Long before Pierre Lebrun tragically shot 4 of his co-workers at the Ottawa Transit terminal in 1999, there was muted commentary about workplace violence. It seemed that many Canadians preferred to brand such renegade behaviour as either an isolated case of untreated mental illness, or a blatantly US phenomena that has drifted north. Canadians had all but sheltered themselves from the issue of workplace violence until confronted by a series of workplace tragedies reminding us that Canada is not immune to acts of violence or aggressiveness. In fact, if one was to scratch the surface of Canadian workplaces, it doesn’t take long to realize that workplace violence, in its many forms, has quietly taken root. The question remains to what extent, and what precautions should or can employers take to protect their employees.
Research funded by the International Labour Organization (ILO) as early as 1996 suggests that Canada ranks high in the world of workplace violence, in the form of assaults and sexual harassment. The ILO survey interviewed more than 2,000 Canadian employees. The findings indicate that 9.7% of women surveyed said they had been victims of “sexual incidents” while on the job. As well, 5% of women and 3.9% of men reported being assaulted at work. Assault, in addition to physical violence, included various forms of threats and bullying, whereas “sexual incidents” ranged from leering, and sexual innuendo, to rape in the extreme. Research findings such as these only support the growing evidence suggesting that women specifically, face increased risks of violence while on the job. In 1993, for example, more than 12,000 women were interviewed by Statistics Canada both inside and outside the workplace. Of the respondents, 51% indicated that they had experienced either physical or sexual attacks, 18 % of which resulted in physical injury. According to the Ontario Human Rights Commission, sexual harassment, since 1991, has been the fastest growing area of complains in Ontario. On first glance, this suggests that there is growing evidence to suggest that Canada has much to be concerned about with respect to the emerging trends in workplace violence.
The public’s interest in the concept of workplace violence seems to emerge in a consistent pattern across most jurisdictions both within and outside Canada. Waves of interest seem typically fuelled by media reports of high-profile cases, or incidents involving any number of individuals who publically claim to have been subjected to extreme mistreatment while at work. In Canada, we see this phenomenon occurring after such tragedies as the OC Transpo shooting in Ottawa; the 2005 murder of Lori Dupont at Hotel-Dieu Hospital in Windsor, or Eric Kirkpatrick’s lethal rampage at his former employer’s Christmas party in 2008, in addition to several other notable cases.
Once these waves of interest break, public perception is inevitably supported by “studies” laying claim to the magnitude of the problem, or the consequences for victims. Sadly, some of these research findings are procedurally flawed or rely on a sample population which have little or no relevance to the circumstances at hand. Predictably these preliminary “research” findings find their way into print media and trade magazines which generate heightening public attention and in some cases alarm, especially from union representatives, occupational health advocates and in some cases human resource professionals. This escalating interest is further fuelled by a growing number of high-profile victims or advocacy groups who, by speaking out at conferences or through the web, further accelerate the public debate. Each of these public calls for action contribute to a more informed electorate, and effectively prevent the issue from disappearing from public view.
These rolling “waves” of public attention call into question whether the rise in the concept of workplace violence, “bullying” in particular, are a form of “moral panic”. The concept of “moral panic” refers to events the majority of members of society feel threatened by as a result of wrongdoers who threaten the moral order and that something must be done about such behaviour. Ever mindful of public perception, legislators are compelled to enact legislation, often in advance of having a full scientific understanding of the issues in question; making it reasonable to assume that Workplace Violence is as much an “emotional” and “political” issue, as it is an occupational health and safety concern.
Then issues become emotionally charged, there is often a rush to judge in the wake of legislative reforms, which in some cases needs to be restrained. Not everyone who threatens, or acts abusively in the workplace is deserving of a swift termination. Accusations of abuse need to be substantiated, as do claims that a particular manager is a “bully”. Each case should be evaluated independently, relying on legal precedent and the scientific evidence available at the time. Although legal precedent is quickly mounting, one cannot say the same about applied behavioural research in the arena of workplace conduct. It seems we have a considerable distance to go in fully understanding the complex elements of workplace behaviour. In short, it is safe to say that legislation is moving at a faster pace that our ability to fully understand the motivation of violent and/or aggressive employees.
