Institutional‐level bullying: Exploring workplace bullying during union organizing drives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigated bullying behaviour within the context of trade union organizing drives. We conducted an archival search using the Ontario Labour Relations Board database, which yielded 146 cases over a 10‐year period. We found that the three core features of workplace bullying were present in 20 of these cases. Through a qualitative content analysis, we found a number of instances in which managers were reported to have repeatedly and persistently engaged in acts of bullying towards union organizers and supporters, intensified the hostility of these acts over time, and exploited their power through threats to job security and captive audience meetings. We also shed light on the role of observers of bullying behaviour and how observers may have distanced themselves from or concealed contact with the target. Practitioner points Managers in organizations may resort to bullying behaviour during the organizing drive, which can produce fear among employees and result in significant legal consequences. Bullying tends to start with subtle and indirect behaviours, but often escalates into more intense forms of bullying. Senior management should ensure that managers and other employees in the organization understand the potential repercussions of their bullying behaviours.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".