The Traditional Divide: Understanding HR and WHS Silos
Historically, HR and WHS functions have operated as organisational silos – a situation which can lead to significant vulnerabilities, leaving organisations exposed to substantial legal, financial, and reputational risks. This is particularly important when you consider the evolving regulatory landscape in terms of psychosocial hazards in the workplace.
HR departments are typically responsible for managing workplace conduct, drafting codes of conduct, and resolving grievances related to bullying, harassment, and discrimination. WHS functions, conversely, focus on identifying hazards that pose a risk to psychological health.
For example, when bullying occurs, it is not merely an interpersonal conflict for HR to mediate. It is also a recognised psychosocial hazard capable of causing psychological injury.
An integrated approach ensures:
- WHS assesses the systemic risk factors, such as poor leadership, excessive workloads or high-pressure work environments, that allowed the behaviour to occur.
- HR manages the disciplinary and grievance processes; while
The Safety Gap
Organisations need to proactively move away from treating these issues as individual, isolated grievances, and instead recognise them as systemic organisational hazards requiring and focused elimination or minimisation strategies. This is especially so if the nature of work itself is inherently stressful.
In the landmark decision Kozarov v Victoria [2022] HCA 12 the High Court of Australia (HCA) found two legal liabilities arising from the inherent and cumulative trauma from the work itself and the systemic unsafe work environment.
In the case, Ms Kozarov, a prosecutor in the Victorian Office of Public Prosecutions, claimed common law damages in negligence for a psychiatric injury allegedly occurring while performing her duties.
On appeal, the HCA found in favour of Ms Kozarov with one of the most significant lessons arising for employers being the duty of care to provide a safe system of work, especially where the employer knew or ought to have known that the work system exposed employees to psychological harm.
In this case, the HCA held the State of Vicotria breached its duty of care by omitting to act when it should have been clear Ms Kozarov was at a risk of injury in the work she was performing in the Specialist Sexual Offenses Unit.
Judges have consistently ruled that relying on reactive, individualised HR processes or mechanisms like Employee Assistance Programmes or grievance procedures is an inadequate defence when an employer is faced with a systemic psychosocial hazard. Conversely, failing to adhere to HR processes, especially in discipline matters can create psychosocial hazards themselves.
Elisha v Vision Australia Ltd [2024] HCA 50 highlights how psychosocial hazards can arise from ad hoc HR and discipline processes. Here, the employer departed from the structured HR procedure and adopted an ad hoc process that was quoted by the primary Judge, Gageler, J, as being “a sham and a disgrace”. It was a process that materially caused psychiatric injury to Mr Elisha.
Traditional vs Integrated Approaches to Psychosocial Risk Management
Courts have observed that while individual matters were being managed by HR through confidential channels, the broader, systemic risk of psychological injury was completely unmanaged from a WHS perspective.
The table below provides examples of how HR and WHS may respond to different risks in the workplace both historically and as an integrated systemic approach:
| Risk Area | Traditional HR Focus | Traditional WHS Focus | Integrated Psychosocial Approach |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bullying complaints | Resolving individual disputes | Logging safety incidents | Assessing systemic cultural risks |
| Workload management | Monitoring staff turnover | Assessing physical fatigue | Reviewing task allocation systems |
| Grievance handling | Conducting investigations | Identifying workplace hazards | Analysing root causes of stress |
| Return-to-work | Managing payroll and leave | Monitoring physical capacity | Accommodating psychological needs |
Practical Strategies for Framework Integration
To eliminate the safety gap a business can develop a unified risk management framework that integrates HR and WHS capabilities in the following ways:
- Conduct joint psychosocial risk assessments
- Share Incident Reporting and data
- Collaborative on interventions
- Establish integrated key performance indicators
Future Outlook
The safety gaps created by operational silos leave workers vulnerable to psychological harm and expose organisations to significant legal, financial, and reputational risk.
Supporting Integrated HR and WHS Compliance
Managing psychosocial hazards requires more than effective HR processes or workplace safety systems in isolation. It requires an integrated approach.
IRiQ Law assists employers with psychosocial hazard risk management, workplace investigations, policy reviews, leadership training, disciplinary processes, and WHS compliance.
We can also help organisations develop practical frameworks that align HR and WHS obligations to better manage psychosocial risks.
If you’re reviewing your workplace safety or HR practices, contact us to learn how we can help.
Get In Touch
Our team provides employment law, industrial relations and safety expertise when you need it most.
Latest News
Posted in IRIQ Articles, News