Workplace Bullying Policy

This policy was posted for public comment from January 23 - February 9, 2022.

Comments

On the examples of bullying sheet, is there a way to address stonewalling and intentionally leaving someone off of communications or failing to respond to communications from a coworker? This can be a form of psychological bullying that isolates employees and leaves them feeling unheard and alienated.
Should Brandi's email be in the policy itself? Or is that something that can be changed easily? B2: Should it be "occurrence(s)"? Bullying typically isn't just one occurrence. C2: Is it just the ER director's purview to determine whether it's a formal investigation or not? That seems like too much power in one person. C4 seems completely out of order. I didn't understand its placement. In C, there needs to be a statement about what happens after the ER director talks with the complainant. "The ER director will determine the action to take: formal investigation, mediation, discussion with responding party...." E5 is out of order logically. E7: Is that supposed to be if bullying was more likely than not? Also, what happens if it is found that bullying has not happened? That is all. Thanks! D: What happens if the mediation is not successful?
Under C. Initial Complaint Review, I strongly recommend a statement be added to the policy that affirms being a supervisor is NOT license to bully while also affirming that providing feedback on job expectations and poor job performance is the role of a supervisor. Supervisors are becoming more and more hesitant to correct behavior that is not serving our students or community -- internal or external --because fear of being accused is escalating. I in no way believe it is the intent of this policy to excuse supervisory responsibility for managing poor performance. However, being explicit about a distinction could be useful to both supervisors and those being supervised. Thank you for your consideration.
This policy sounds like it will prevent me from making fun of and/or verbally chastising a co-worker who, say, promotes white supremacist views. Is there no situation in which verbal disapproval (as opposed to simple disagreement) is considered warranted?
Referring to the second point under Procedures, does there have to be a witness for someone to report an occurrence of bullying/harassment?
Reviewed!
I think the definition of bullying behavior here is good and should stand. It's my understanding that some have commented on the problem of "microaggressions" and whether they should be addressed in our workplace bullying policy. The term "microaggression," by definition cannot be understood as bullying behavior because bullying behavior is intentional whereas microaggressions are most often unintentional and less severe, more minor forms of behavior. Language related to microaggressions does not belong in a bullying policy.
My only question is why this is called Workplace Bullying and not harassment? This line in particular "exploited an employee's known physical or psychological disability" is discrimination and harassment. Also, it seems that this policy would create an additional step for a victim of harassment or discrimination and would require them to prove that the harassment they are experiencing is indeed harassment or discrimination.
Section IV.D. Mediation Mediation is narrow, and would not allow for other forms of information resolution. Using a broad term, such as "Informal Resolution," could allow more options, such as mediation, facilitated dialogue, shuttle diplomacy, etc
I really haven't seen any bullying in our department.
I understand the Policy Review
In my experience, the persons providing oversight to these investigations are not impartial. When offending parties are found guilty, it appears that they receive no punishment for their actions. This whole policy is just smoke and mirrors with no follow-through. We need detailed actions to be written clearly so that offending parties can know there are actual consequences. Without consequences, there really is no reason for offenders to not keep repeating their actions.
Need to change "mediation" to "informal resolution." Also, define what standard the Director of ER would use to determine whether an investigation should occur. Possibly a statement that an investigation occurs if the allegations establish a prima facie case.
I can agree with that. Well said :)
I am posting this comment on behalf of an employee who wishes to remain anonymous: ”My experience in institutional bullying at SLCC came from the Dean and Assistant Dean of the School while being employed as an Instructor. And from the Director, Assistant Director, Supervisor while being employed as staff. I was intentionally bullied for a period of three years. Workplace stress and anger over my treatment caused physical illness and mental distress. Just an email from my supervisor would put me into a panic attack. In retrospect, the bullying was so epistemic to the institution that I had nowhere to go with my complaints. No one believed me, not even HR. I am very concerned about the definition of what is not bullying. The definition implicitly justifies bulling, threats and intimidation by the supervisors. These actions are covered up under the guise of performance-related feedback, explained by differences in management/work style, and differences in communication. Fortunately, I am no longer a subordinate under these bullies and am very happy in my current position. The remaining problems are a lack of trust and broken self-esteem. Unfortunately, I believe that this has affected any chance of my current supervisor knowing what talents and experience I could bring to SLCC. I have been demeaned. If you want honesty, the posts need to be anonymous." If we want the truth and are sincere in changing the culture of SLCC, then we must put the psychological safety and anonymity of employees first!!
"a reasonable person would determine the actor intended” is too vague and creates a gray area that will depend on unclear discretion. There is nothing in the policy that states how supervisors will be trained about what to classify as bullying. 2 days seems like a short turn around time to review and respond. Are there any instances where bullying will be determined to be harrassment and if so how will that be determined? What happens if either the VP or director are implicated needs to be stated as well.