The Complex Task of Defining Workplace Violence
Defining workplace violence is difficult at best, given cultural differences, the scope of reference and the sheer number of terms used to describe this phenomenon. Terms used include, “mobbing” (Leymann, 1996; Zapf et al., 1996), “harassment” (Björkqvist et al., 1994), “bullying” (Einarsen and Skogstad, 1996; Rayner, 1997; Vartia, 1996), “victimization” (Einarsen and Raknes, 1997), and “psychological terror” (Leymann, 1990a).
A general definition of violence at work has yet to be agreed to in the international arena. A first concerted effort towards reaching a common understanding in this area was made at an Expert Meeting organized by the European Commission in Dublin in May 1994, where the following definition was proposed,
“Incidents where persons are abused; threatened or assaulted in circumstances related to their work, involving an explicit or implicit challenge to their safety, well-being and health.” (Wynne et al, 1997)
Similarly, the ILO Code of Practice Workplace Violence in services sectors, adopted in 2003 by a Meeting of Experts of the governing body of the ILO, provides the following definition of workplace violence,
“Any action, incident or behaviour that departs from reasonable conduct in which a person is assaulted, threatened, harmed, injured in the course of, or as a direct result of, his or her work” (ILO, 2004)
A recent comprehensive and authoritative World Health Organization (WHO) entitled World Report on violence and Health defines violence as,
“The intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment or deprivation.” (WHO, 2002)
As one can see from these definitions, both overt and covert actions are classified as an act of violence, which takes into consideration indirect psychological acts such as “bullying”, “mobbing” , “harassment” and “intimidation”. In addition, the “workplace” is view not simply as the physical work site, but as any work-related “activity”, which broadens the scope of where violence may be encountered.
An exhaustive list of organizational, national and international definitions is beyond the scope of this paper, given the divergence of opinions on what constitutes “workplace violence”. There has been a convergence in recent years on a number of fronts. There is increasing acceptance that violence is both physical and psychological and can originate from either inside or outside the workplace, perpetrated by individuals, groups, organizations and nation-states.
Admittedly, there is great difficulty in even establishing a definition for violence, let alone gathering statistically reliable data regarding violence at work. A quick scan of Occupational Health and Safety Legislation across Canada provides us with a glimpse of how various jurisdictions differ in their view of what constitutes workplace violence based on two fundamental issues (1) is workplace violence only a physical assault or threat; or can it include forms of psychological harassment, and (2) who is the perpetrator.
For example, “Violence” in British Columbia, is defined as:
“The attempted or actual exercise of physical force by a person other than a worker, so as to cause injury to a worker, and includes any threatening statement or behaviour which causes worker to reasonably believe he or she is at risk. (italics added).
In Ontario the definition is expanded:
“the exercise of physical force by a person against a worker, in a workplace, that causes or could cause physical injury to the worker; or an attempt to exercise physical force against a worker, in a workplace, that could cause physical injury to the worker; a statement or behaviour that it is reasonable for a worker to interpret as a threat to exercise physical force against the worker, in a workplace, that could cause physical injury to the worker. (“violence au travail”).
Ontario legislation also includes “harassment” which is not confined to by the Human Rights Code, and “domestic violence” which was added clearly in response to the Lori Dupont tragedy.
The term “bullying” is a relatively new term used in Canada and hence is not always included in occupational health and safety legislation. This has caused a considerable problem for many who have been targeted by bullies at their workplace, limiting their recourse and frustrating their attempts to take action.
Bullying constitutes offensive behaviour through vindictive, cruel malicious or humiliating attempts to undermine an individual or groups of employees. These persistently negative attacks are typically unpredictable, irrational and unfair. Although commonly thought of as school yard behaviour, it happens with great regularity within the workplace. Bullying and intimidation can happen at every level of the organization, often tolerated in managers who are relentless in getting results in a highly competitive market. Veiled threats of reprisals in the form of demotions, poor performance appraisals can characterize the bully in charge. However, we must not think of the bully as only a manager, many employees are relegated to a workgroup in which a co-worker can be equally as intolerant. Demoralized over time, co-workers or subordinates of the bully, lose productivity, become depressed and feel the only option left is that of retaliation or simply resigning. Sadly, few of us will know the economic costs associated with bullying and just how many promising employees have left their positions prematurely. What we do know with certainty is that on rare occasions, an employee’s retaliation can be deadly.
