Resources: Blog

Workplace bullies convicted and fined for breaching WHS duties


Acts of gross stupidity

There have been a number of prosecutions this year that have resulted in workplace bullies being found to have breached their duties under State and Territory work health and safety legislation

There have been a number of prosecutions this year that have resulted in workplace bullies being found to have breached their duties under State and Territory work health and safety legislation.

For instance, WorkSafe Victoria has reported a number of successful prosecutions against workplace bullies this year and we recently discussed a decision of the District Court of New South Wales in which a tradesman was convicted and fined for breaching his duties under WHS laws in NSW after he had bullied a number of apprentices in the workplace – see our blog, ‘Court Bags a Bully’.

Most recently, SafeWork SA successfully brought proceedings against two former supervisors (a site supervisor and a supervisor/leading hand) at an electrical company who had bullied an apprentice, including setting his clothing on fire (Campbell v Rowe [2019] SAET 104 and Campbell v Chenoweth [2019] SAET 181).

In the proceedings, the South Australian Employment Tribunal (SAET) heard that the supervisor/leading hand squirted flammable liquid onto the 19-year-old apprentice’s boot, which he then lit with a lighter. The supervisor/leading hand then squirted flammable liquid on the apprentice’s crotch area, and then chased him down and pinned him against a wall to squirt more flammable liquid on his shirt sleeves. The apprentice’s shirt caught on fire and the site supervisor then squirted more flammable liquid on the apprentice’s shirt, causing more flames. The apprentice had singed hair on his left arm but thankfully no serious injuries.

Both supervisors pleaded guilty to engaging in reckless conduct that put the apprentice at risk of death or serious injury, in breach of their health and safety duty under the Work Health and Safety Act 2012 (SA) (the Act).

In sentencing, the site supervisor, who had worked at the company for nearly 30 years prior to his dismissal, made submissions as to his otherwise good character, his lack of offending history and his inability to find another job. Whilst submitting that this was a “high jinx gone wrong”, he had immediately acknowledged his wrongdoing and accepted the seriousness of the matter.

The supervisor/leading hand, who at the time of the incident was 26 years old and had been working at the company for 9 years, submitted that this incident was a defensive mechanism to deflect from bullying he had himself been victim to in the workplace. He submitted that he was deeply remorseful and, now that he had found alternative employment, he realised the gravity of his conduct. According to the supervisor/leading hand, this was “an act of gross stupidity” in the context of a poor workplace culture.

The SAET was mindful of the remorse of both supervisors and the consequences they had suffered since the incident. It was also mindful that this incident was attributable in part to the “regrettable workplace culture” that had developed at this particular workplace.

However, there was a significant power imbalance in this situation and there was a very real potential that the supervisors’ conduct could have had a devastating outcome.

For these reasons, the SAET held that general and personal deterrence needed to be featured in the penalties. After applying a 40% discount for their guilty pleas, the site supervisor was fined $12,000 (mostly for failing to stop the supervisor/leading hand) and the supervisor/leading hand was fined $21,000 (for engaging in the majority of the conduct).

The SAET also recorded convictions against both supervisors noting that, to not do so would fail to reflect the seriousness of the nature and circumstances of the offences.

Lessons for employers

The principal lesson to be learnt from this unfortunate matter is that workplace bullying is a major work health and safety concern and that safety regulators will not hesitate to prosecute employees who act in disregard of their work health and safety duties.

Senior management have a very real responsibility to set an example for the rest of the workplace particularly when it comes to the culture of the workplace and the health and safety of their employees.

Information provided in this blog is not legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. Workplace Law does not accept liability for any loss or damage arising from reliance on the content of this blog, or from links on this website to any external website. Where applicable, liability is limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.

Similar articles

The onus and presumption in adverse action matters

It’s on you

Under the general protections provisions in the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act), it is unlawful for a person to take adverse action against another person for a proscribed reason. One of the features of the general protections provisions under the FW Act is the presumption that adverse action was taken for a proscribed reason unless it is proven that the adverse action was not taken for that reason.


Company vicariously liable for injury resulting from skylarking supervisor

All in good fun

Enjoying the company of your colleagues is something most people hope to find in the workplace. It can make work much more enjoyable and lead to lasting friendships. However, fun in the workplace can cross a line when it takes the form of dangerous skylarking or roughhousing.


Brisbane company first to be convicted of industrial manslaughter

Brisbane company first to be convicted of industrial manslaughter

Workplace fatalities are tragic and devastating events. In order to reflect the seriousness of these incidents, some jurisdictions across Australia have amended their work health and safety laws to establish the offence of industrial manslaughter, where the negligent conduct by a person conducting a business or undertaking or officers causes the death of a worker.


Fair Work Commission accepts that role with additional travel time was acceptable redeployment employment

The daily commute

Employers have long known that they are obliged to try to find new employment opportunities for employees who are faced with the redundancy of their current role.


FWC upholds objection to constructive dismissal claim

Construction zone

In order to access the unfair dismissal jurisdiction, an employee must be “dismissed” from their employment by the employer. One of the instances in which an employee may be “dismissed” from their employment is if they were forced to resign because of the employer’s conduct or course of conduct.


Court penalises accountant for involvement in employer’s failure to keep employee records

Put your records on

The Fair Work Regulations 2009 (Cth) impose a number of obligations on employers with respect to the making and keeping of employee records and pay slips.


Let's talk

please contact our directors to discuss how ouR expertise can help your business.

We're here to help

Contact Us
Let Workplace Law become your partner in Workplace Relations.

Signup to receive the latest industry updates with commentary from the Workplace Law team direct to you inbox.