A teacher has been refused compensation for alleged bullying and harassment by a parent/volunteer at the school. An appeal to the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission (Commission) was dismissed as the teacher failed to prove that the inappropriate behaviour had occurred. The case raised numerous issues that are relevant to all schools, such as the importance of having complaints handling procedures, record keeping policies and procedures to manage workplace health and safety risks associated with personality clashes in the workplace.
Mrs S was a probationary teacher at a small state school in Queensland with approximately 100 students. Ms B, the acting principal, had a daughter in Mrs S’ year one class. Ms B’s de facto partner and father of the student, Mr L, was an active member of the school’s Parents and Citizens’ Association and represented the school in the coordination of building and maintenance works on a voluntary basis.
Mr L was often present at the school in this capacity, which led to several interactions with Mrs S. Mrs S alleged that in these encounters Mr L engaged in inappropriate behaviour that amounted to harassment, bullying, intimidation and sexual harassment, which caused her to develop an anxiety/stress disorder.
She stated that she felt unsafe at school, and restricted herself to her classroom. She also expressed concerns about passing her probation because of Mr L’s alleged harassment. Following Mrs S’ complaint, Ms B attempted to resolve the issues between Mr L and Mrs S.
After Ms B’s intervention, Mr L did not attend the school on Ms B’s request unless his presence was required as part of the maintenance works. In these circumstances, there were strict parameters placed around Mr L’s movements and Mrs S was advised in advance of his presence and the locations in which he would be working.
However, despite these measures being in place, Mrs S applied for compensation under the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld), stating that Mr L’s inappropriate behaviour had caused her anxiety/stress disorder.
In his decision, Deputy President Kaufman highlighted the difficulty in establishing on an objective basis what happened in the encounters between Mrs S and Mr L as there were no witnesses to the alleged incidents.
Compensation was denied as Mrs S failed to establish that the conduct which allegedly caused her psychological issues occurred. Furthermore, Deputy President Kaufman stated that Mr L’s representation of events was to be preferred.
There were concerns with Mrs S’ evidence because of her “wild and unsubstantiated allegations” that Mr L was a paedophile.
This case involved several examples of circumstances where personal conflict can arise between teachers and other parties. Mr L was a parent, a volunteer at the school and the de facto partner of the Acting Principal. As a result, Mr L had a deep involvement with the school and its happenings.
One of the reasons for the conflict was Mr L’s dissatisfaction with some of Mrs S’ decisions as his daughter’s teacher. Although the encounters were remembered differently by the two parties, both agreed that there was conflict based on the level of difficulty of the work being given to Mr L’s daughter.
It is inevitable that there will be some disagreements between parents and teachers, and we have previously written about the harm caused by parent-teacher bullying (see here). Parents may raise concerns if they feel their child’s needs are not being met and may seek to discuss these issues with the teacher.
However, there is a risk that these interactions can lead to intimidation or harassment unless proper measures are put in place to protect teachers. Instances of bullying can greatly damage a teacher’s ability to enjoy a safe and productive work environment and can lead to psychological harm. In recognition of the potential for harm some jurisdictions have put in place laws to allow schools to maintain order. For example, in Queensland, schools have the power to eject aggressive people from the premises.
An earlier School Governance article discussed a recent case where these laws were applied and a parent was convicted for verbally abusing staff.
On the other hand, if parents have genuine concerns, they should be able to express them without being accused of bullying. The conflict in this case emerged because of one-on-one encounters between the parent and the teacher where they had different perceptions of the other’s conduct. The problems were exacerbated by Mr L’s active role in the school community as a volunteer and his frequent presence on school grounds. Schools should be aware of the risk of conflict that these situations present, and have adequate policies and procedures in place to address and manage those risks.
Deputy President Kaufman commented on the reasonable management of the conflict, and how this helped to prevent any injury that would have created a legal liability for the school.
The school had clear policies in place which enabled it to manage the situation in such a way that it fulfilled its duty of care obligations towards Mrs S. That said, the relationship between Ms B and Mr L caused a conflict of interest between the parties which led to the efficacy of those policies being undermined.
For example, there was an internal grievance procedure in place that ensured that Mrs S’ complaint was acted on by Ms B. However, as Mr L was Ms B’s de facto partner, Mrs S found it difficult to raise her grievance. There was no evidence that the response of Ms B was deficient, but schools should be wary of situations involving personal conflicts when creating internal grievance handling procedures.
Similarly, as a parent, Mr L could have raised his concerns with respect to Mr S through the school’s complaints handling procedures. However the same conflict would have been present.
Schools should be proactive in identifying potential conflicts of interest and putting procedures in place that allow for staff to use internal grievance and complaints channels without fear of personal detriment. Although Mr L gave evidence that his conduct did not amount to harassment or intimidation, Ms B nevertheless put in place measures that kept him from being present in the same areas as Mrs S. This was done to protect Mrs S, and Deputy President Kaufman commented that this was “reasonable management action taken in a reasonable way”.
In addition to having internal grievance and complaints handling procedures, it’s important for schools and staff to keep detailed records to help recall and establish events, especially if the events in question are contentious. Mr L was able to rely on the school’s records of visits to support his representation of events. If teachers feel they have been bullied or harassed, they should keep clear records of the incidents in order to support their claims.
This case confirms the duty that schools owe to their staff in providing a safe and comfortable working environment. Schools should ensure that they have clear policies in place so that, in the event of personal conflict, teachers and parents can voice their concerns without fearing any backlash or retribution and ensure that their concerns be handled in a transparent way in accordance with clear procedures.