Workplace Violence: Employer Information

Overview

Violence in America is now invading the workplace, putting at risk the safety, productivity and health of American workers, and this violence appears to be on the increase. Research clearly shows a significant increase in the amount of violence and conflict in the workplace in recent years. In 1992, the Centers for Disease Control declared workplace homicide a serious public health epidemic requiring priority attention by policy makers (Kinney & Johnson, 1993). Having tripled in the last decade, workplace homicide is the fastest-growing form of murder in the United States (Baron, 1993) and is the leading cause of workplace death for women (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1994). In fact, murder and other violent crimes have escalated in the workplace to the point that the U.S. Department of Justice recently proclaimed the workplace the most dangerous place to be in America (Anfuso, 1994).

According to the latest Bureau of Justice Statistics' annual crime survey, nearly 1 million individuals become victims of violent crime in U.S. workplaces each year. An estimated eight percent (8%) of rapes, seven percent (7%) of robberies, and 16 percent (16%) of all assaults occurred while victims were working or on duty. Overall, one out of every six violent crimes experienced by U.S. residents age 12 or older happens at work. Over 30 percent (30%) of victims who were working during a violent victimization faced armed offenders (Bachman, 1994). Recent studies by Northwestern National Life Insurance and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health have identified that the chances are one in four that a worker may be attacked, threatened or harassed on the job in the next year (Northwestern National Life Employee Benefits Division, 1993).

Six out of ten incidents of workplace violence occur in private companies (Bachman, 1994). These incidents cost companies $4.2 billion in lost work and legal expenses in 1992, according to the National Safe Workplace Institute (Anfuso, 1994). The Institute calculates that the average cost to employers of a single episode of workplace violence can amount to $250,000 in lost work time and legal expenses (Bachman, 1994).

For employees, crime victimizations occurring in the workplace cost about half a million workers 1,751,100 days of work each year, an average of 3.5 days per crime. This missed work resulted in over $55 million in lost wages annually, not including days covered by sick and annual leave (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1994).

As the number of total work-related fatalities including accidents has declined over the past decade, intentional killings in the workplace have gained prominence. The Bureau of Labor Statistics census counted 1,063 work-related homicides in 1993 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1994). Over 80 percent (80%) of these homicide victims died as a result of gunshot wounds (Windau & Toscano, 1994). Many of those murdered at work (24%) were either self-employed or working in the family business (Windau & Toscano, 1994). James Fox, a Northeastern University criminologist who tracks workplace violence throughout the country, says the number of workers killing their bosses has doubled in the past ten years (Allen, 1992).

Homicide was the leading manner of fatal injury for female workers, accounting for 40 percent (40%) of the fatal occupational injuries to women. Blacks, Asians and Pacific Islanders, and Hispanics incurred a disproportionate share of workplace homicides, compared with their share of total workplace fatalities and their employment share. Immigrants to the U.S. also had a high risk of homicide at work. This group comprised 25 percent (25%) of the workplace homicide victims, but only about nine percent (9%) of the employed (Windau & Toscano, 1994).

While homicides at work occurred in a wide variety of occupations, a few stood out. Nearly half of the homicides occurring at work were in retail trade, primarily in food stores -- including convenience stores, restaurants, drinking establishments, and gasoline service stations. One-sixth of the homicides occurred in service-related industries, including guard and armored car services, hotels and motels, and health and educational services. Taxicab companies and police protection were other industries affected by homicides (Windau & Toscano, 1994).

While workplace homicides due to disputes between co-workers, clients, or spouses usually make national news, the majority of homicides that occur at work are committed during a robbery or robbery attempt. Robberies frequently occur while workers were locking up at night or making money drops or pickups. Workplace homicides typically occur at night, between 7 p.m. and 2 a.m. A small number of workers were mugged and murdered while at work, on travel, or while leaving their work premises (Windau & Toscano, 1994).

Indeed, workplace violence has now become a virtual reality for any business and any employee -- giving us a vulnerability that we had previously not felt. It has become a necessity that the reality and risks of this growing violence be examined, and a hard look given to what can be done by employers, management and employees in the area of prevention, as well as assistance and support to the ever-increasing number of workplace violence victims.

