Preventing and managing aggression or violence – case studies

Nicola’s employer must:

• provide and maintain a working environment that is safe and without risks to health and safety <OHS Act s21(1)>
• consult with employees and any HSRs when identifying or assessing hazards or risks to health or safety at the workplace <OHS Act s35>
• identify psychosocial hazards so far as is reasonably practicable. <OHS (Psychological Health) Regulations r14>

The employer analysed a range of internal information. It identified a pattern of frequent employee turnover and a noticeable increase in unplanned absences over the last 12 months at Nicola’s work site. Exit interview data during this period highlighted concerns about exposure to multiple psychosocial hazards in the working environment, including:

• aggression or violence
• poor support
• high job demands.

The employer identified that the work has inherent exposure to psychosocial hazards.

Management representatives from the head office held discussions with employees to understand their experience at the local level. At the time of discussions, the work site had no onsite management, due to the recent departure of the previous manager and team leaders.

During the discussions, multiple employees reported being exposed to multiple psychosocial hazards daily, with an increase in frequency in the last 6–12 months. Employees described being exposed to:

• aggression or violence
• low job control
• high job demands (high workload, high emotional demands)
• exposure to traumatic events or content (directly and indirectly)
• poor support.

It was identified that the increase in incidents of aggression or violence over the last 6–12 months was related to a government decision to reduce funding for crisis accommodation services.

Employees reported feeling:

• anxious everyday about going to work
• unsafe and constantly on edge while at work.

Many were calling in sick to work as a result.

Through their risk assessment, the employer identified that:

• prolonged exposure to multiple psychosocial hazards was increasing the risk of psychological harm
• employees were exposed to additional risks of physical injury associated with the physical violence that was occurring in the workplace
• many of their employees were new and less experienced, which could place them at greater risk of harm.

Nicola’s employer must first consider if it is reasonably practicable to eliminate the risks associated with a psychosocial hazard. If this is not reasonably practicable, they must reduce the risk so far as is reasonably practicable. <OHS (Psychological Health) Regulations r15(1) and r15(2)>

Any decision-making about implementing proposed risk controls must be done, so far as is reasonably practicable, in consultation with employees and any HSRs. <OHS Act s35>

In consultation with employees at the local level, management representatives from head office developed a risk management action plan, which:

• outlined the risk controls required to be implemented to control the risks associated with the identified psychosocial hazards
• assigned responsible parties for each risk control
• included a defined timeframe for implementation.

The employer then implemented a range of risk controls. They:

• Appointed an experienced manager on secondment from another work site to provide consistent leadership, supervision and support. This was to be in place until a suitably qualified permanent manager and team leaders could be recruited and appointed.
• Introduced the following requirements at every intake assessment:
  • completing an aggression or violence risk assessment for every client
  • developing a management plan to address identified risks.
• Analysed how tasks are structured and managed to identify risks and underlying sources of high workload. The analysis identified the following themes:
  • insufficient staffing to meet service demand
  • frequent unplanned crisis response
  • shortage of suitable housing options
  • considerable duplication of administrative activities
  • uneven distribution of workload across the team.
• Developed and implemented an action plan to address risks identified in the workload analysis.
• Introduced ongoing operational and professional supervision.
• Engaged an external consultant to do a Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) assessment to:
  • identify environmental risk factors
  • make recommendations to enhance safety and security.
• Implemented the recommendations from the CPTED assessment.
• Developed and implemented a process for how management personnel at the local level should respond when employees are exposed to an incident of aggression or violence.
• Implemented a process to monitor cumulative exposure to aggression or violence. This was to identify employees who may need additional support.
• Implemented a system for reporting and managing psychosocial hazards, including aggression or violence.
• Implemented:
  • a structured induction process for new employees
  • an ongoing development program for less experienced employees. This included a buddy system and frequent operational check-ins and supervision sessions.
• Provided suitable training for employees to be competent in their roles, as identified in a training needs analysis.
• Provided specific training to management personnel at the local level on:
  • what trauma exposure is
  • how employees may be exposed to potentially traumatic events or content in their role (direct and indirect exposure)
  • potential impacts of trauma exposure (including cumulative impacts of trauma exposure)
  • how to identify early signs of cumulative impacts of trauma exposure
  • when cumulative trauma exposure is likely to affect employees
  • how to manage risks associated with cumulative trauma exposure
  • what to do when employees have been exposed to a potentially traumatic incident
  • how to provide emotional and practical support to team members.
• Reported to the overarching government department on trends in increased client aggression or violence, particularly in response to a recent government decision. This included any resulting changes to service delivery that were needed to control the risks.

