Most organisations promote a clear and consistent message within their WHS Policy commitments, that workers have the right to stop work if they believe it is unsafe. This principle is well understood and readily applied when dealing with physical hazards, such as lifting excessive loads, working in extreme weather, or undertaking tasks without adequate training or competence.
But does this same principle extend to psychosocial hazards?
In practice, there are situations where the answer appears obvious. For example, when a worker is exposed to abusive, threatening, or violent behaviour from a customer or member of the public, stopping work would be widely supported and understood. These scenarios pass a common sense test and are generally accepted as legitimate grounds for ceasing work.
The challenge arises in the more subtle and less visible nature of psychosocial hazards. Unlike physical risks, these hazards are often personal, influenced by individual circumstances, and tend to develop cumulatively over time. A task that feels manageable to one worker may be overwhelming to another, particularly if they are experiencing pressures both within and outside the workplace.
This raises an important question – does your organisational culture genuinely support a worker saying, “Boss, I am not feeling up to that task today, I am not in the right headspace – can I be reassigned?”
Equally important is how such a request is perceived. In the absence of a visible hazard, there is a concern that the worker may be judged as lacking resilience, being unproductive, or avoiding work. These perceptions, whether real or implied, can discourage (other) workers from speaking up.
Many workers are understandably reluctant to stop work if they believe they will be required to justify their decision in detail, particularly to someone unfamiliar with their situation. For example, a field worker needing to explain their circumstances through a remote reporting channel may choose to continue working rather than raise a concern early.
The response from frontline supervisors is critical. Their immediate reaction sets the tone for what is acceptable within the organisation. A supportive and respectful response reinforces a culture where safety, including psychological safety, is prioritised. Conversely, a dismissive or sceptical response can quickly undermine broader leadership messaging and discourage future reporting.
Organisations should recognise that every interaction between managers, supervisors, and workers contributes to shaping culture. When a worker adjusts or stops work due to psychosocial factors, it presents an opportunity to reinforce that safety is the priority, rather than production or schedule.
Creating an environment where workers feel safe to speak up requires deliberate effort. This includes normalising conversations about psychosocial risk, removing unnecessary barriers to reporting, and ensuring that workers are not required to overly justify their decisions in moments of vulnerability.
Clear rules, procedures, and training are essential to support the stopping of work due to psychosocial factors. Workers must understand when and how to stop or adjust work, and supervisors must be equipped to respond consistently.
Ultimately, the principle of stopping work for safety must apply consistently across both physical and psychosocial hazards. Anything less risks sending a conflicting message about what safety truly means in practice.
Please contact us for more information.
