For the last few years, McDonald’s in the United Kingdom has been embroiled in scandals involving the harassment and sexual harassment of staff by other staff members. As McDonald’s is an international company with similar operational systems of work, how would the Australian arm of the company react to a similar situation?
I am old enough to remember the work-related suicide of Brodie Panlock in 2006, meaning this year is the 20th anniversary. Her death, the findings of the Victorian Coroner and the prosecution by WorkSafe Victoria are pivotal to how workplace bullying and mental health at work are seen and managed today. But there is a generation of young workers who may be unaware of her case.
This series of articles trace that failure of prevention across three stages: the immediate OHS significance of the Café Vamp prosecution, the public and legal response through Brodie’s Law and national inquiries, and the continuing relevance of psychosocial hazard prevention under modern OHS duties.
The articles are based on the original SafetyAtWorkBlog articles from 2010 onwards. Today, here is a brief reminder of what Brodie Panlock experienced.
Please note that this article and those following discuss suicide and mental trauma.
Recently, Dr Kat Page wrote about the systems of work faced by emergency service workers that create unacceptable psychosocial hazards and mental harm. Her systems-based approach, best explained in her book “Good Work: Transform Your Work from the Inside Out“, remains surprising to many but is hopefully prompting people to think more deeply about work, particularly about why we work the way we do and the harm that persists in certain jobs and occupations.
This year, the International Labour Organisation (ILO) has released excellent information on psychosocial hazards at work to support the World Day for Safety and Health at Work. (Australian researchers seem to have been instrumental in the report) I read the report, looking for more upstream concerns, such as political and socioeconomic factors that lead employers to create or allow work overload, the most significant contributor to work-related stress. This is what I found.
Business management advisers keep calling everyone a “leader”, but the term has become so vague it obscures who actually holds the power — and therefore the accountability — to prevent work-related harm. Psychosocial hazards aren’t fixed by slogans or culture talk; they’re shaped by decisions about workload, staffing, supervision and resources.
This article is based on my presentation to the Central Safety Group members on May 12, 2026, about leadership and occupational health and safety (OHS).
In the mid‑1970s, I arrived at Dandenong High School still clinging to the small importance I’d felt as a primary‑school Prefect. That confidence evaporated the day a student yelled “bums to the wall” as Science Teacher and Year 7 Coordinator Tim Richardson walked past. I didn’t yet know what a paedophile was, but Richardson would not be prosecuted for sexual offences until 2018, dying in jail a year later.
This experience reflects a broader cultural pattern of denial that still shapes how organisations respond to psychosocial hazards today. Australian companies, executives and employers are grappling with “new” duties to prevent psychological harm, yet Richardson’s story shows just how long our institutions have excused what should never have been excused.
By now, SafetyAtWorkBlog readers are well aware that the ways to prevent psychosocial hazards and manage psychological harm and safety are well established. A brand-new global report from the International Labour Organisation in support of next week’s World Day for Safety and Health at Work provides excellent information on psychosocial hazards, but I wanted to know more. I wanted to know why these hazards exist and thought the ILO report may offer some answers or clues.