Responses

19 employees commented on this policy. The general comment topics were as follows:

A. Name of the Policy

1. Confusion between Workplace Bullying and Hostile Environment Harassment (Section III.A)

No revision was made. Workplace bullying has a broader application than discrimination or harassment. Bullying can constitute discriminatory or hostile environment behavior based on an employee’s protected class. However, bullying behavior may also not be based on one’s protected class. In the Anti-discrimination and Harassment policy, the college defines “hostile environment harassment” (“harassment”) as “any unwanted verbal. ... nonverbal conduct . . . based on one’s protected class that is objectively offensive and sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of employment. . .” This workplace bullying definition is broader in that it: 1) does not require behavior based on protected class; and 2) does not require objectively offensive and sufficiently severe and pervasive behavior. Therefore, behavior which does not meet the harassment threshold may constitute workplace bullying.

2. Appropriateness of the Workplace Bullying Term

No revision was made. Utah Code §67-26-202 entitled the “Utah Public Employees Healthy Workplace Act.” That statute uses the term “abusive conduct” instead of the term “workplace bullying”, however the definition for workplace bullying is identical to the statutory definition for abusive conduct. The decision to call this the “workplace bullying” rather than the “abusive conduct” policy was made because staff believed that the college community would better relate to this phrase than abusive conduct.

B. Scope of the Workplace Bullying Definition (Section III.A)

1. Definition's Reasonable Person Standard is Too Vague

No revisions were made to this definition. This definition mimics Utah Code §67-26-203(1)(a). The policy defines workplace bullying as:

“Verbal, non-verbal or physical conduct of one employee toward another that, based on the severity, nature or frequency of the conduct, a reasonable person would determine that the actor intended to cause:

a) intimidation, humiliation or unwarranted distress:

b) resulted in substantial physical or psychological harm, humiliation, or unwarranted distress, or

c) exploited an employee’s know physical or psychological disability."

This objective reasonable person standard is appropriate, required by law, and sufficiently clear.

2. Definition Should Include Stonewalling and Failure to Communicate

While the workplace bullying definition does not expressly specify stonewalling and failure to communicate as workplace bullying, section IV.A.2 provides a link entitled “Workplace Bullying Avoidance Document.” which, in addressing the commenter’s concerns states that:

a) intentional interference with work product/flow (“stonewalling")

b) deliberate excluding someone from pertinent information or events constitutes workplace bullying; (“failure to communicate")

c) several examples of behaviors that are not workplace bullying including critical feedback or occasional disagreement.

3. Clarification on What is Not Workplace Bullying

No revision was made. Refer to the response to Section B.2 of this responses section and to the Workplace Avoidance Bullying document. The Workplace Bullying Avoidance document lists a minimum of seven behaviors that are not considered Workplace Bullying. The policy links to this document. In addition, please review C.5. of this responses section which also addresses an aspect of this issue.

4. Definition May Be Too Broad and Prevents Joking or Chastising Others for Inappropriate Views

No revision was made. Refer to the response to Section B.2 of this responses section and to the Workplace Avoidance Bullying document. In the Workplace Bullying Avoidance document, there are a minimum of seven behaviors that are not considered bullying. Among them are “an occasional disagreement or conflict over workplace concerns” and “communication challenges created by personality difference.” “Joking” or “correcting” an employee over a white supremacist view, depending on the circumstance, may fall into one of these categories that do not constitute “workplace bullying."

5. Need for another College Policy Addressing Workplace Bullying

No revision was requested. The policy team generally agrees with this commenter’s assessment regarding microaggressions.

C. Investigation Process (Sections IV.B, C and .E and Workplace Bullying Avoidance document)

1. No Third-Party Witness Required to Make Complaint

No revision was made. A third-party witness is not necessary to report an incident of workplace bullying. Section IV B.1 allows “an employee, a witness or another party may report bullying. . .” Thus, if an employee is the recipient or victim of workplace bullying, they may make a bullying report.

2. The Employee Relations Director Should Not Be Solely Responsible for Deciding to Investigate

No revision was made. While the Employee Relations Director has this authority, the Director will consult with the Title IX/EEO director, Dean of Students, ODMA director, and AAG to determine whether the complaint warrants an investigation. This model has been developed so these four key positions addressing investigation and disciplinary/corrective actions involving students and employees will be involved in the decision, however, in the end, the final decision to investigate is with the Employee Relations director.

