When a Union Withdraws: Institutional Mobbing and the Failure of Representation

“Raise your words, not your voice. It is rain that grows flowers, not thunder.” – Rumi

There is a form of workplace harm that does not rely on overt acts.

It occurs when protection is withdrawn.

When communication ceases.

When responsibility disperses.

And when a worker, already injured, is left without advocacy inside systems that require it.

This is not silence as absence.

It is institutional mobbing — a collective withdrawal of protection where a duty exists.

This post documents how that occurred in my case with the National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU).

⸻ 

Context: An Injured Worker Seeking Representation

As a professional staff member at the University experiencing a work-related psychological injury:

• I was not legally represented.
• I was navigating workers compensation, WHS obligations, and internal processes alone.
• I sought union assistance to understand my rights and to obtain protective support.

That request was explicit and documented.

In March 2021, I wrote to an NTEU branch official outlining ongoing harassment, fear, and the absence of support, and asked for contact and assistance. No protective intervention followed.

⸻

What the Union Knew

At the time support was requested, the NTEU:

• was actively circulating branch newsletters asserting members’ rights under enterprise agreements,

• demonstrated detailed knowledge of WHS obligations and safety processes,

• publicly addressed workload stress, wellbeing, gender inequality, and institutional risk,

• encouraged members to make contact where disputes or concerns arose.

These communications establish that:

• the union understood the relevant legal and industrial framework,

• the mechanisms for member support existed,

• and injured workers fell squarely within its representative remit.

⸻

What Did Not Occur

Despite notification, the following did not occur:

• no trauma-informed contact was initiated,

• no explanation of workers compensation rights was provided,

• no protective boundary was asserted with the employer,

• no WHS-based intervention was advanced,

• no referral to appropriate internal or external support occurred.

This was not a single missed email.

It was a sustained absence of representation during a period of foreseeable vulnerability.

⸻

Institutional Mobbing: How Harm Is Amplified

Mobbing does not require coordinated hostility.

It can arise when:

• multiple actors withdraw engagement,

• responsibility becomes diffuse,

• and the worker is left isolated within procedural systems.

In this case:

• the employer retained decision-making power,

• regulators deferred or redirected,

• and the union — the body structurally positioned to intervene — did not.

The cumulative effect was predictable:

heightened distress, increased isolation, and prolonged exposure to harm.

⸻

Gender Equality Statements vs Lived Outcomes

During this same period, the NTEU publicly raised concerns about gender inequality within the University, citing empirical data and structural disadvantage faced by women staff.

That advocacy existed on paper.

In practice, a woman professional staff member reporting harm and requesting support did not receive it.

This contrast is not rhetorical.

It is evidentiary.

⸻

This Is Not an Attack on Unionism

This account is not an argument against unions.

It is an argument for accountability within them.

Representative bodies exercise power through:

• information control,

• access to processes,

• and the capacity to intervene.

When that power is not exercised after notification, the absence itself becomes consequential.

⸻

Why This Record Matters

I am publishing this because internal mechanisms did not correct the failure.

I am documenting it because institutional mobbing thrives on invisibility.

And I am stating it plainly because injured workers deserve to understand that harm can arise not only from actions taken — but from protection withheld.

⸻

Statement of Record

This post is based on contemporaneous correspondence and union communications. It reflects my direct experience and the documented absence of representation at the relevant times.

(Documents 151 and 155). 

———

Further reading 

Namie, G. and Lutgen-Sandvik, P.E. (2010). ‘Active and passive accomplices: The communal character of workplace bullying.’ International Journal of Communication. v.4 pp. 343-373. Online: https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/589