These variations in definitions and associated procedures, coupled with limited research place an added burden on employers who have operations in more than one jurisdiction, making it necessary for them to develop comprehensive violence prevention programs which not only meet the highest standard, but demonstrates a focus on prevention.
The Evolution of Workplace Violence Research
The formal study of workplace violence is a relatively new endeavor rooted in Scandinavia in the early 1980’s. The late Swedish Psychologist Heinz Leymann, working as a “family therapist” in the 1970’s, expanded his professional interest in interpersonal conflict to include the workplace. German was Leymann’s first language; Swedish his second; however, he labeled the phenomenon he discovered with the English term “mobbing” and wrote the first Swedish book on the topic in 1986, entitled Mobbing – Psychological Violence at Work. Although Leymann is credited as being the grandfather of interest in the topic of workplace violence, it is important to note that American Psychiatrist Carroll Brodsky had published an extensive report on the issue of “bullying” at work in 1976, called the Harassed Worker As was the case, Brodsky’s work went largely unrecognized due to a lack of professional interest.
Over the next two decades, Leymann’s observations and theories about workplace “Mobbing” and related behaviours spread across Europe and beyond, catching the interest of academics (Einarsen 1996, 2000; Ege, 1996; Niedl, 1995, Kile, 1990), contemporary writers (Field, 1996, Adams, 1992) and Unions (UNISON, 1997). The issue gained momentum in 1992, with the publication of Andrea Adams’s book, Bullying at Work coupled with her documentary on BBC Radio. This placed the issue firmly on the UK agenda, sparking widespread interest from workers who now had words and phrases to describe their own experience. From here awareness radiated out from Scandinavia to other countries such as Austria (Kirchler & Lang, 1998; Niedl, 1995), The Netherlands (Hubert & van Veldhoven, 2001), Hungary (Kauscek & Simon, 1995), Italy (Ege, 1996) and as far away as Australia (McCarthy et al., 1996).
Interestingly, the study of workplace violence had little traction in North America until late 1990’s as a result of competing interests; however rapid gains have been made in the past decade within both the academic fields (Barling, et al, 2006, Keashly & Jagatic, 2003) and popular literature (Namie & Namie, 2000, Futterman, 2004).
Although interest in workplace violence has grown considerably in recent years particularly within the developed world, data remains allusive in developing countries. This is beginning to change, as workplace violence begins to emerge as a significant social policy issue, fuelled by public concern. Research into the issue of workplace violence is concentrated in the more developed countries of Europe, adding to the gap between European countries and developing countries. In the absence of specific and comprehensive research, it is difficult, if not impossible, to compare the experience of different countries. Additionally, some governments do not view workplace violence as being a legislative priority and therefore there is no mechanism to report violent incidences (Wynne, et al, 2005).
Published data regarding workplace violence in developing countries can be frequently found in human rights literature, particularly the rights associated with trade union activities and the freedom of association. In addition, there is much commentary on the rights of workers to a safe workplace, focusing particularly on migrant workers who represent a highly marginalized and exploited group, both in developing and developed nations. A third and substantial source of information is found in the human rights literature which focuses on sexual abuse, primarily directed at women (Chappell & Di Martino, 2006).
Evidence to date suggests that workplace violence in developing countries is a tertiary issue when compared to more pressing problems such as hunger, drought and war. As a result of these competing interests, the “under reporting” of workplace violence seems to be the norm rather than the exception. In spite of this challenge, credible research is emerging to suggest that developing countries have a serious problem regarding violence. For example, a recently released report by the International Labour Organization (ILO), noted that women, migrants and children continue to be vulnerable to abuse in the workplace. In Malaysia, 11,851 rape and molestation cases at the workplace were reported between 1997 and May 2001. Widespread sexual harassment and abuse were major concerns in South Africa, Ukraine, Kuwait and Hong Kong, China, among others.
