Tagged: Bullying and harassment of volunteers, legal rights of volunteers, protection of volunteer mental health, volunteer retention, volunteers and the Law
Bruce Watson.
Bruce WatsonI have a strong interest in protecting the rights of volunteers after experiencing bullying and harassment as a volunteer myself. However, my experience in attempting to bring to light the persistent bullying and harassment by individuals and an incorporated organisation governance committee demonstrated a gap in law. That gap means volunteers can be bullied and harassed without effective recourse. For example, the organisation can simply cancel any current membership standing and also reject any application for future membership or any other voluntary position without giving a reason.
About one and a half years ago, as a volunteer, I experienced obnoxious and incompetent management and governance bullying from an incorporated, not-for profit organisation. There was no related disciplinary action against me, however, I accumulated a swathe of evidence of bullying and harassment tactics directed at me and decided to see how volunteers could be protected in such circumstances. Afterall, volunteers have rights even though they are not employees. The Volunteers Australia website details those rights and so does the Fair Work Australia Commission Fair Work Commission | Australia’s national workplace relations tribunal. There is also a National Strategy for Volunteering that has eleven Strategic Objectives as a guide to act independently and help achieve a vision to make volunteers the heart of Australian communities.
I regret that over the course of more than one year, I kept hitting blockages to have the bullying and harassment addressed effectively. I reluctantly left the
incorporated organisation mentioned above. In short, the management and governance individuals:
1. behaved secretly as though they could make decisions with impunity and without following due processes.
2. deliberately used stalling tactics to avoid addressing formal grievances I had submitted.
3. summarily formed an incorrect pre-judgement against me without involving me.
4. deliberately initiated harm to me by using intimidation, defamation, bullying and harassment, tactics without following due processes.
5. did not follow public policies, procedures, Constitution and the Incorporated Associations Reform Act 2012 Victoria for an Incorporated Association.
The formal processes I tried to address this situation included:
1. Submissions to the organisation committee of management (Incorporated Associations Reform Act 2012 Victoria)
2. State peak body of the organisation
3. National peak body of the organisation – who said it must be dealt with locally by the members.
4. Legal Aid that advised that it will not be involved in incorporated association law.
5. Consumer Affairs Victoria representative said it would not/could not engage on the matter despite my repeated attempts to draw attention to the bullying – “It is a matter for the membership”. The problem is that the membership did not know what was transpiring and there was no way for me to engage with them.
6. Dispute Settlement Victoria – the organisation reneged on the Dispute Settlement Agreement they made with me.
7. Justice Connect said it would not/could not engage on the matter despite my repeated attempts to draw attention to the bullying.
8. Fair Work Commission Australia – full bench Hearing and Appeal Hearing. The organisation simply cancelled my position to avoid the possibility of an application of a Stop Bullying Order.
8. Volunteering Australia (a non-statutory organisation) which has no individual representative authority.
I was largely unsuccessful with all of these formal processes. Some authorities gave scant attention to my dilemma using such flippant statements as “It is up to the association membership to address”, “Stop sending complaints”.
The lesson I learned is that despite the rhetoric concerning the rights and responsibilities of volunteers, in the end, volunteers are not really supported properly under law. In circumstances where a toxic leader instils a toxic culture and environment in an organisation, I found that there was no clear avenue for me to be protected lawfully.
I had sent my complaints linked directly to the organisation’s policies, procedures, Constitution and the Incorporated Associations Reform Act (Victoria) for an Incorporated Association. The other governance committee individuals became sycophants, and the leader easily manipulated them. So much so, my four years of membership and volunteering was simply cancelled, and they disallowed me from ever joining again.
Meanwhile my list of complaints and grievances aligned with the organisation policies, procedures, Constitution and the Incorporated Associations Reform Act 2012 Victoria had not been addressed.
I discovered that I was not the only victim of bullying and harassment at the incorporated, not-for-profit organisation. It appears that problematic Committee conduct can often run unchecked, supported by fear or poor, toxic, narcissistic leadership forming a cycle that eats away at the purpose and morale of the whole Organisation.
Supportive recourse under law is not available to individual Incorporated Association volunteers experiencing such issues such as Bullying and Harassment, favouritism, gossip and rumourmongering, poor communication and lack of accountability. A toxic president can run riot with impunity over formally established policies, procedures, Constitution and the Incorporated Associations Reform Act 2012 Victoria.
To suggest that it is a problem for the Incorporated Association members defies logic and appreciation of the manipulative ability of such presidents. In my experience, there is no way to enforce The Act in such circumstances.
To be told that civil legal action may be the response does not consider the likely individual volunteer costs involved while the organisation is eligible for legal support and assistance.
Volunteers Rights https://tinyurl.com/volunteerrights are aspirational at best because rights on paper mean little if no one is able to hear volunteers claim them with any certainty. Many volunteers are left feeling unheard, unseen, and worn down by a system that should be on their side, especially in view of the National Strategy for Volunteering https://volunteeringstrategy.org.au/the-strategy/.
It is notable that the OHS (Psychological Health) Regulations and Code https://tinyurl.com/psychcompliance are in effect from 1 December 2025. The Code was developed by WorkSafe Victoria (WorkSafe). Representatives of employers and employees were consulted during its preparation. It was made under the OHS Act and approved by The Hon. Ben Carroll MP, Minister for WorkSafe and the TAC. The Code does not apply to volunteers.
The system is swayed to the protection of an incorporated association no matter how badly it is being governed. Ultimately the members, volunteers and the community suffer. Volunteers just leave and share their experiences to dissuade prospective volunteers from being mistreated.
Bruce WatsonApproximately 15% of workers are exposed to bullying in their workplace. However, few studies appear to have been conducted
in nonprofit and voluntary organizations. This scoping review explored prevalence and structural and contextual factors that
influence bullying in nonprofit and voluntary organizations. From a capture of 671 papers, 54 were assessed for eligibility and
18 full-text articles were reviewed. Bullying is prevalent in nonprofit and voluntary organizations at the same or higher levels
as other sectors, with sexual harassment appearing to be a serious problem in the context of fundraising. A synthesis of papers
found a suite of factors presented in four themes; complex and unique power relations, the exploitation of virtuosity, the exercise
of hegemonic power, and asymmetrical power and extreme dependency, which together act to stabilize the presence of bullying
in nonprofit and voluntary organizations. Such dynamics need to be disrupted for intervention to occur. Further research is
needed on how volunteers “sense-make” in the face of dissonance between organizational mission and behavior, intervention
evaluation, and regulating philanthropic donation to reduce donor dependence
