The legal framework surrounding psychosocial risk in Australia is complicated. Often competing legal frameworks do not align and attempts to manage psychosocial harm to individual workers can create legal risks for the organisation and potentially increase the likelihood of psychosocial harm. The Mojanovski decision involved the termination of an employee for conduct which, if proven, would have constituted serious misconduct. However, the employer's efforts to protect the alleged victim from the legal processes significantly compromised the legal proceedings.
Kate & Greg are back in the bar and they are in the mood to chat!
In this episode, Kate and Greg delve into a decision from the Fair Work Commission which reveals some interesting legal and psychological intersections and incongruencies! The conversation centres around employer investigation processes and efforts to protect employees from exposure to additional psychological distress when asked to provide information during investigations, and during formal hearings. The conversation covers procedural fairness, duty of care and “speak up” cultures. Kate and Greg also discuss the importance of HR practitioners in an investigative process and give caution to not over promise as they navigate the complexities of their role.
Whether you grab a cuppa (or something stronger), choose your liquid and settle into the virtual bar for another conversation on the complexity of psychosocial risk management.
- Overview of the Fair Work Commission decision of the case Mr Zoran Mojanovski v BlueScope Steel Limited (U2024/2763)
- Discussion of the complexities for workplaces when it comes to confidentiality and discretion in the investigation process.
- Where are the learnings for organisations in creating a psychosocially safe workplace?
Connect with us:
Resources:
Follow Judgemental: A psychologist and a lawyer walk into a bar