What's making the job a more dangerous place? Experts say many factors, including economic, social and psychological, boost office violence. Though violence by disgruntled ex-workers tends to grab headlines, it's not the most prevalent kind according to the Northwestern Life Study. Most attackers and harassers are people that victims deal with on a daily basis. Customers, clients and patients account for the largest segment of attackers (44%), while co-workers and bosses account for 86 percent (86%) of all harassment at work, one-third of threats and one-fourth of workplace attacks. Sometimes, the violence is caused by a stranger, as in the case of robberies. Interpersonal conflict is considered the main reason for harassment; irrational behavior is likely a cause of attacks (Northwestern National Life Employee Benefits Division, 1993).

Although men who are victimized while working are more likely to be attacked by a stranger, women are more likely to be attacked by someone known to them. Five percent (5%) of the women victimized at work are attacked by a husband, ex-husband, boyfriend, or ex-boyfriend (Bachman, 1994). One-sixth of workplace homicides of women are committed by a spouse, ex-spouse, boyfriend or ex-boyfriend (Windau & Toscano, 1994). For every murder, there are numerous rapes and assaults that often leave victims battered and disabled (Kinney & Johnson, 1993). According to the U.S. Department of Justice, boyfriends and husbands, current and former, commit more than 13,000 acts of violence against women in the workplace every year (Anfuso, 1994).

Domestic violence is a problem that does not disappear when women leave home and enter the workplace. Perpetrators come to the workplace searching for the intended victim because they are often barred, through legal injunctions or restraining orders, from going to the victim's home. Victims' addresses and telephone numbers easily can be changed -- but not necessarily their employment. Victims often are sought out at their places of employment and attacked or killed.

A recent survey of security directors at corporations nationwide revealed that more than 90 percent (90%) of those surveyed were aware of more than three incidents in which men stalked women employees, and 94 percent (94%) said that domestic violence is a "high security problem" at their companies. "The insidious epidemic of domestic violence is now in the workplace," says Joseph Kinney, Executive Director of the National Safe Workplace Institute, which conducted the survey of security directors. "We are seeing that violence is often lethal and that the workplace can be the scene of the killing" (Family Violence Prevention Fund, 1994, p. 4).

The traditionally dangerous types of work such as police work, bar staff, social workers, firefighters, bank tellers and others are not the only work groups at risk. Incidents of workplace violence are growing with frightening regularity, and these incidents are dispelling the common belief: "It can't happen here." Unfortunately, it can and does happen anywhere, anytime -- in large industries, in small businesses, in major cities, in small towns, in hospitals, even on college campuses and in our neighborhood schools.

Violence in America's schools has increased dramatically over the past decade and continues to escalate. In a 1987 survey, Public School Teachers' Perspectives on School Discipline, it was revealed that 20 percent (20%) of the teachers polled indicated that they had been threatened with violence by students. Nearly 5,200 of the nation's one million secondary school teachers are physically attacked at school each month, according to a National Institute of Education study. About 1,000 are hurt seriously enough to require medical attention. Theft is reported by 130,000 teachers in a month's time. Having something taken from them by force, weapons or threats, is reported by 6,000 teachers. The Center to Prevent Handgun Violence reported that 65 students were killed, 186 wounded, six school employees died, and 15 were injured during the four academic years of 1986 through 1990 (Wheeler & Baron, 1993).

In a 1989 study of violence in hospitals, surveying 300 hospitals across the country, it was found that there was a sharp upswing in assaults in hospitals and that half of them took place in emergency rooms. In a 1991 study of 1,200 emergency room nurses, two out of three reported that during their careers, they had been assaulted (Wheeler & Baron, 1993). It is the nursing staff of hospitals that spend the greatest amount of time involved in direct patient care, and they experience violence on a routine basis. A variety of studies demonstrate that up to 50 percent (50%) of practicing clinical workers, including social workers, psychologists, and psychiatrists, have been assaulted at some time in their professional career. These assaults occur in a wide range of clinical settings and the incidence appears to be increasing (Atkinson, 1991).