In South Africa, workers in the health care sector bear the brunt of workplace violence, according to the ILO study. Over one 12-month period, their survey showed 9 per cent of those employed in the private health sector and up to 17 per cent of those in the public sector experienced physical violence. (ILO, 2000)
Although developing countries may be more aware of the issues, they face their own set of unique hurdles in arriving at a fuller understanding of workplace violence. They are:
- In many countries workplace violence falls outside the scope of health and safety requirements and is therefore not reported.
- In some jurisdictions only fatalities resulting from violence are recorded thereby omitting many incidents that are considered violent.
- Many employers do not have mechanisms or procedures in place to record violence incidents.
- In many cases accident procedures do not record emotional or psychological conditions caused by threats of violence or exposure to threatening behaviour.
- Employers are frequently hesitant to report violence outside their organization fearful that this would tarnish their reputation.
Although researching workplace violence may be discouraging, the growing awareness that is emerging has prompted many countries to develop innovative prevention programs. The ILO study highlights a number of “best practice” examples from local and national governments, private organizations and trade unions from around the world that have successfully implemented “zero tolerance” polices and violence-prevention training programs. As a counter-balance to those countries which have yet to acknowledge or act on the issue of workplace violence, there are many countries which now explicitly recognized violence in their national occupational health and safety legislation. Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Finland, France, Poland and Sweden have recently adopted new legislation or amended existing laws and regulations to address violence at work.
Although the evidence about workplace violence may still be limited, anecdotal and inconsistently collected from a global perspective, the issue continues to garner attention in both developing and developed countries. Each year brings new research, moving the international community closer to a global standard of workplace conduct.
The “Precautionary” Principle
Although research may be lagging behind legislation, this does not absolve employers from the sometimes onerous task of taking preventative action to protect employees from various forms of workplace violence. On January 9, 2007 the final report of the SARS Commission was released to the public. The Commissioner was Justice Archie Campbell of the Superior Court of Justice. In this report there are more than 80 recommendations impacting both the Occupational Health And Safety Act (OHSA) and the Health Protection and Promotion Act (HPPA) and their regulations. For the purposes of this discussion, it was recommended:
”That the precautionary principle, which states that action to reduce risk need not await scientific certainty, be expressly adopted as a guiding principle throughout Ontario’s health, public health and worker safety systems by way of policy statement, by explicit reference in all relevant operational standards and directions, and by way of inclusion, through preamble, statement of principle, or otherwise, in the Occupational Health and Safety Act, the Health Protection and Promotion Act, and all relevant health statutes and regulations.”
The commissioner was unequivocal about the importance of this principle, repeatedly emphasizing it throughout the report. He referred to it as the “take home message” of the commission and “the most important lesson of SARS”. Justice Campbell said:
“…we should not be driven by the scientific dogma of yesterday or even the scientific dogma of today. We should be driven by the precautionary principle that reasonable steps to reduce risk should not await scientific certainty.”
In layman’s terms, the precautionary principle embodies the “better safe than sorry” approach reminiscent of such notions as, “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure”, the need to “look both ways before you cross the street” and the Hippocratic imperative: “First, do no harm”. That is, when in doubt, it’s best to err on the side of caution, even if there’s no consensus on how great the threat is—or whether a threat exists at all. We should keep in mind, however that although scientific uncertainty may exist, there must still be some scientific basis for a precautionary decision; otherwise emotions would overwhelm the decision making process.
With this in mind, the difficult question is…just how far can or should an employer go to demonstrate a preventative or precautionary strategy relating to workplace violence. This does not mean that employers are required to “predict” violent or abusive behaviour in advance of an incident as part of their precautionary duty.
Predicting Workplace Violence
Trying to predict aggressive acts in the workplace is quickly becoming a popular past time of many in an attempt to curb abusive. A number of quick, and easily administered questionnaires are now available on-line which claim great accuracy in ferreting out employees who may be prone to violent and aggressive acts. Although the claims are impressive and the issue pressing, the overriding question remains…are these tests an effective defense against workplace violence?