Sam’s employer must:

• provide and maintain a working environment that is safe and without risks to health and safety <OHS Act s21(1)>
• consult with employees and any HSRs when identifying or assessing hazards or risks to health or safety at the workplace <OHS Act s35>
• identify psychosocial hazards so far as is reasonably practicable. <OHS (Psychological Health) Regulations r14>

Sam has been exposed to aggression or violence from the customer over the telephone. He has also been exposed to other psychosocial hazards, including:

• Low job control, as his work was tightly managed and externally controlled. For example, performance targets and monitoring were applied and enforced with no allowance for context and call complexity. He also had no control over his work pace, given that the call queue was building up on his performance dashboard.
• High job demands (high emotional demands) related to exposure to the customer’s frustration and verbal abuse during the call. Sam also had to maintain a professional demeanour when supporting a customer who was experiencing financial hardship.
• Poor support, as he received no emotional and practical support during the call, despite evidence that it was unusually long. His Team Leader also gave him a verbal warning without considering why Sam terminated the call.
• Poor organisational justice, as the performance targets did not account for factors beyond his control, such as call complexity. In addition, he was initially directed by the Team Leader to ‘finalise the call’ but was later penalised for following the direction.

Exposure to multiple psychosocial hazards can increase the risk of psychological harm.

Sam’s employer has a duty to review and, if necessary, revise the control measures in place when certain circumstances occur. <OHS (Psychological Health) Regulations r16>

In this case, Sam reported the incident to his HSR. The HSR then asked the employer to review the current risk controls <OHS (Psychological Health) Regulations r16(1)(c) and (f)>

Sam’s employer must, so far as is reasonably practicable, consult employees and any HSRs when reviewing any risk controls. <OHS Act s35>

When reviewing the effectiveness of risk controls, Sam’s employer should determine if they are reducing the risk of harm, so far as is reasonably practicable. They should consider the following points:

• Were there any other reports of psychosocial hazards from this work area?
• Have all psychosocial hazards present in the working environment been identified?
• Which groups of employees are at risk?
• Are employees reporting that risk controls are not controlling the risk?
• Has the risk changed or is it different to what was previously assessed?
• Have employees reported or shown signs of any negative psychological responses?
• Are new risk controls available that might better control the risk?
• Has the risk been eliminated or reduced so far as is reasonably practicable?
• Are risk controls in place to the full extent that is reasonably practicable?

If the review finds that risk controls are not reducing the risk, so far as is reasonably practicable, the risk controls must be revised. <OHS (Psychological Health) Regulations r16>

Any decision-making about implementing proposed risk controls must be done, so far as is reasonably practicable, in consultation with employees and any HSRs. <OHS Act s35>

Example risk controls that Sam’s employer can implement include:

• Analysing calls received over a specified period to identify:

  • the nature of the calls received
  • peak hours
  • periods of high demand
  • any unexpected influx of calls.

  The analysis should consider:

  • potential underlying factors contributing to the increase in call volume and duration. For example, repeated contacts and aggression from customers
  • possible causes of repeated contacts and aggression from customers. For example, customer frustrations with recent policy changes or service outages.
• Readjusting or redesigning employee performance targets, such as average handle time, based on the outcomes of the analysis. This could factor in:
  • underlying reasons for longer calls
  • small breaks that employees may need after difficult calls.
• Introducing fair and reasonable exceptions to the performance targets, based on the outcomes of the analysis.
• Ensuring any exceptions to the performance targets are clearly defined and transparently communicated to employees.
• Providing sufficient staffing levels during:
  • identified peak hours
  • projected periods of high demand, such as planned maintenance and outages.
• Implementing a system that automatically flags extended call durations to the Team Leader and the escalation department. This will allow them to monitor, intervene and assist when necessary.
• Developing and implementing an escalation protocol so employees know where and how to access support in various situations.
• Implementing a flagging system for employees to log the nature of aggression or violence on a customer’s profile. Using this information to develop appropriate management plans for future interactions. For example, automatically directing a call to the escalation department.
• Allowing and encouraging employees to take reasonable breaks following difficult calls.
• Implementing a process to monitor cumulative exposure to aggression or violence to identify employees who may need extra support.
• Providing skills-based training to employees where relevant. This includes de-escalation strategies and the escalation protocol.
• Providing specific training to management personnel at the local level on how to:
  • respond when call durations are exceeded; for example, supportive intervention
  • provide emotional and practical support to team members during and following a difficult call
  • apply defined exceptions to the performance targets in practice. This is to ensure that their directions and actions are aligned with these targets and employees are not unfairly penalised.

Ash’s employer must:

• provide and maintain a working environment that is safe and without risks to health and safety <OHS Act s21(1)>
• consult with employees and any HSRs when identifying or assessing hazards or risks to health or safety at the workplace <OHS Act s35>
• identify psychosocial hazards so far as is reasonably practicable. <OHS (Psychological Health) Regulations r14>

Ash has been exposed to:

• aggression or violence from the guest who seemed to be under the influence of alcohol
• poor support, as there were no other employees present to help her at the time.

Exposure to multiple psychosocial hazards can increase the risk of psychological harm.

Employees from migrant and multicultural backgrounds may also be at increased risk of harm.