Unfortunately, violence can happen at even the most tranquil nonprofit. Nonprofit employees and volunteers have been assaulted while working in churches, hospitals, museums, homeless shelters, on the playing fields of various sports, and in many other situations (Nonprofit Risk Management Center, 1994).

When violence in the workplace occurs, the cost in human terms extends far beyond the immediate loss of life. In addition to the human suffering, the company itself will suffer many costs (Baron, 1993):

• Security;
• Building repair and cleanup;
• Business interruptions with customers;
• Loss of productivity;
• Lost work time;
• Turnover of employees;
• Salary continuation for those who are injured or traumatized;
• Valued employees quitting or retiring early;
• Increase in workers' compensation claims;
• Increase in medical claims;
• Increase in insurance premiums; and
• Costs of attorney fees, medical care, and psychological care for current employees.

The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 was enacted "to assure so far as possible every working man and woman in the nation safe and healthful working conditions" (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 1993). Through simple measures, employers can minimize violence and harassment in their workplaces. By doing so, they will avoid harm to their employees and the great cost of these problems to their businesses. Workplace violence can sometimes be anticipated and possibly deterred. Planning ahead can both prevent human suffering and save a lot of money. With proper preparation and training of employees, and implementation of strict protocol, workplaces can become safer places.  

Workers who have been interviewed following their workplace victimizations have strongly advised that all workers, supervisors and management need to acknowledge the problem of workplace violence, advocate for safe work environments, and train workers in precautionary measures and what to expect if they do become victims (Atkinson, 1991).

Victim Impact and Emotional Consequences

Whenever a violent incident occurs in the workplace, there exists great potential for physical, psychological and financial impact. In the aftermath of the violence, the survivors, including those who were injured, those who were targeted but missed, witnesses, co-workers, family members, friends and other people in the organization, can be emotionally devastated. For the survivors and their co-workers, the workplace is no longer a safe place for it has now become a threatening environment.

When workplace violence occurs, there is always a concern about the possibility of a re-occurrence. The more meaningless and arbitrary the incident, the more vulnerable and unsafe the survivors seem to feel. The moments that immediately follow a traumatic incident of workplace violence, are characterized by shock, a sense of disbelief and physical-psychological numbing. Many survivors of traumatic events report that they are very tired, and have difficulty concentrating and remembering important information (Barnett-McQueen & Bergmann, 1993). This can affect a person's entire life, including relationships with family as well as the ability to work and carry out everyday activities.

There are a number of things that can affect the degree of psychological trauma experienced as a result of violence in the workplace. Some of these factors include the victim's age, family support, experience in similar circumstances, whether they have survived other stressful situations and the number of these situations in their lives, as well as their perception of the incident. The everyday coping skills a worker has developed to deal with life's stressors will probably be inadequate to deal with the possibly life-disrupting changes and emotional reactions they experience after workplace violence. Most survivors will not be able to just put it behind them and get on with their lives. The victimization and its consequences are things they must deal with, but there are things they can do, things others can do, and programs in place that can help. Victims of workplace violence are not alone.

Consequences

There are three general types of posttraumatic consequences that survivors experience in the hours and days following work-related traumatic incidents (Barnett-McQueen & Bergmann, 1990):

Re-experiencing consequences

include feeling as if the incident is happening again, constant and intrusive thoughts about the event, fear or anxiety and concern about another or similar incident happening, and nightmares.

Withdrawal consequences

include attempts not to think about or to feel emotions connected to the incident. These attempts can include over-working or not coming back to work, depression, avoidance of reminders of the incident, withdrawal from family and friends, and possibly, self-medicating with alcohol or drugs.

Other consequences

include such things as anger, irritability, sleep problems, difficulty concentrating and an exaggerated startle response.

Long-term problems can develop if posttraumatic consequences are not managed. With immediate and effective responses to work-related trauma, most of these long-term problems can be prevented, and the workers and organization can resume normal activities. The overall goals for victims of workplace violence in dealing with their emotional reaction to the traumatic event are the decrease of distressing symptoms, the enhancement of emotional expression and the assimilation of the traumatic experience (Baron, 1993). The process of resolution can be facilitated by family and friends who acknowledge the trauma, allow the individual to talk about it, and accept the uneven road to resolution.

