Within heavy industrial, trade, and apprentice-heavy environments, front-line supervisors have historically tolerated a culture of rough workplace pranks, hazing rituals, and aggressive teasing. These behaviours were routinely laughed off by middle management as harmless “high jinks,” team-building antics, or an unavoidable aspect of field culture.
However, a historic prosecution finalised in South Australia has permanently shattered this defence. In Marytn Campbell (SafeWork SA) v Jeffrey Mark Rowe, a site supervisor was personally convicted and heavily fined for reckless conduct in what marks Australia’s first successful Category 1 WHS prosecution for workplace bullying.
The Incident and the Failure to Intervene
The prosecution arose from a sequence of events in March 2017 where a group of workers, led and encouraged by senior site supervisors from Tad-Mar Electrical Pty Ltd, targeted a teenaged electrical apprentice. The harassment culminated in a highly dangerous on-site incident where the apprentice was physically restrained, subjected to volatile verbal abuse, squirted with flammable lighter fluid, and set alight.
The site supervisor, Jeffrey Mark Rowe, characterised the interaction as a joke that went slightly wrong, arguing there was zero intent to cause physical harm. However, the investigation revealed that Rowe not only failed to stop another supervisor from igniting the apprentice, but actively joined in the bullying by squirting more lighter fuel onto the victim’s shirt while it was burning.
The subsequent investigation by SafeWork SA bypassed standard civil industrial relations pathways to launch a criminal prosecution under Section 31 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2012 (SA). The state asserted that the supervisor, as an individual duty holder under Section 28, had intentionally and recklessly exposed a vulnerable worker to a risk of death or serious injury by orchestrating and permitting a culture of psychological and physical harassment.
The Legal Benchmark of Section 31 Recklessness
The true significance of this judgment is its criminal focus. The court flatly rejected the argument that an absence of intent to injure absolved the supervisor of liability. Under Category 1 provisions, the criminal offence is completed the moment a leader consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk to safety by allowing or participating in bullying behaviour to occur under their watch.
Rowe pleaded guilty to the Category 1 charge and was handed a $12,000 fine (reduced from $20,000 for an early guilty plea) plus court costs and a victims of crime levy. The court noted that supervisors have a positive, non-delegable obligation to maintain an environment free from psychosocial and physical intimidation. Treating a severe breach of psychological safety as a locker-room joke constitutes a criminal act.
| Compliance Vector | Historical Administrative Fallacy | Modern Criminal Reality |
|---|---|---|
| Behavioral Threshold | Managing operational bullying and harassment primarily via internal HR policies and passive verbal warnings. | Treating systematic workplace intimidation as a critical, high-risk safety hazard under criminal code parameters. |
| Supervisor Liability | Insulating leaders from personal prosecution if they did not physically strike or directly execute the injurious act. | Direct individual exposure to Section 31 Category 1 convictions and uninsurable personal criminal fines for supervisor omissions. |
| Cultural Defense | Characterising rough apprentice treatment, hazing, and team pranks as standard, harmless industry banter. | Judicially establishing supervisor participation or passive tolerance as absolute evidence of a criminal failure to maintain a safe workplace. |
Operational Leadership Takeaway
For safety executives and operational leaders across the country, this case study provides an essential tool to reshape front-line leadership alignment. It proves that psychological harassment and physical hazing are not secondary HR issues, they are core safety hazards. If a manager fails to step in, stamp out, and penalise bullying on the floor, they risk standing in the dock of a criminal court.
Source Material & Further Reading
- Primary Judgment: Martyn Campbell v Jeffrey Rowe (South Australian Employment Tribunal, Deputy President Magistrate Cole, May 2019).
- Statutory Reference: Work Health and Safety Act 2012 (SA), Section 31 (Reckless conduct, failure to comply with health and safety duty) and Section 28 (Duties of workers and supervisors).
- Regulatory Guidance: Safe Work Australia, Preventing and Responding to Workplace Bullying Code of Practice.
