Third-Party Violence at Work- a multi-sectoral approach by European - - PDF document

11/24/2016 1

Third-Party Violence at Work- a multi-sectoral approach by European social partners

Presentation by Nadja Salson, EPSU policy staff

third-party violence in the workplace

 No recent data specifically on third party violence across the EU but according to EC report, external violence more of an issue than “internal violence”; no EU data on central government but trade union evidence  2013 European Labour force survey: 1.9% of workers exposed to harassment and bullying (in 2007: 2.7%) and 1.6% exposed to violence or threat of violence (in 2007: 2.2%)  OSHA’s ESENER survey at company level: 40% of managers in Portugal, Romania and Norway consider that bullying and harassment as a major

• concern. The EU average is 20%. Countries with greatest share of

managers expressing concern about stress, harassment and violence are those with the lowest share of companies having procedures in place  Impact on personal well-being and private life, low staff morale (significant retention and recruitment issue!), performance, absenteeism, and on quality of services  Both a cause and an outcome of stress  Physical injuries and increasing costs for long-term psychological treatment (for victims of violence and those that witness acts of violence)

11/24/2016 2 2007: Adoption of the European cross-sectoral agreement on violence and harassment at work. Third-party violence (TPV) not addressed directly (see EC presentation on evaluation of the Agreement) 2010:following a stock-taking exercise EU social partners from hospital, private security, local/regional government, retail and education signed a set of multi-sectoral guidelines to tackle third-party violence and harassment related to work TPV deemed sufficiently distinct from violence and harassment (among colleagues or from management) to justify a distinctive approach  Guidelines are not legally binding, up to national social partner- 2013: follow-up study with EC financial support EU multi-sectoral social partners’ initiative: Background

Aims of the Guidelines

 To support actions by employers, workers and their representatives to prevent, reduce and mitigate TPV and its consequence  Increase awareness and understanding of employers, workers, their representatives and other public authorities  Demonstrate commitment of social partners  Promote key steps of good practice:

• Partnership i.e. ongoing information and consultation with managers,

employees and their trade union reps

• Clear definitions of TPV
• Appropriate information to service users, clients that violence will not

be tolerated

• Prevention through risk assessment supported by checklists
• Training for management and employees
• Reporting, investigation of allegations of violence or harassment and

follow up including provision for medical and financial support to victims, written documentation, protection against reprisals

• Evaluation

11/24/2016 3

Follow-up report 2013 -1

 Translations : BG, NL, CZ, EN, HU, LTH, RO, SL, GE , IT, PO, RU, ES, DA, EST, GR, LTV, PT, SVK, SV  Dissemination project- 28 responses from local/regional government, health and social services and commerce  Most found the dissemination project useful  Dissemination  via newsletters, special publications, training, seminars (Finland, Germany and Sweden)  Impact on relations between social partners: positive effect, helped put third party violence on the agenda  Cooperation with other sectors or agencies for OSH (Finland, Ireland)  Difficulties: missing translations; underdeveloped social dialogue; lack of investment in needed measures

Follow-up report 2013 -2

II/ Implementation

• National examples from all sectors:
• local government – Czech rep: training project, Denmark:

publication “ avoiding harassment and violence” based on a collective agreement

• hospitalFinland : campaign “ Don’t break your caregiver”
• commerce- France, agreement + mass mailings to employees;

Germany, cooperation with the accident insurance

• rganisation
• Education, Poland: preventive measures through cooperation

with parents, social services and psychologists, focus also on cyber harassment; Spain: also project based on cooperation between teachers, parents and broader social/educative community and police forces

11/24/2016 4

Follow-up report 2013 -3

II/ Implementation EU sectoral level (1)

• education: guide
• Taking stock- start by understanding the situation
• Cooperation
• Promoting good practices
• Reporting incidents- knowing know and where to

ask assistance

• Initial and continous training
• Monitoring and follow-up

Follow-up report 2013 -4

II/ Implementation EU sectoral level (2)

• Private security : OIRA tool i.e. Online Interactive Risk Assessment
• Some of the points addressed in checklists:
• Clear definitions : bullying (abnormal, repetitive behaviour via verbal or

physical aggression or subtle acts e.g. underrating an employee’s work or isolating the individual socially)

• to avoid lone working ( must be part of risk assessment)
• Training in handling conflict situations
• Post incident care must be provided
• Clear message to perpetrators and victims that violence in whatever

form will not be tolerated

• Clear chain of responsibility
• To investigate the facts quickly and impartially
• Complaints may not lead to reprisals, the anonymity of both victims and

perpetrators should be maintained

• To appoint one or more persons of trust to provide front line contact in

dealing with and supporting the victims

11/24/2016 5

Follow-up report 2013 -5

II/ Implementation- Difficulties when addressing TPV

• Constant reforms e.g. Bulgaria, health services
• TPV still perceived as “ normal” e.g. Czech rep

healthcare

• Social partners’ actions on TPV not concrete enough

e.g. Finland

• Insufficient funding in OSH e.g.Latvia
• Problems with identifying social partners in non public

sector e.g. Sweden

• Guidelines remain too generic, need a more specific

agreement e.g. UK

Follow-up report 2013: next steps

 Not a clear-cut picture: further actions required for EPSU affiliates in local/regional government; for the employers emphasis on implementation of agreements/legislation  Agreement on following challenges:

• TPV remains not well-understood, mixed up with

“internal” workplace violence between employees or employees/employers; language/cultural issue

• Lack of awareness in society
• Related to the above, low reporting of incidences
• austerity measures exacerbate risks of violence and

reduce chances for preventive measures

• Need for more focused research
• To extend the coverage of the Guidelines to other

sectors such as central government, transport

11/24/2016 6

Evidence from central government services: Example from prison services -1

• No data at EU level on central government
• Central government social partners not

signatories to the multi-sectoral guidelines

• Yet evidence of violence in CGA related services
• Example from prison services, EPSU survey of

affiliates: Responses from 14 unions from 12 countries Belgium Northern Cyprus Denmark Estonia Finland France Italy Netherlands Norway Romania Spain UK

Evidence from central government services- prison services2

• Health and safety was a concern with 8 out of 14 unions saying that

the situation had deteriorated.

• 9 said that the number of violent attacks on staff had increased,
• ften providing details of the extent of the assaults. In Spain unions

figures show a violent attack every two days; in the UK, number of serious assaults has doubled in two years to more than 10 a week.

• Prison staff also suffer from stress. All but one of the unions

reported that stress had increased, austerity cited as one of the key reasons.

• Despite these difficult conditions, only a minority of unions thought

that levels of sickness absence had increased.

• Most unions indicated that there were structures and/or policies

in place intended to maintain and improve the health and safety, but often little health and safety training.

• Asked to assess whether prisoners conditions had improved in the

last five years, only 4 unions said that they had. Elsewhere, the unions either thought that prisoners’ conditions had remained unchanged or got worse

11/24/2016 7