Employees who receive information about posttrauma consequences, especially the normal psychological consequences of exposure to violent incidents, can better manage their feelings and reactions to workplace violence when it happens. Detailed discussion of the incident with others is an important element of posttraumatic recovery. If the violent incident has affected a large portion of the workforce, you may consider bringing professional help to the workplace to assist employees in discussing and dealing with all that the violent incident has precipitated.

Debriefings are group meetings designed to reduce the probability that organization personnel exposed to a traumatic incident will experience long-term consequences by providing the opportunity to discuss experiences and feelings during and after the incident. For maximum effectiveness, the debriefing should occur two to five days after the incident (Barnett-McQueen & Bergmann, 1990). Make sure any professional used is trained and experienced in working with crime victims and critical incidents.

The National Organization for Victim Assistance (NOVA) has initiated a National Community Crisis Response Team Project which can respond to such violent incidents in workplaces. One such team responded to Edmond, Oklahoma, in the aftermath of the slaying of 14 post office employees in August 1986. NOVA has also trained a number of regional and local Community Crisis Response Teams around the country that can be accessed for experienced assistance and debriefings after critical incidents. Contact NOVA (202/232-6682) for more information concerning these specially-trained crisis response teams.

A small percentage of personnel exposed to workplace violence require more assistance than is provided by debriefings and peer or family support. Such posttrauma counseling is short-term -- generally three to five sessions -- and specifically focuses on the traumatic incident. Whatever you do, encourage some form of support group or counseling for survivors of workplace violence. It is a necessary part of recovery from a violent incident ((Barnett-Queen, 1991).

Crime victim assistance programs, victim counselors and mental health associations can be found in many communities. Check into the services in your area, and give workers the names of available resources. Make sure any counselor to whom referrals are made is trained and experienced in working with crime victims.

For the families of homicide victims, grief assistance programs offer support and counseling. Such programs may be private or publicly-funded, and operate out of mental health clinics, prosecutors' offices, or medical examiners' offices. There are also homicide survivor support groups that can be accessed in many communities.

Community services and resources are available for crime victims in many communities. Community victim advocacy services are especially vital to domestic violence and stalking victims. For instance, in a situation where domestic situations threaten violence in the workplace, you can advise the threatened employee to contact a local victim advocacy program for assistance in obtaining a restraining or protective order. Check into the services in your area and give workers the names of available resources.

One study of the effectiveness of posttraumatic services concludes that those receiving immediate assistance have had few incidences of permanent disability, were not likely to seek legal action against the company, and saved companies an average of about $37,000, as compared to companies in which employees did not receive timely help. There appear to be significant results in the non-financial area as well. Employees feel very positive about their employers and believe that the company is concerned about their well-being when efforts are made to respond to traumatic incidents in the workplace. This often translates into greater productivity and fewer absences (Barnett-Queen & Bergmann, 1990).

The reaction, support and assistance offered by management and those around them are very important to survivors of workplace violence. Secondary victimization occurs when employers, managers, employees or those engaged by an organization respond in one of the following ways (Barnett-Queen & Bergmann, 1994):

Disbelief and denial:

The incident's description or details provided by the victim(s) are not believed;

Discounting:

The magnitude of the incident and its results are poorly understood or minimized;

Blaming the victim:

Responsibility for the incident is attributed to the victim(s);

Stigmatization:

A judgement concerning the psychological consequences for a victim of a traumatic event, i.e., ridicule for experiencing symptoms or a belief that symptoms result from predisposing factors, malingering, for attention or sympathy, etc.; and

Denial of assistance:

Necessary services are denied because they are perceived as unwarranted, undeserved or unnecessary.