3. Need for Written Standard of When to Conduct Investigation

No substantive revision was made. The employee relations director will use the definition provided in policy to determine if the facts, if true, would constitute workplace bullying. She may also reference the workplace bullying avoidance document for guidance. While this does not provide a prima facie standard, it does provide the college community some guidance as to what does and does not constitute workplace bullying.

4. Workplace Bullying Constitutes Multiple Acts Not a Single Act

No revision was made. As indicated in the Workplace Bullying Avoidance document, “workplace bullying may occur on a regular basis or a one-time basis that is severe in nature. “(emphasis added) While bullying typically is a pattern of behavior, one incident can constitute workplace bullying if the act is sufficiently severe.

5. Be Clear that Supervisors Can Not Be Abusive When conducting Performance Reviews

a) No revision was made. The Workplace Bullying Avoidance document states the following:

i. Behaviors that are not workplace bullying include. ... the sharing of critical performance feedback. . . [and]... supervisors managing their area in a manner that is in line with College policies and goals.'

ii. Behaviors that are workplace bullying include. . . “overly harsh criticism.”

These complementary statements allow flexibility for critical feedback, however, don’t allow for overly harsh criticism.

b) This policy and Workplace Avoidance Policy document attempts to balance the supervisor’s responsibility to provide frank feedback and evaluations with the employee’s right to not be demeaned. This comment is similar to the comment received in Spring 2020 15-day comment period for the Workplace Bullying provision proposed for the Employee Conduct policy. There appear to be incidents at the college where supervisors inappropriately treat employees and when the employees report the incident to second-level supervisors, the concern is not addressed. The policy creates a process to handle this problem, but it does not necessarily resolve the problem.

6. Supervisors Should Not Review Bullying Investigation and Make Corrective Action Determination When the Supervisor is Accused of Bullying

No revision was made. While this comment is valid, sections IV. E.2, 9, 10, and 11 address this concern. These sections state as follows:

a) IV.E.2.b - When the Employee Relations director decides that an investigation is appropriate, the director must "notify the appropriate level supervisor not involved in the case." (p. 4)

b) IV.E.9 - If the investigator determines the workplace bullying has occurred, “employee relations will work with the respondent’s supervisor, or the next level supervisor not involved in the complaint, on the appropriate corrective action.” (pp. 5-6) (emphasis added)

c) IV.E.10 and IV.E.10 also require employee relations to work with the appropriate supervisor at other junctures in the process. (p. 6)

7. SLCC Investigations Are Not Impartial and Employees Are Not Punished for Policy Violations

These comments were critical of the institution and critiqued SLCC’s investigative processes in general. No substantive revision was made to the policy. However, the practice has been that the Employee Relations director consults with the Title IX/EEO director, Dean of Students, OMDA director, and AAG to determine whether a complaint warrants an investigation.

D. Needs for Revisions to Mediation Section (Section IV.D)

1. Change Mediation to Informal Resolution

Revisions were made to sections III.B and IV.D changing “mediation” to “informal resolution"

2. Mediation or Informal Resolution Must Be Agreed to In Writing and Confidential

Some revisions were made. Section IV.D.2 (a) and IV.D.5 require a dispute resolution agreement and that dispute resolution processes be confidential. (pp. 3 and 4)

3. Mediation or Informal Resolution Must Be Agreed to In Writing and Confidential

Section IV.D. 4. a. was added to state: “If informal resolution is not successful, Employee Relations will conduct an investigation.” If the investigation determines that Workplace Bullying has occurred, Employee Relations will work with the appropriate supervisor to impose appropriate corrective action. (pp. 4-5)

E. Appeals Process (Section IV.F)

1. Appeal Deadlines are Too Short

No revision was made to sections IV.F. 1, 2, 3 and 4. As drafted, the appeals section does not provide a two-business day review requirement. Rather, the deadlines are as follows:

a) Appeal must be submitted within 5 business days of investigation determination.

b) AVP for PWC must forward the appeal to the other party within two business days.

c) The party not appealing has five business days to submit a response.

d) After receiving the appeal and other parties’ response, the AVP for PWC must issue a written determination within 10 business days. (pp. 5-6)

As drafted, these are sufficiently long deadlines in the appeal process.

F. Grammatical, format, and Organizational comments

All recommended revisions were adopted.

G. Miscellaneous Comments

Need for Supervisor Training

No revision was made to the policy. Utah Code §67-26-203 (3) requires that the college provide annual training to all covered employees on abusive conduct (“workplace bullying”) within the higher education entity.” Yes, supervisors will need to be trained on this policy, and it will be included in the annual required trainings. The prohibition on workplace bullying is currently covered in the Workplace Violence required training.

Other Miscellaneous Comments

No revision was requested.

SLCC Policies and Procedures