Bullied employees shouldn’t have to push the nuclear button on their own careers to be taken seriously

The government could lead by example, propose workable changes to the law, and ensure civilised behaviour in 21st century Britain, writes Richard McLean

(Getty Images/iStockphoto)

The allegations emerging from Whitehall have shed light on the pervasive nature of workplace bullying – something rarely talked about openly but experienced by anything ranging from 30-60 per cent of the workforce. Even if not in the workplace, one can safely assume that the majority have experienced bullying in some form. From demeaning whispers, to social exclusion, to physical violence, we all know what bullying looks like. A great many know what it feels like to be on the receiving end of it. So why then, is it something we tolerate in our workplaces?

Bullying inarguably has an effect on the economy. The ill health, staff turnover, and absenteeism that result are no friends of business. It normally, though not always, derives from a superior exploiting the power balance in the workforce. Yet too often, when bullying behaviour rears its ugly head, an army of nodding heads mouthing platitudes comes to its defence – whether naïve, wrong-headed, or of the obsequious variety. We are told that bullying is just evidence of strong, robust management – and who in their right mind would want to impede an effective manager? Alternatively, it’s just a personality clash between two strong-willed individuals. Occasionally, we are informed that the victim must have an agenda, or that allegations are a symptom of workplace politics. Worst of all is when victims themselves are painted as over-sensitive or unable to participate in workplace banter.

Whether or not we want to admit it, our work is perhaps the most important thing in our lives. It provides us with the money needed to put a roof over our heads and bread on the table. But it also provides a source of identity, purpose and self-esteem. Our politicians consistently refer to “hard-working people” as the epitome of British society. All this highlights the tragedy that, in the majority of workplace bullying cases, the only option for the victim is to press the nuclear button in resigning from their job and launching a claim for constructive unfair dismissal – an approach taken by Sir Philip Rutnam following his allegations.

In simple terms, an employee in the UK only has effective protection against bullying if that bullying takes on a certain flavour. If the bullying relates to a protected characteristic under the Equality Act (for example race, disability, sex, etc.) they can bring a claim for harassment. Likewise, there are protections against sexual harassment, victimisation, or more generally, discrimination. If the bullying is so serious as to cause physical or mental injury, a worker can bring a claim to court on that basis.

What then, of that other sort of bullying? The boss who constantly ignores the employee in an effort to side-line. The pin-striped psychopath who publicly humiliates. The Malcolm Tucker idolising department head who shouts or swears at their staff. Regular insults about intellectual capacity or appearance. All can make anyone’s working life intolerable. Those who witness it can also be adversely affected.

As things stand, in such cases the victim is limited to that nuclear button approach. It is quite right that the law in the UK protects people from bullying in the categories above. But it can’t be right that the law does not protect those bullied for other reasons, or indeed no reason at all. Victims ought to have a solution where the bullying is stopped and they are able to get on with their work, and lives. The other consequence is that with no law expressly prohibiting it, there is far less incentive for employers to root out bullying internally.

Why limit protection against workplace harassment only to instances concerning protected characteristics under the Equality Act? This could be broadened to include more general bullying. Alternatively, why not pass a new law protecting workers against, for example persistent abusive behaviour, unjustified criticism, or a punishment imposed by a superior without justification?

One can anticipate the arguments against. That this would mean more red tape for management, would lead to a flood of claims against businesses, and impede established management techniques (if one could be so generous as to describe bullying as a “technique”). The truth is, however, that the government could lead by example, propose workable changes to the law, and ensure civilised behaviour in the workplace in 21^st century Britain. The wannabe Malcolm Tuckers – and the macho workplace culture that goes with them – can then change or be shown the door.