WORKPLACE VIOLENCE IS A REAL THREAT

Wherever we have people, the potential for conflict is also present. Conflict is a natural part of human interaction, but the outcome of the conflict can sometimes have positive results like an improved relationship.

The workplace is no exception to this rule when it comes to human interaction as people spend most of their day in the workplace.

There are four categories of offenders against employees: • strangers • (ex)customers • other (ex)employees, and • intimate partners of employees.

In extreme situations it can sadly lead to lethal violence. Although most conflict will be safely resolved by the parties involved, or defused naturally over time, it happens that conflict can lead to longterm psychological and physical harm.

What do we mean by “violence”? In the field of threat assessment, violence is typically defined as any actual, attempted, or planned violence towards another. It includes communications or behaviours that causes others to fear for their safety, and includes sexual violence, and workplace bullying and harassment.

When referring to workplace violence, the response is often “we don’t have that in our company”, or a blank stare. When asked if they have ever had a dissatisfied customer who threatened employees, or an employee whose soon-to-be exboyfriend constantly harasses her at the workplace, or threatens staff whom he believes are having an “affair” with his partner/spouse, the response changes.

Threats can come from anyone – from a soon-to-be dismissed employee who makes comments like “you will all regret this” or comes back after dismissal with a

weapon to sending direct or veiled threats via email, mail, telephone or text messages to managers, directors, CEOs or COOs.

Threat assessment and management as a field has been growing in the Americas, Europe, and Asia, but to date Africa has been slow to take up the banner. This, changed when the African Association of Threat Assessment Professionals (AfATAP), was created towards the end of 2019. AfATAP is a sister association to the US Association, the Canadian Association, the European Association, Asia-Pacific Association, and the recent Latin-American Association. AfATAP’s mandate is to develop the field of threat assessment and management on the African continent.

South Africa’s Occupational Health and Safety Act (No.85 of 1993) states that an employer has certain duties towards their employees. These duties include providing and maintaining a working environment that is safe and without risk to the health of its employees. Duties also include taking reasonable steps to eliminate or mitigate any hazard or potential hazard to the health and safety of employees, before resorting to personal protective equipment.

The spirit of this Act can be interpreted to include the psychological and physical safety of employees in respect of violence and threats of violence. Employers can face civil actions from employees who are injured in the workplace, especially when there was some prior indication that violence could be a possible outcome.

In a recent Supreme Court of Appeal Judgement (CHURCHILL v PREMIER, MPUMALANGA [2021] ZASCA 16 (4 MARCH 2021) an employee of the Office of the Premier of the Mpumalanga Province won a case against her employer for an assault that took place in her workplace during a protest. It was held by the SCA that section 35 of COIDA was not applicable, and the employer could be sued for damages.

Similarly, the Department of Employment and Labour released the Code of Good Practice on the Prevention and Elimination of Harassment in the Workplace. The Code’s definition of harassment includes violence. Times are indeed changing for employers when it comes to preventing violence and keeping people safe.

While many threats, thankfully, don’t lead to lethal violence, it doesn’t mean that there are no physical, psychological, and work-place consequences. Employees who feel safe in their work environment will be more productive.

If an employer acts proactively when employees are feeling threatened, before any violence takes place, the employees experience a positive attitude towards their employer, whom they perceive as caring about their well-being. Anxious staff are not productive and are more likely to take sick leave with anxietyrelated problems, or to seek alternative employment.

By identifying warning signs for potential violence, the employer can put a plan in action to avoid incidents of violence taking place. Training and experience is required to assess a potential threat and develop a strategy to effectively and responsibly prevent the violence from happening.

A policy that simply states what behaviour is inappropriate, the reporting process for problematic behaviour and the consequences thereof, is not an effective workplace violence prevention policy. Problematic behaviour needs to be identified as early as possible, assessed by professionals, and an intervention strategy and monitoring process should be put in place.

The outcome isn’t a punitive one in a threat assessment process, nor is it a disciplinary process. It is about intervening to help people (the person displaying the problematic behaviour and the person experiencing the problematic behaviour) and by helping them reduce the risk of any form of harm. The phrase “from report to support” is very apt in this context.

Typically, what happens when such issues arise is that the response from management is either “it’s part of the job, deal with it,” or management ignores the issue hoping it will go away. While the threatener may stop making threats, the effects on staff do not dissipate. Ironically, if receiving threats is “part of the job”, then there is even more of an onus on the employer to be proactive and have a plan in place.

Employers do sometimes go overboard when the inkling of a threat is perceived by hiring more security guards, setting up physical checkpoints and the like at extremely high costs. The question remains: is there a genuine threat? For how long does one keep these costly measures in place? Is the increased response even enough to deal with the possible threat? Without a proper threat assessment, physical security measures

can only serve to define where the violent act will start (i.e., a security checkpoint).

Even the most protected person in the world, the President of the United States of America, has an extensive “protective intelligence” capacity (the Secret Service) who are considered leaders in the field of threat assessment. A threat assessment is never a static ‘yes’ or ‘no’ response, and anyone putting themselves forward as a threat assessment expert who gives such a reply doesn’t understand the dynamic nature of threats.

Someone who is a low threat today might be a high threat in two months’ time as circumstances in their lives change. Threat assessment professionals should always advise a client what to be on the lookout for that could indicate an increased, or deceased, level of threat.

There should also almost always be a management plan provided to help reduce the level or threat, and typically a threat assessment case is never closed, due to this dynamic nature. Even if a problematic person exits the organisation, the threat isn’t over, and cases of exemployees coming back months or years later, to cause harm have occurred in South Africa.

The solution, therefore, is that companies start to train their staff (HR personnel, managers, ethics officers, inhouse security) in the basic principles of threat assessment. Others in the organisation, whose responsibility it is to provide professional services of such a nature, can receive more in-depth training, with external consultants being used in select cases that are either complex in structure due the nature of the threat or those involved.

Workers also need to inform management that these are issues that they are faced with and that they expect management to be able to effectively deal with such scenarios when they arise. This all needs to be tied together by an effective workplace violence prevention policy based on modern threat assessment principles, with a multidisciplinary team working together. � Bullying or intimidation in the workplace has become so prevalent that a new Act, under the Employment Equity Act: Code of Good Practice on the Prevention and Elimination of Harassment in the Workplace. The amendment to the Act came into effect as of 18 March 2022. The onus now resides with the employer to ensure that best practise is in effect to reduce or eliminate workplace harassment. � Harassment may be the result of physical, verbal or psychological conduct; � Any unfair practice based on racial, ethnic or social origin will construe harassment; � The abuse of coercive power, which may involve aggressive behaviour, including insulting, demeaning or intimidating behaviour that lowers the self-esteem or selfconfidence of an employee; � Employers must take proactive and remedial steps to prevent all forms of harassment, including assessing the risk of harassment to employees; creating and maintaining an environment in which employees' dignity is respected; implementing a policy that addresses harassment; educating employees about harassment; implementing awareness programmes; and investigating allegations of harassment; � Employers who do not act to stop bullying timeously may be found liable in terms of the Employment Equity Act; and � Companies should have a zero-tolerance policy towards bullying and all other forms of harassment.