Employer Responsibilities and Legal Duties

Policies and procedures are required to effectively handle the problem of workplace violence. Current estimates are that over half of all victimizations sustained at work are not reported to police (Bachman, 1994). When no system is in place, many employees will not bring concerns or fears to management. Employers must create an atmosphere where workers are encouraged to report threats if they occur. Too often in the past, employers have ignored threats and violence has occurred, often with fatal results. Employers have a legal duty under the negligent retention doctrine to heed notice of threats and harassment that occur within the workplace and adequately respond to its employees' complaints and warnings about potentially dangerous employees (Kinney & Johnson, 1993).

A vital part of any workplace violence prevention plan, according to all experts, is the development of guidelines for workers to report either actual violent incidents or suspected trouble. The guidelines stipulate that supervisors should be employees' first contact. If the incident requires further action or investigation, the chain of involvement is usually human resources, the legal department and then security (Anfuso, 1994). If neither management nor security respond to an employee's report, the employee should also report any incident or threat of violence to the local law enforcement authorities.

Employers are required by law to provide adequate security. Many court actions have raised questions of negligent security practices as well as the removal of potential hazards (Baron, 1993). Administrative controls such as requiring that employees not work alone, and conflict resolution training are suggested. This is geared toward controlling violence from customers and clients, but can include disgruntled fellow employees -- especially when layoffs or terminations occur.

Make the workplace environment safe. Proper safeguards depend on your circumstances. Here are some possibilities:

• Provide adequate lighting for parking lots and entrances;
• Encourage workers to walk to the parking garage in groups;
• Trim hedges so attackers cannot hide behind them;
• Increase the number of staff on duty during high-risk hours, or change the schedule;
• If stairwells lock from the outside, post warning signs so that workers do not become trapped inside;
• Put locks on restrooms; and
• Make sure that work areas have accessible telephones on which people can easily dial emergency numbers (no need to dial a passcode).

When an employee is attacked or killed on the job, it is emotionally devastating, not only to the victim and their survivors, but to everyone in the workplace. It also can be expensive. Not only does such an incident cause lost work time and lowered productivity, but depending on an employer's actions before the violent act, it can result in civil settlements as well.

The workplace has a duty to provide reasonable protection for employees and invitees. Reasonable protection refers to premises security and management practices in the employment of persons. Reasonable security protection, however, is situational and dependant upon risk factors associated with foreseeability and notice. As risks increase, so does the duty of care; therefore, protection responses would naturally increase as the risks become known to the employer. It is recognized that total crime prevention is unattainable. The real objective is to displace, deter, or control criminal acts. A number of factors must be balanced to determine if there is a duty or obligation to protect employees or invitees from harm. In order to establish negligence upon a landowner or business, there must be: (1) a duty or standard of care recognized by law; (2) a breach of that duty or failure to provide adequate care; and (3) harm proximately caused by the duty to protect.(1)

Respondeat superior is one of the foundations of employment law that holds principals (employers) liable for the actions of their agents (employees). In other words, if the employer knows--or should know--of information indicating that a person is a risk for committing violence, the employer is responsible for any violent acts that person commits. An employer has a duty dictated by the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) to maintain the health, safety, and welfare of the workplace; if an employer knows, or should have known, of certain characteristics of an individual and hires the person or retains him or her in employment anyway, the employer is responsible for any harm the person causes.(2)

If a company has information that leads it to believe violence may occur, it must take action. If management had knowledge that an employee was being threatened with violence by other employees or third parties, then a duty may arise to protect or at least investigate the threats. Courts have held that notice could result from phone threats, restraining orders, and other forms of communication.(3) The 1990 case Tepel vs. Equitable Life Assurance Society, for example, concluded that the company was responsible for the death of two people and injuries of nine others because it had been told about threats the killer had made against his wife who was employed at the insurance company, but had not beefed up security.(4)

In order for an employee to recover for damages resulting from a violent act committed in the workplace, there must be evidence that the business failed to provide adequate security, or that the security was below standard. If risks cannot be proven (i.e., the presence of foreseeability or notice), then the only recovery available may be worker's compensation or state victim compensation programs.(5)

