Work health and safety regulations in Australia now require businesses to specifically address psychosocial hazards in the workplace.
In May 2021, New South Wales introduced a code of practice for managing psychosocial hazards at work. Then in August 2022, the model work health and safety laws (on which all other states’ and territories’ laws are based, with the exception of Victoria) were amended, with new regulations defining what is meant by “psychosocial hazards” and how they should be managed. Safe Work Australia also published an accompanying model code of practice for persons conducting a business or undertaking.
At the same time, Western Australia introduced its own code of practice for psychosocial hazards in the workplace and the following month, Victoria proposed to amend its occupational health and safety regulations to require employers, so far as reasonably practicable, to identify psychosocial hazards and eliminate or reduce the associated risks.
Queensland followed suit with its own code of practice and new laws requiring PCBUs to deal with psychosocial risks through the risk management provisions of the Queensland Work Health and Safety Regulations 2011. The Northern Territory is in the process of adopting the national model code of practice.
A psychosocial hazard could be:
Just Stop!
They could arise from:
design or management of work
workplace interactions
the physical work environment
….and they can cause psychological and physical harm to an organisaiton’s most precious assets - it’s people.
They can create stress which - over time - can lead to anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, sleep disorders.
Psychosocial hazards also can cause physical harm like musculoskeletal injuries, chronic disease or fatigue related injuries or even self harming behaviours.
They can interact or combine to create new, changed or higher risks.
Clearly, perceptions of fairness, bias and transparency can be very subjective and may differ between individuals. Could this potentially allow a worker to argue that their mental health has been put at risk every time there is a decision they don’t agree with, a procedure they are not fond of, or when they object to the way they have been treated by a manager even if the matter would be shrugged off by other staff as just part of life.
It may be that the intent behind the new requirements is only to cover workplaces where subjective matters like organisational injustice is at the high end of the scale, or systemic and ingrained, rather than every single example of perceived injustice. However, how the codes of practice and new requirements will be applied in practice remains to be seen.
What constitutes “justice” in any given situation may depend on the perspective of the individual worker involved.
It could be argued that “weaponising unhappiness” may leave PCBUs inundated with complaints, with every decision made and every procedure implemented scrutinised for its potential impact on workers’ mental health.
With the growing focus on psychosocial hazards in the workplace, the development and maintenance of a positive workplace culture where workers feel supported and safe is going to be a crucial matter for employers going forward in ensuring risks to mental health (including poor organisational justice) are properly managed.
Combatting this will require employers to deal both promptly and robustly with any complaints or grievances received, since a failure to do so will be painted as compounding the injustice.
Two consistent features stand out from the new laws and codes.
Firstly, in dealing with psychosocial hazards, PCBUs are expected to use the same risk assessment and hierarchy-of-controls approach as with any other type of hazard. .
Secondly, the range of things that can qualify as a “psychosocial hazard” at work is extremely broad, and, in some cases, disconcertingly ambiguous.
While some examples given are fairly clear (such as bullying and sexual harassment), the codes of practice all indicate that psychosocial hazards can encompass everything from vicarious trauma to fatigue, from environmental conditions to workload.
“Treat it like a physical injury”
Early, victim centric, trauma informed investigations will break the cycle of harm.
Companies should look at psychological and physical injuries in the same light and examine the root cause from a safety-related systemic perspective.
Often, a workers compensation claim or extended HR investigation allows risk to go un-checked - the organisation may miss the opportunity to obtain a holistic understanding of the root causes in order to ensure the workplace is adequately identifying and managing psychosocial hazards and addressing deficiencies in the safety management system.
But its not as simple as a dropped object - people are complex, individuals will often recall the same event differently making the interview a key component of the investigative process.