Explosion of Research and Articles on Workplace Violence


There has been a relative explosion of research and articles on Workplace Violence globally within the past ten years (particularly in the past five years), along with a corresponding increase in attention by various regulatory agencies, institutions, and governments. A 2010 poll by Reuters/IPSOS found that worldwide, 7% of workers had experienced actual physical assault - in a survey that reportedly only looked at assaults "made out of anger."


Health care workers experience one of the highest rates of violence worldwide. In a study and report prepared jointly by International Labor Office, the International Council of Nurses, the World Health Organization, and Public Services International, 50% of health care workers in Australia, 61.9% in South Africa, 57.93% in China, 54% in Thailand, 41% in Lebanon, and 46% in Brazil reported experiencing some form of workplace violence in the previous 12 months.


The evidence is clear that no continent and no country is immune to this phenomena of aggression in the workplace, and it appears to be significantly escalating, for whatever reason. Regardless of what is occurring at a national or local level in any country, an employer has some responsibility for the safety of its employees while they are at work, and given the research and attention recently given to this problem, no one can now say that they were not prepared.


To read more click here DECISIONPOINT continued from page 2 Did the court grant the RestrainingOrder as requested by the company?


In this case, the San Diego Superior Court issued an Order enjoining Defendant Jeff Wilson from committing further acts of violence or making threats of violence against two employees of Kaiser Foundation Hospitals. The California Court of Appeal rejected Wilson’s argument that the lower Court had erred in basing its Order, in part, upon hearsay evidence.


The employer had sought the Restraining Order, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §527.8, a provision that permits employers to seek injunctions preventing workplace violence against their employees. The Court rejected this claim, holding that Wilson made a credible threat of violence and that great harm might result to an employee of Kaiser, such that it was proper to issue an injunction prohibiting Wilson from further unlawful violence or threats of violence.


Learning and insights from this case:


This Court decision will make it easier for employers to obtain workplace violence injunctions in order to protect employees. This is especially true in situations where an employee reports an act of threatened violence to a manager or human resource representative. Under this decision, the testimony about the report of violence given by the human resources representative rather than the employee, if sufficiently believable, may permit the Court to issue an injunction in place of a fearful, reluctant employee being required to testify.


To read more about the decision click here


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16