I believe not. Attempts at predicting individual behaviour are fraught with inconsistencies and inaccuracies, so sadly evident each time there is a tragic incident. Mental health practitioners and consultants alike, exile at hindsight, but rarely demonstrate accuracy in predicting behaviour as some might lead us to believe. Relying solely on a process aimed at predicting behaviour through testing is insufficient in preventing workplace violence given the inexact nature of the questionnaires used, the lack of supporting data, or simply the manner in which these tests are administered and scored. Most important, by excluding environmental factors in our understanding of workplace violence, we can potentially lull ourselves into a false sense of security, which can lead to devastating results. In short, acts of violence in the workplace are not simply the product of an unstable mind, but can be the result of the complex interplay of individual and environmental factors.
Canadian researchers Liane Greenberg and Julian Barling of Queen’s University undertook a study of full-time male employees to assess the efficacy of predicting aggression toward coworkers, subordinates and supervisors against a backdrop of individual behaviour and specific environmental factors. Overall, the results suggest that predicting aggression and violence in employees can be increased in value by embracing not only individual behavioural factors, but also, elements of the workplace environment itself.
Their research was clear in suggesting that further research is necessary to arrive at a more accurate picture of workplace violence. Studies that focus on the interplay between the workplace environment and individual employee dynamics are required. Management style, organizational culture and the physical environment are just a few of the areas that warrant further study in addition to our continuing quest to understand the individual.
The Greenberg & Barling study points the way toward a better understanding of the multi-faceted nature of workplace violence and aggression. Focusing on individual behaviours as the proactive means of reducing the incidences of aggression in our organizations is only a part of the picture. As well, by having this narrow view, we potentially miss the opportunity to address the influence of the environment on the individual. Instead, we need to focus on the problem of workplace violence from a holistic perspective. By making the effort to understand the many factors present in an organization that potentially contribute to aggressive acts is by far the most effective safe guard we have in protecting an organization’s most precious asset…its employees.
A Comprehensive Workplace Violence Prevention Program
Clearly, the growing evidence from available sources suggests that Canada has much to be concerned about with respect to emerging trends in workplace violence. Although we are not close to the experience of our neighbors to the south, where homicide is the third leading cause of occupational death. We do however, have reason to re-evaluate our strategy on workplace violence.
Canadian workplaces require a comprehensive plan to combat the growing threat of workplace violence. The current regulatory and legislative safeguards within Canada are too vague. In the interim, management and organized labour have a responsibility to take action in advance of any proposed legislation, by mounting a credible program to both prevent and manage workplace violence in whatever form. The program should also adhere to the Precautionary Principle, which prompts us to act even though there may be no robust scientific data.
The cornerstone to any prevention program is a comprehensive policy that clearly states management and labour’s commitment to preventing workplace violence.
The Policy Outline
At a minimum, your company policy should include:
- The purpose of the policy.
- A definition of workplace violence in precise, concrete language, keeping in mind that violence can come from customers, students, co-workers to name just a few.
- A statement reflecting the organization’s zero tolerance for any acts of violence.
- The scope and application of the policy, covering employees at all levels including contractors, customers, students, and other individuals pertinent to your circumstance.
- Outline in clear terms the responsibilities of all stakeholders under the policy.
- Outline the processes in place to both prevent and report incidents of violence.
- Emphasize the importance of reporting of all incidents, ensuring confidentiality, and protection from reprisals.
- Reinforce the organization’s commitment to advise employees of potential risks.
- Outline procedures for investigating and resolving complains.
- Reinforce the organization’s commitment to support victims of violence in the form of protection and support services.
- Clearly outline the consequences of policy violations.
- Make a commitment to violence prevention training and education for employees at all levels of the organization.
- Where appropriate, cross-reference other related policies, such as sexual harassment, and disability management, etc.