While most criminal acts committed in the workplace involve robbery as the primary motive, it is important to establish some type of protective response. Business managers must also assure that employees are properly trained, screened and supervised before assuming sensitive responsibilities. This is not to suggest that businesses become "armed camps" or that every potential employee must possess a "top secret" clearance; however, reasonable security practices are simply efforts by management to protect workers and invitees. The extent of these practices should naturally vary with the business, but should always involve recognized protection practices.(6)

Sexual Harassment in the Workplace

Both women and men can be victims of sexual harassment. The victim does not have to be of the opposite sex. The harasser can be a supervisor, someone acting for an employer, or a co-worker. Whether or not sexual harassment in the workplace has increased over the years, the number of employees who complain about it has grown swiftly. Statistics from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) show that the number of cases filed by mid-December 1994--14,400--was up from the 11,908 cases filed in 1993, which had almost doubled from the 6,100 cases filed in 1990.(7) 

Although it can be a precursor to acts of violence and other criminal actions, sexual harassment is not itself legally classified as a crime in most jurisdictions in the U.S.; therefore, it can only be addressed through a civil action. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972, prohibits sexual discrimination in employment. Section 1604.11(a) of the 29 Code of Federal Regulation provides that harassment on the basis of sex is a violation of Section 703 of Title VII. All employees and employers are required by Federal law to enforce Title VII and provide a working environment free from sexual harassment. The EEOC recognizes two types of sexual harassment:

• Unwelcome advances that threaten an employee's job or affect decisions made about him or her; and
• Advances that create a "hostile work environment" or interfere with job performance.

Courts have increasingly demonstrated a willingness to hold companies vicariously liable for sexual harassment acts committed by their supervisors and employees. The doctrines of negligent retention and hiring have been applied to sexual harassment in the workplace. A recent Illinois decision, Geise V. Phoenix Company of Chicago, determined that a company had a duty to select and retain managers who should not commit acts of sexual harassment. The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that "hostile work environment" sexual harassment exists where an employee is subjected to sexual harassment that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim's employment and create an abusive working environment. (Barbetta v. Chemlawn Services Corp., 669 F.Supp. 569 (1987)).(8)

Addressing sexual harassment with a serious commitment can prevent workplace violence from occurring. An employer's sexual harassment policy should describe conduct that constitutes harassment and include a forceful statement that sexual harassment is not tolerated by the company, as well as by state and Federal law. The employee's right to complain about sexual harassment without fear of retaliation should be explained in the policy, and a provision should be included to guarantee that an employee does not have to complain directly to the harasser. The policy should have a grievance procedure that the recipient of the harassment can follow and which encourages employees to report.(9)

The victim should make it clear that the sexually harassing conduct of a supervisor or co-worker is unwelcome. Use any company complaint procedure available. If you have been the victim of sexual harassment in the workplace, contact your local or state human relations commission or its equivalent. Contact the EEOC in Washington, D.C., if necessary. If you cannot access any of these agencies, contact your state Attorney General's Office for more information.

Red Flags for Employee Behavior

Management's most important line of defense in preventing workplace violence is to combine preventive human resource practices with close attention to the warning signs for the prediction of violent behavior. A plan should be in place with a management team trained on what to watch for and what procedures to follow.

According to John E. Douglas, Chief of the FBI's Investigative Support Unit, National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime, some of the potential employee behaviors that should place managers and co-workers on alert include:

• Having an obsession with weapons;
• Compulsive reading and collecting of gun magazines;
• Excessively discussing weapons;
• Making direct or veiled threats;
• Intimidating or instilling fear in others;
• Having an obsession with one's job;
• Showing little involvement with co-workers;
• Displaying unwanted romantic interest in a co-worker;
• Exhibiting paranoid behavior;
• Being unaccepting of criticism;
• Holding a grudge;
• Having recent family, financial, academic, social, legal, or other personal problems;
• Showing interest in recently publicized violent acts;
• Testing the limits of acceptable behavior; and
• Making extreme changes in behavior or stated beliefs.(10)

Red flags for stress in the workplace include layoffs, reductions in force, and labor disputes. Managers must be trained so that they can properly discuss these realities with employees.

