Several Australian regulatory bodies have faced bullying accusations in the past three years.

A July 2013 report by the NSW Industrial Relations Commission found WorkCover New South Wales guilty of bullying a senior executive, Wayne Butler, out of his job.

Butler was subjected to an internal investigation by WorkCover over alleged misconduct.

The Commission found that the investigation’s practices were “deplorable” and “little more than a witch-hunt”. Butler was given severe penalties for minor infractions, such as emailing work to his home computer.

The case has prompted the NSW government to order an investigation into bullying at WorkCover.

Industrial Relations spokesperson and Greens MP David Shoebridge said, “it is completely unacceptable to have ongoing bullying in the Government body that is tasked with protecting employees from harassment in the workplace.”

According to Shoebridge, a Pricewaterhouse Coopers report uncovered that 40 percent of WorkCover NSW employees reported experiencing harassment and bullying in their workplace. 

Meanwhile in Victoria, a 2011 investigation by The Age revealed that many employees felt intimidated or harassed by their managers at WorkSafe.

WorkSafe Victoria was accused of fostering a toxic environment where bullying was tolerated, even as its inspectors investigated bullying claims elsewhere.

Staff expressed distrust of the complaints procedure, claiming key witnesses were never interviewed. Supporting these allegations, an employee survey suggested one in three WorkSafe staff believed that management did not care about their safety and wellbeing.

The allegations prompted an independent enquiry into the culture at WorkSafe Victoria.  While we understand the culture at WorkSafe has improved over the last one to two years, these issues raise concerns about the ability of regulators to understand workplace drivers of bullying, and approaches to prevent bullying.  

Can regulators accused of bullying effectively investigate bullying claims?

Some observers have cast doubt on the ability of organisations experiencing bullying to investigate bullying claims.

“WorkCover NSW handles more than 5,000 claims about bullying per year, but with the regulator accused of bullying within its own ranks, it is hard to see how workers could have confidence in its ability to handle their claims,” said Mr Shoebridge in regards to the Butler case.

Meanwhile, Community and Public Sector Union (CPSU) Victoria secretary Karen Batt suggested WorkSafe Victoria inspectors were not in a position to investigate claims.

"If they don't feel secure in their own workplace and their own position, then I think their ability to do their job is seriously undermined,” she said.

Then again, judging the regulatory body on the actions of individual bullies may be unfair. Many organisations struggle to address and eradicate bullying. Expecting regulatory bodies to be immune from bullying claims may not be realistic.

Ultimately, how well the body investigates external claims may be entirely independent of how well it deals with claims internally.

A doctor who smokes can still give effective, high quality treatment to lung cancer patients.

On other hand, that doctor may be setting a bad example for her patients and less likely to give advice on the dangers of smoking.

Bullying may impact on an inspector’s understanding of what is acceptable. They may dismiss claims as frivolous as measured against their own managers’ antics. They may assume certain behaviour is acceptable because they also experience it.

Employees who work in a fearful, unsupportive environment are less likely to be productive. They are likely to engage less with their work, be absent more often and aim to avoid conflict rather than achieve results.

Every organisation grapples with developing a respectful, tolerant workplace culture. Achieving this culture can be a challenge, particularly at an organisation under intense pressure to perform.

Ultimately, however, regulatory bodies are expected to be leaders in their field. “Do as I say, not as I do,” is not a sufficiently high quality standard to promote.