It quickly becomes evident that simply drafting a policy is only one facet of an overall prevention program. Other program components include:
Design and implement a protocol to assess the potential for violence within your organization
Each of us prefers to believe that violence happens only in other organizations, particularly if we aren’t aware of specific incidents within our own workplace. Quite often, incidents may not be reported, or information is collected in a variety of locations, such as human resources, corporate security or the occupational health division, to name few. To adequately understand the nature, extent or potential of violence within your workplace, a risk assessment of the organization needs to be carried out. Daunting, as this may seem at first, the process is rather straightforward. The risk assessment simply refers to a variety of ways to collect information about the number of violent incidents at your work-site. Gathering such information may include such steps as a confidential employee survey, focus groups, and corporate incident reports from either human resources or corporate security to name just a few avenues to explore. In addition, occupational health may have valuable aggregate data, which they can provide while maintaining the confidential nature of individual files.
When reviewing the results of your assessment, track data such as when, where and how incidents happen. As well, be mindful to go beyond simply the number incidents, to solicit information that can gauge the degree of concern amongst employees regarding violence in their workplace. For example, are women more fearful of assaults, or are there specific employee groups who are more fearful given the nature of their position.
By the end of your assessment, you want to know as much as possible about the nature and potential of violence within your workplace, as well as the concerns employees currently have.
Develop procedures and resources to adequately investigate reported incidents of workplace violence
As in sexual harassment investigations, great care must be taken to review allegations, keeping in mind fairness, confidentiality and safety. The foundation of any investigative process is to ensure that incidents are reported in the first place. Managers and supervisors, at all levels, play an important role in facilitating the reporting of violent incidents. Organizations may chose to establish a team approach to reviewing these allegations, with members from pertinent departments. Always keep in mind, that the investigation and management of any employee behaviour, has significant legal ramifications. All individuals in the investigation process must be well trained, and possess a skill set appropriate to their responsibility. Legal counsel should be consulted during the formative stages of designing an investigative protocol, as well as, provide ongoing input where needed.
More comprehensive descriptions of the team approach to investigation can be reviewed in Joseph Kinney’s book entitled, Violence at Work: How to make your company safer for employees and customers or refer to Violence in the Workplace: Prevention Guide produced and distributed by the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health & Safety.
Establish a critical incident management plan
We all know instinctively what to do during a fire alarm, but few of us would have any idea what to do during an incidence of violence. Hopefully, such a plan will never be implemented, however, it is always best to be prepared for the unlikely.
A management team, or occupational & health committee should begin to consider issues related to the protection of employees during a significant threat. Basic issues which need to be considered include, but are not limited to: securing the workplace, roles and responsibilities, how to inform employees of dangers, evacuation procedures, training requirements, to mention only a few of the important areas to consider.
Develop and deliver training and educational programs relating to workplace violence in support of the policy
A policy on workplace violence is of limited value without training and education to support it. Employees at all levels must be fully aware of their rights and responsibilities under the policy. Orientation sessions are a must in rolling out any new policy, particularly one in which safety concerns are addressed.
In addition to orientation sessions, training is needed for managers and supervisors to ensure that they are intimately familiar with the policy and their unique responsibilities under it. Policy procedures need to be clearly outlined to ensure that anyone within a supervisory position knows what to do when a compliant is made, and how to proceed in the interest of safety and due process.
Develop a roster of community resources, in addition to your Employee Assistance Program (EAP) that could be used in times of need. Establish a victim support plan now, before you need it.
If you have an EAP, it’s important to determine if they have crisis response capability. If they don’t, you are well advise to develop one with them. In some cases, retaining an EAP is not possible or required because of budgetary restraints or organizational size. Maintaining an updated roster of community medical and mental health consultants is strongly advised. These individuals can be called upon either during or after a crisis to respond in support of victims.
Post Traumatic Stress Disorder is a clearly defined psychiatric disorder referenced in the DSM IV Manual of Mental Disorders. As such, it can be considered a disability under the Ontario Human Right’s Act that prohibits discrimination based on handicap and therefore must be accommodated up to undue hardship. Sadly, there are some organizations that continue to view post trauma symptoms as a weakness of character and indicative of an undesirable employee. Employers do have a responsibility to support victims of violence, particularly if they were involved in a criminal encounter while performing their duty. Bank tellers, shop keepers and anyone within the service sector where money is handled, runs the risk of being robbed. In these high risk organizations, employers should have a clearly designed plan in place to support employees during the crisis, and beyond, while being mindful of the individual’s dignity and confidentiality.