Caution: This list is merely to help develop awareness and recognition of potential risk behaviors. There is no definitive checklist of behavioral indicators for a potential perpetrator of workplace violence.

In-service training regarding workplace safety is an integral part of creating a safe environment. Topics can include first aid and CPR training, safety awareness, and personal safety training, as well as training to recognize potentially violent situations in the workplace. Enhancing employee security is one way of letting employees know that management is concerned for their welfare. Administrative controls such as requiring that employees not work alone, and conflict resolution training are suggested. This is geared toward controlling violence from customers and clients, but can include disgruntled fellow employees--especially when layoffs or terminations occur.(11)

Management should assess the current level of security and related policy and procedures to make changes that will improve the security of the work environment, both from employees who have been identified as dangerous, as well as upset clients and robbers. Many security consultants are available who can help with an evaluation of a company's workplace. Your local police department or crime prevention council also may be able to help you develop a plan for responding to violence.

There should be a written plan for handling violence which includes details concerning what will happen before, during and after any incidents. Having a trauma plan in place ahead of time will help a company make it through a violent crisis. Management needs to make decisions about workplace violence on a case-by-case basis, but have written protocol and procedures in place to address all potential situations before they erupt into violence.

A threat management policy should:

• Identify ways to ensure employees feel they can report threats in a safe and secure way, such as establishing a hotline or written policy statements;
• Identify department (e.g., security or human resources) to which threats should be reported within the business;
• Define the scope of duties for threat management teams;
• Identify individuals who will be a part of the threat management team;
• Set criteria for convening the threat team and for referring incidents to law enforcement;
• Mandate primary and refresher training criteria for team members and for key supervisors and managers.(12)

The establishment of a nonharassment policy is a must. Most of those who have committed acts of violence in the workplace have been described by co-workers and supervisors as intimidators. New and current employees should be required to read and sign an acknowledgment of this policy. This procedure puts all employees on notice and makes administrative actions against violators much less difficult for management.

Employers that do a good job of preventing violence in the workplace tend to have effective grievance procedures, provide job counseling for those who have been fired or laid off, have good security programs and have strong policies against harassment.(13)

There is, of course, no easy answer to address incidents once they occur. Unfortunately, employers will have to manage critical incidents.

Under these circumstances, an employer should take the following steps:

1. Control and secure the workplace; contact law enforcement.
   • Account for all personnel, if it is safe to do so.
   • Ensure employee, customer, and public safety.
   • Evacuate all individuals from the work environment.
2. Provide law enforcement with as much information as possible that may be useful in the apprehension of alleged perpetrators and in securing the work environment.
3. Use caution in making statements to the press; such statements will play a major role in the company's public image.
4. Plan for post-trauma care for affected parties (employees, family members, etc.).
5. Conduct investigations and post-incident analysis to ensure that appropriate policies and procedures were followed.
6. Conduct debriefings of relevant personnel to ensure management credibility and control of the work environment.

There is an advantage in being prepared for the worst possible case. The advantage is that such preparation can minimize the damage from the crisis and facilitate a smoother transition to normalcy.(14)

References

Allen, Kathleen. (1992, June 8). Workplace violence increasing. Tucson, Inc., Section F, 1.

Anfuso, Dawn. (1994, October). Deflecting workplace violence. Personnel Journal, 73(10), 66-77.

Atkinson, Joan C. (1991). Worker reaction to client assault. Smith College Studies in Social Work, 62(1), 34-42.

Bachman, Ronet. (1994, July).Violence and theft in the workplace. Crime Data Brief: National Crime Victimization Survey. NCJ-148199. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Barnett-McQueen, Timothy. (1991, February 25). Include trauma training in your disaster planning. Safety Compliance Letter with OSHA Highlights, Number 1904. Waterford, CT: Bureau of Business Practice.

Barnett-McQueen, Timothy, & Bergmann, Lawrence H. (1990, July). Response to traumatic event crucial in preventing lasting consequences. Occupational Health & Safety, 53.

Barnett-McQueen, Timothy, & Bergmann, Lawrence H. (1993, September). After the incident . . . Intervention. EAP Association Exchange, 23(9), Cover feature.

