Bullying and Harassment in the Workplace

1. Bullying and harassment are two terms related to employment agreements. Bullying includes a situation where an employee faces a behaviour that creates risk to his/her health and put a question mark on the safety of the same. Bullying and harassment counted as an unethical act. Fair work commission is a workplace relations tribunal in Australia that looks after the cases of bullying and harassment (Fair Work Ombudsman, 2018). In the given case study, the company was involved in the business of processing and development of gas and energy; it was the liability of the same to provide a safe and healthy working environment to the employees as risk was higher because of nature of work. 

From the view point of moral ethics, it becomes responsibility of every organisation to consider the health of it is employees. If an organisation not doing so and even doing some activities that cause negative impact on the health of the employees, then such ethical issues inherent bullying and harassment (Health Direct, 2018). In the given case, the involved ethical issue was ignorance of the company in respect to gas leakage that will be treated as Bullying. Further, it has also been reported in whistle blowing that company was engaged in the activities of doing harassment of employees if anyone was attempted to report the unethical issues. It is also clear that the company has acted negligently because it had full knowledge of the subjective ethical issue. Further, in order to answer the second part of the question, this is to state that yes bullying can be linked to the management style. If the working style of management of a company is irresponsible, then there will be high chances of bullying. Bullying is nothing else but the unethical task that management of the company enforced to the employees. If management of the company adopt good management style, then the ethical issues such as bullying and harassment can be reduced.

References:

Fair Work Ombudsman. (2018). Bullying & harassment. Retrieved From: https://www.fairwork.gov.au/employee-entitlements/bullying-and-harassment#what-to-do-if-you-think-bullying-or-harassment-has-happened

Health Direct. (2018). Workplace bullying. Retrieved From: https://www.healthdirect.gov.au/workplace-bullying

2. Dismissal is defined under section 386 of Fair Work Act, 2009 (Cth). According to this section, Dismissal is defined as a situation where an employer terminates the employment of an employee or an employer forced to an employee to resign because of his/her conduct (Mills Oakley, 2015). Therefore this can be seen that discipline and dismissal are inter related term. In most of the conditions, the lead reason behind dismissal of an employee is his/her undisciplined behaviour. However, this would not be correct to say that a dismissal is always an ethical action. A dismissal treated as unethical and unfair if the basis of the same is not genuine. 

Dismissal and Ethical Decisions

Many of the ethical issues are involved in the cases of dismissal. Under the area of dismissal every employer has right to dismiss an employee if the conducts of such employee are not disciplined or are unethical. Further, in addition to an employer, an employee also has some rights under the Fair, work ombudsman. The law states that every employee has right to seek a fair and reasonable dismissal. It is liability of an employer to follow the rules of dismissal, notice period and pending pay while terminating an employee. In case of unfair dismissal, an employee would have right to initiate an action against his/her employer according to the conditions mentioned under Fair Work Act 2009. In the given case, no proper notice has been granted to Sally McDow, who was an employee of Origin energy and was acting as a senior manager of compliance. There was no reasonable basis behind her dismissal. The Chief executive officer dismissed Ms McDow for the reason that she was reporting unethical issues repeatedly (The Guardian, 2018). It was an unreasonable ground to dismiss an employee and therefore the dismissal of Ms McDow was not ethical.

References: 

Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth)

Mills Oakley. (2015). When is a dismissal a dismissal? Retrieved From: https://www.millsoakley.com.au/when-is-a-dismissal-a-dismissal/

The Guardian. (2018). Origin Energy ignores coal seam gas well leaks, whistleblower says. Retrieved From: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jan/27/origin-energy-ignores-coal-seam-gas-well-leaks-whistleblower-says

3. Whistleblowing is a situation where a person reports the unethical issues of a company. The Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC) have provided some guidance on the subject of whistle blowing. Further, The Treasury Laws Amendment (Enhancing Whistle blower Protections) Bill 2017 is also there to provide protection to whistle blowers under Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). Many ethical issues are involved in the cases of whistle blowing. These issues existed on the part of employer as well as an employee. In many of the cases, it has been noted that an employee used this mechanism of reporting in an unfair manner and for improper purpose. Such reporting cannot be treated as ethical whistle blowing. On the other hand in some of the cases employer do wrong with the whistle blowers. This is the reason that the said bill and other law provide protection to such whistle blowers. 