Ash’s employer has a duty to review and, if necessary, revise the control measures in place when certain circumstances occur. <OHS (Psychological Health) Regulations r16>

In this case, Ash’s employer has received a report of a psychosocial hazard. They have also been given additional information about psychosocial hazards in the workplace and that current controls are not controlling the risk. <OHS (Psychological Health) Regulations r16(1)(b), (c) and (e)>

Ash’s employer must, so far as is reasonably practicable, consult employees and any HSRs when reviewing any risk controls. <OHS Act s35>

When reviewing the effectiveness of risk controls, Ash’s employer should determine if they are reducing the risk of harm, so far as is reasonably practicable. They should consider the following points:

• Were there any other reports of psychosocial hazards from this work area?
• Have all psychosocial hazards present in the working environment been identified?
• Which groups of employees are at risk?
• Are employees reporting that risk controls are not controlling the risk?
• Has the risk changed or is it different to what was previously assessed?
• Have employees reported or shown signs of any negative psychological responses?
• Are new risk controls available that might better control the risk?
• Has the risk been eliminated or reduced so far as is reasonably practicable?
• Are risk controls in place to the full extent that is reasonably practicable?

If the review finds that risk controls are not reducing the risk, so far as is reasonably practicable, the risk controls must be revised. <OHS (Psychological Health) Regulations r16>

Any decision-making about implementing proposed risk controls must be done, so far as is reasonably practicable, in consultation with employees and any HSRs. <OHS Act s35>

Example risk controls that Ash’s employer can implement include:

• Locking entrances to the reception area after hours to control access.
• Implementing an after-hours self-check-in process for guests, located at another entrance.
• Reducing face-to-face interactions with guests after-hours where possible, by using an after-hours telephone service to communicate.
• Providing a safe place in the reception area for employees to retreat to if required.

• Rostering at least 3 employees at the reception area during:

  • identified higher risk shifts or times
  • projected periods of high demand.

  This includes at least one experienced employee.

• Developing and implementing a clear communication procedure so employees can escalate a situation and access immediate support from colleagues, management or emergency services when required. This includes times when management may not be onsite.
• Enforcing responsible service of alcohol requirements at the hotel bar.
• Developing and implementing a system for reporting and managing psychosocial hazards, including aggression or violence.
• Implementing a process to monitor cumulative exposure to aggression or violence to identify employees who may need extra support.
• Providing skills-based training to employees where relevant, including on:
  • situational awareness
  • dynamic risk assessment
  • de-escalation strategies
  • communication protocol
  • an emergency management plan.

Emily’s employer must:

• provide and maintain a working environment that is safe and without risks to health and safety <OHS Act s21(1)>
• consult with employees and any HSRs when identifying or assessing hazards or risks to health or safety at the workplace <OHS Act s35>
• identify psychosocial hazards so far as is reasonably practicable. <OHS (Psychological Health) Regulations r14>

Emily has been exposed to:

• Aggression or violence from the customer at the self-checkout area.
• Other psychosocial hazards, including:
  • high job demands, with several customers requesting assistance at the same time
  • poor support, as there were no other employees present to support her at the time. Her supervisor was also unavailable.

Exposure to multiple psychosocial hazards can increase the risk of psychological harm.

Employees who are young and less experienced may also be at increased risk of harm.

Employers have a duty to review and, if necessary, revise the control measures in place when certain circumstances occur. <OHS (Psychological Health) Regulations r16>

In this case, Emily’s supervisor has reported the psychosocial hazards in their work area to the Health and Safety team. <OHS (Psychological Health) Regulations r16(1)(c)>

Emily’s employer must, so far as is reasonably practicable, consult employees and any HSRs when reviewing any risk controls. <OHS Act s35>

When reviewing the effectiveness of risk controls, Emily’s employer should determine if they are reducing the risk of harm, so far as is reasonably practicable. They should consider the following points:

• Were there any other reports of psychosocial hazards from this work area?
• Have all psychosocial hazards present in the working environment been identified?
• Which groups of employees are at risk?
• Are employees reporting that risk controls are not controlling the risk?
• Has the risk changed or is it different to what was previously assessed?
• Have employees reported or shown signs of any negative psychological responses?
• Are new risk controls available that might better control the risk?
• Has the risk been eliminated or reduced so far as is reasonably practicable?
• Are risk controls in place to the full extent that is reasonably practicable?

If the review finds that risk controls are not reducing the risk, so far as is reasonably practicable, the risk controls must be revised. <OHS (Psychological Health) Regulations r16>

Any decision-making about implementing proposed risk controls must be done, so far as is reasonably practicable, in consultation with employees and any HSRs. <OHS Act s35>

Example risk controls that Emily’s employer can implement include:

• Liaising with the external vendor who supplied the self-checkout kiosks to investigate and resolve technical errors and issues.
• Reviewing the process for updating price changes at the self-checkout kiosks.
• Reviewing store data to identify typical periods of high demand.
• Rostering extra employees at the self-checkout area during identified and projected periods of high demand. This includes at least one experienced employee.
• Developing and implementing a clear communication procedure so employees can escalate a situation and access immediate support from colleagues, management or emergency services when required.
• Implementing a process to monitor cumulative exposure to aggression or violence to identify employees who may need additional support.
• Implementing:
  • a structured induction process for new employees
  • an ongoing development program for less experienced employees, including a buddy system and frequent check-ins.
• Placing signs in prominent areas that state aggression or violence will not be tolerated.
• Providing skills-based training to employees where relevant, including:
  • situational awareness
  • dynamic risk assessment
  • de-escalation strategies
  • communication protocol.