Consult a lawyer with experience in labour law, specifically as it relates to occupational health and safety.
As you can see, there are a number of junctures in the process of developing policies and procedures that require sound legal and outside professional advise. Organizations are encouraged to seek out expert counsel from a variety of sources and professionals in the process of structuring their response to workplace violence.
Taking concrete steps to protect employees from violence and aggressive acts inflicted by customers, co-workers, students and anyone else within the sphere of your organization is paramount to an overall safety plan. To ignore the potential of violence in whatever form, is running the risk of lawsuits, human rights challenges, occupational health and safety violations, not to mention, lost production time, decreased moral, unnecessary turnover, and a host of other problems that could be easily averted. Now is the time to take steps to protect yourself, before legislation is enacted,.
The most important assets you have are your employees and your corporate reputation. To risk both on the belief that your workplace is immune from violence is short sighted, and in the end, bad business.
 Chappell, D.; Martino, V.: Violence at Work, Geneva Switzerland, International Labour Organization, 1998, p.26
 Data from the 1993 Statistics Canada Survey (Canada First National Survey on Violence Against Women), based on telephone interviews with 12,300 women, as reported in the Globe and Mail (Montreal), 19 Nov. 1993
 Press Release, January 19, 1998
 Rayner, C., Hoel, H. and Cooper, C. L., Workplace Bullying. What we know, who to blame, and what can we do? London: Taylor & Francis, 2002
 Einarsen, S., Bullying at work: The Norwegian lesson. In C. Rayner, M. Sheehan and M. Barker (eds). Bullying at work 1998 research update conference: Proceedings. Stafford: Staffordshire University 1998.
 Einarsen, S., bullying and Emotional abuse in the Workplace. Taylor & Francis, London 2002.
 Lewis, D., Bullying at work: A case of moral panic? In M. Sheehan, S. Ramsey and J. Patrick (eds), Transcending boundaries. Integrating people , processes and systems. Brisbane: The School of Management, Griffith University.
 H. Leymann, Vuxenmobbing- psykiskt våld I arbetslivet (Bullying – psychological violence in working life). Studentlitterature, Lund, 1996
 D. Zapf, A. Knorzc. & M. Kulla, On the relationship between mobbing factors and job content, the social work environment and health outcomes. European Journal of work and Organizational Psychology, 5, 215-237. 1996
 Björkqvist, K., Osterman, K and Hjelt-Bäck, M. (1994), Aggression among university employees. Aggressive Behaviour, 20, 173-184.
 Einarsen, S. and Skogstad, A. (1996), Prevalence and risk groups of bullying and harassment at work. European journal of Work and Organizational Psychology. 5, 185-202.
 Rayner, C. (1997) The incidence of workplace bullying. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 7, 199-208.
 Vartia, M. (1996), The sources of bullying – psychological work environment and organizational climate. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5, 203-214.
 Einarsen, S. and Raknes, B. I. (1997), Harassment at work and the victimization of men. Violence and Victims, 12, 247-263.
 Leymann, H. (1990), Handbok för användning av LIPT-formuläret för kartläggning av risker för psykiskt våld (Manual of the LIPT questionnaire for assessing the risk of psychological violence at work). Stockholm: Violen.
 D. Chappell & V. Di Martino, Violence at Work, International Labour Organization, 2006
 Wynne et al, 1997, p. 1
 International Labour Organization, Workplace violence in service sectors and measures to combat this phenomenon, ILO code of practice. Geneva, 2004
 World Health Organization, World Report on violence and Health, edited by E.G. Krug et al. Geneva, 2002.
 OHSR, s. 4.27
 H. Leymann, Vuxenmobbning – psykiskt våld I arbtslivet (bullying and psychological violence in working life). Studentlitterature, Lund: 1986.
