sex bias and harassment. She is claiming £12 million damages

August 2008 - 'Lawyer in £19 million bullying case wins latest round'

LEGAL NEWS - 2010

Harbottle & Lewis successfully represent Gill Switalski in ground breaking discrimination claim

On 18 July 2009, following a Review Hearing that took place last month, the Employment Tribunal announced its decision to uphold the decision of an earlier Employment Tribunal that Gillian Switalski had suffered sexual discrimination, victimisation and harassment whilst employed by City-based F&C Asset Management as the Head of Legal. This is the latest twist in this long running and ground breaking discrimination case which has already been the subject matter of contested appeals to the Employment Appeal Tribunal on two occasions as well as an appearance before the Court of Appeal. The case is now listed for a hearing to award compensation in early January 2010.

Employment law Partner Howard Hymanson, who is acting for Gill Switalski said: "I am delighted for my client that once again she has been vindicated in her claim against her former employer F&C Asset Management.

One should not underestimate the pressure that she and her family have had to endure in fighting to clear her name against highly resourced and belligerent adversary intent upon pursuing every possible legal avenue of appeal in order to avoid paying compensation for the damage it has caused to her health and her career.

Notwithstanding every attempt that has been made to destroy her credibility my client remains resolute and is greatly relieved that a newly constituted tribunal has rejected once again the application for a review of the judgments made in her favour by the original tribunal.

My client now hopes that this long running litigation may soon come to an end so that she may begin the process of looking forward with her life rather than having to re-live the discriminatory treatment she received at the hand of her employer."

For further information, please contact Howard Hymanson on 020 7667 5000.


View press coverage on the case:

The Times

The Guardian

Financial Times

Daily Express

source

ACT Health Minister Katy Gallagher accused of Workplace Bullying Coverup at Canberra Hospital's maternity unit

Katy Gallagher says naming the person conducting the second review could compromise the process.

ACT Health Minister Katy Gallagher has rejected accusation she is covering up details of an investigation into workplace bullying in Canberra Hospital's maternity unit.

The Government last month ordered two external reviews of the Canberra Hospital's obstetrics department after allegations of workplace bullying were made.

Nine obstetricians have resigned from the hospital in the past 13 months.

The first review will not be restricted to the Canberra Hospital and will consider all ACT public maternity units.

The four person review panel includes Queensland clinical adviser Professor Michael Humphreys; midwife adviser Avon Strahle; Adelaide obstetrician Associate Professor Robert Bryce; and obstetrician Dr David Rankin.

The draft terms of reference for the inquiry include assessment of mortality and clinical governance, staff roles and responsibilities, and staffing numbers and workloads.

It will also assess the service delivery and working arrangements between all obstetric units in the ACT and options for improvements.

The second review will investigate allegations of bullying at the Canberra Hospital's maternity unit.

But Ms Gallagher will not say who is conducting that review, although several sources have told the ABC that workplace relations expert Henry Price will be heading it.

"They are acting independently in terms of the way they are conducting the investigation," she said.

"So I don't want for a moment for anyone to allege we are trying to control this review in anyway, that's not the way but I am trying to make sure it's a fair process for everybody."

Opposition health spokesman Jeremy Hanson says the Government has drawn a veil of secrecy.

"How can we have any confidence that we're actually going to get all the problems come to lights," he said.

But Ms Gallagher says she is not hiding anything. She says she has received legal advice that naming the person could compromise the process.

The review will investigate any incidences that could be considered bullying or harassment that occurred in the hospital's obstetrics unit between 2006 and 2010.

Mr Hanson says he does not think the independent investigation will get to the bottom of the bullying allegations.

He says the Government is not being thorough enough.

"We want to make sure this never happens again and because Katy Gallagher is refusing to conduct a board of inquiry, refusing to name who's actually going to conduct her review and has inadequate terms of reference, we are not going to get to the bottom of what are very very serious allegations," he said.

source