Barnett-McQueen, Timothy, & Bergmann, Lawrence H. (1994). Secondary victimization in work-related trauma. Columbia, SC: Post Trauma Resources.

Baron, S. Anthony. (1993). Violence in the work-place: A prevention and management guide for businesses. Ventura, CA: Pathfinder Publishing.

Bureau of Labor Statistics. (1994, August). Violence in the workplace comes under closer scrutiny. Issues in Labor Statistics. Summary 94-10. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor.

Burgess, Ann W., Burgess, Allen G., & Douglas, John E. (1994). Examining violence in the work-place: A look at work-related fatalities. Journal of Psychosocial Nursing and Mental Health Services, 32(7), 11-18, 53.

Family Violence Prevention Fund. (1994, Fall/

Winter). Labor pains: Violence at home has effect on the workplace. News from the Homefront, 4.

Kinney, Joseph A., & Johnson, Dennis L. (1993). Breaking Point: The workplace violence epidemic and what to do about it. Chicago, IL: National Safe Workplace Institute.

Lawlor, Julia. (1993, October 18). Survey: Homicides at work on the rise. USA Today, Section A: 1.

Meadows, Robert J. (1990). Violence in the work-place: Establishing the nexus between security practices and premises liability. Journal of Security Administration, 13(1 & 2), 21. 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. (1993, August). Fatal injuries to workers in the United States, 1980-1989: A decade of surveillance — National profile. DHHS(NIOSH) Publication No. 93-108. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control. 

Nonprofit Risk Management Center. (1994, September). Workplace violence hits nonprofits. Community Risk Management & Insurance, 3(3),1.

Northwestern National Life Employee Benefits Division. (1993, October). Fear and violence in the workplace. Minneapolis, MN: Northwestern National Life Insurance Company.

Peterson, Karen, S. (1994, December 16-18). Full ‘disclosure.’ USA Today, Section A: 1-2.

Wheeler, Eugene D., & Baron, S. Anthony. (1993). Violence in our schools, hospitals and public places: A prevention and management guide. Ventura, CA: Pathfinder Publishing.

Windau, Janice, & Toscano, Guy. (1994, May). Workplace homicides in 1992. Fatal workplace injuries in 1992: A collection of data and analysis. Report 870. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.

For Additional Information, Please Contact:

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
4676 Columbia Parkway
Cincinnati, Ohio 45226
(800) 35-NIOSH

Office of Safety, Health and Working Conditions
Bureau of Labor Statistics
2 Massachusetts Avenue, NE, Room 3180
Washington, DC 20212-0001
(202) 606-6304
TDD: (202) 606-5897 American Society for Industrial Security
1655 North Fort Myer Drive, Suite 1200
Arlington, Virginia 22209
(703) 312-6313

Society of Human Resources Management
606 N. Washington Street
Alexandria, Virginia 22314
(703) 548-3440

Employee Assistance Professional Association
4601 N. Fairfax Drive
Arlington, Virginia 22203
(703) 522-6272

National Safe Workplace Institute
Courthouse Place
54 West Hubbard Street, Suite 403
Chicago, Illinois 60610
(312) 661-0690
(704) 289-6061

Gavin de Becker, Incorporated
Threat Assessment & Management Division
11684 Ventura Blvd., Suite 440
Studio City, California 91604
(818) 505-0177

Scripps Center Quality Management, Inc.
Crisis Management Services
S. Anthony Baron, Ph.D.
9747 Business Park Avenue
San Diego, California 92131
(619) 566-3472

Threat Assessment Group, Inc.
Park Dietz, M.D., Ph.D. - President
537 Newport Center Drive, #300
Newport Beach, California 92660
(714) 644-3537

Workplace Violence Research Institute
160 Newport Center Drive, Suite 210
Newport Beach, California 92660-6912
(714) 720-0854

Your State Attorney General's Office, and/or your local prosecutor, legislator, or state congressman.

All rights reserved.

Copyright © 1997 by the National Center for Victims of Crime.   This information may be freely distributed, provided that it is distributed free of charge, in its entirety and includes this copyright notice.