According to the guidance provided by ASIC, a person should report only those incidents that are actually unfair and unethical. Further a whistle blower required to follow particular hierarchy to report such issues. One is not advised to report such issues directly to media or any outsider sources which defeat the reputation of a company (ASIC, 2018). 

Whistleblowing and Ethical Considerations

In the case provided hereunder, the whistle blowing done by Mrs Sally McDow is ethical as she has reported the issue to internal  management firstly. The Origin Energy lacked due care in it is operations and the company was doing so on a regular basis. Mrs Sally McDow reported the issues many times and also prepared a proper report on the same, yet the CEO of the company did not consider any reports presented by her. In addition to gas leakage issues, she also reported some other issues such as bullying with other employees. In this manner, she has some what she was required to do. The employer dismissed Sally McDow, and thereafter she has reported the issue to federal court (Ferguson, 2017). Hence this can be concluded that whistleblowing done by Mrs McDow was ethical.

References: 

ASIC. (2018). Guidance for whistleblowers. Retrieved From: https://asic.gov.au/about-asic/asic-investigations-and-enforcement/whistleblowing/guidance-for-whistleblowers/#WhatshouldIdoifIbelieveIamawhistleblower

Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).

Ferguson, A. (2017). Chilling tale of Origin Energy whistleblower. Retrieved From: https://www.smh.com.au/business/chilling-tale-of-origin-energy-whistleblower-20170124-gtxuhz.html 

4.  There are seven steps given in AAA Ethical decision-making model which assist parties in taking ethical decision. McDow took the decision to leak the information regarding the unethical operations of the company which were adversely affecting the environment, local communities and its employees (OHS Career, 2017). The first step is evaluation of the facts. The facts of this case provided that the company knew that paying the fine will be cheaper than to change its operations, therefore, it was violating the policies implemented by the government to protect the environment. The management was also bullying it staff members so that they did not take any action against the corporation. The second step is evaluation of the ethical issue. The ethical issue is relating to protection of the environment and the rights of employees and the failure of the company and its managers to act ethically. The third step is identification of principles and values. The regulations are imposed by the government to the leaking of hazardous gas; however, Origin Energy calculated that paying of fines would be cheaper. 

The company violated environmental and other regulatory requirements which include the provisions given under Fair Work Act 2009 to stop bullying and harassment. The fourth step is identification of alternative course of action. The alternative course of actions includes doing nothing regarding the issue. The second option is to “blow the whistle” by notifying the governmental authority regarding the operations of the company. The fifth step is implementation of principles identified in third step on the options identified 

in forth step. The principles of environment and regulator provision along with Fair Work Act are violated in the first option, but, these principles are fulfilled in the second option which was selected by McDow. The sixth step is evaluation of consequences of the outcomes. Consequences of the first decision are adverse impact on the environment along with unhealthy work environment for the staff members of the company. The consequences of the second decision are ethical since they assist in complying with environmental, regulatory and Fair Work Act requirement which is beneficial for the environment and employees of Origin Energy (Slezak, 2017). The seventh step is making the decision. The second decision is ethical in this scenario which is made by McDow.

References: 

OHS Career. (2017). Strong Origin Allegations leaked. Retrieved from https://www.ohscareer.com.au/archived-news/strong-origin-allegations-leaked

Slezak, M. (2017). Origin Energy ignores coal seam gas well leaks, whistleblower says. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jan/27/origin-energy-ignores-coal-seam-gas-well-leaks-whistleblower-says