 C. Brodsky, The harassed worker. Lexington, M.A: Health and Company, D.C. 1976
 S. Einarsen, Bullying and harassment at work: epidemiological and psychological aspects. PhD thesis, University of Bergen: Department of Psychosocial Science. 1996
 S. Einarsen, Bullying and harassment at work: unveiling an organizational taboo. In M. Sheehan, S. Ramsey & J. Patrick (eds), Transcending boundaries. Integrating people, processes and systems, The School of Management, Griffith University. Brisbane, 2000
 H Ege, Mobbing. Che cosé il terrore psicologico sull posto di lavoro, Pitagora Editrice, Bologna 1996
 K. Niedl, Mobbing/Bullying am Arbeitspatz. Eine empirische Analyse zum Phänomen sowie zu personalwirtschaftlich relevanten Effekten von systematischen Feindseligkeiten (Mobbing/Bullying at work. An empirical analysis of the phenomenon and of the effects of systemic harassment on human resource management), Hampp, Munich, 1995
 S. M. Kile, Helsefarleg leiarskp. Ein eksplorerande studie (Health endangering leadership. An exploratory study), Department of Psychosocial Science. University of Bergen, 1990,
 T. Field, Bullying in sight. Success Unlimited, Wantage 1996
 A. Adams, Bullying at work. How to confront and overcome it, Virago Press, London, 1992
 UNISON, UNISON members experience of workplace bullying at work, UNISON ,London, 1997
 A. Adams, Bullying at work. How to confront and overcome it, Virago Press, London, 1992
 E. Kirchler & M. Lang, Mobbingerfahrungen: Subjektive Beschreibung und Bewertung der Arbeitssituation (Bullying experiences: Subjective description and evaluation of the work situation). Zeitschrift für Personalforschung, 12, 352-262, 1998
 K. Niedl, Mobbing/Bullying am Arbeitsplatz. Eine empirische Analyse sum Phänomen sowie zu personalwirtschaftlich relevanten Effekten von systematischen Feidseligkeiten (Mobbing/Bullying at work. An empirical analysis of the phenomenon and of the effects of systemic harassment on human resource management). Hampp. Munich, 1995
 A. B Hubert & M. van Veldhoven, Risk sectors for undesired behaviour and mobbing. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10, 415-424, 2001
 G. Kaucsek & P. Simon, Psychoterror and risk management in Hungary. Paper presented as a poster at the 7th European Congress of Work and Organizational Psychology, 19-22nd April, Györ, Hungary, 1995
 H. Ege, Mobbing. Che cos? il terrore psicologico sull posto di lavoro, Pitagora Editrice, Bologna, 1996
 P. McCarthy, M.J. Sheehan & W. Wilkie (eds), Bullying: From backyard to the boardroom. Millennium Books, Alexandria, Australia, 1996
 J. Barling, K. Kelloway & J. Hurrell, Handbook of Workplace Violence, Sage Publications. California, 2006
 L. Keashly & K. Jagatic, By any other name: American perspectives on workplace bullying, in Bullying and Emotional Abuse in the Workplace, Taylor & Francis, New York, 2003
 G. Namie & R. Namie The Bully at Work, Source Books Inc. Naperville, Ill, 2000
 S. Futterman, When you Work for a Bully, Croce Publishing Group, Leonia, NJ.
R. Wynne, N Clarkin, T. Cox & A. Griffith, Guidance on the prevention of violence at work. Luxembourg, 1997, European commission wrc-research.ie accessed on 11 Oct. 2005
 D. Chappell & Di Martino, Violence at Work, 3rd ed. International Labour Organization, Geneva, 2006
 ILO Press Release 06/33 (http://www.ilo.org/global/About_the_ILO/Media_and_public_information/Press_releases/lang–en/WCMS_070505/index.htm)
 Greenberg, L. & Barling, J. (1999). Predicting employee aggression against coworkers, subordinates and supervisors: The roles of person behaviors and perceived workplace factors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 897-913.
 Kinney, Joseph. Violence at Work: How to make your company safer for employees & customers. Prentice Hall, 1995 (Special acknowledgement in the content of this paper)
 The Canadian Centre for Occupational Health & Safety, 1999
 American Psychiatric Disorder, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fourth Edition). American Psychiatric Association, Washington DC, 1987, p. 247
 Bowland, Adelyn., The 1999 Annotated Ontario Human Rights Code. Carswell Thomson Professional Publishing. 1998