What Does Psychosocial Compliance Actually Look Like? 4 Real Examples

Victoria's new psychological health regulations take effect December 1, 2025. But what does compliance actually mean in practice?

You've read the regulations. You know about the hierarchy of controls. But how does "eliminate psychosocial hazards where reasonably practicable" translate when you're running a business with real deadlines, budgets, and operational constraints?

The gap between understanding the law and applying it is where most businesses struggle. They default to familiar approaches: send staff to resilience training, remind them about EAP, put up posters about respect. These might feel like action, but they don't meet the regulatory requirements and they don't protect your people.

This article shows you what compliance actually requires through four real workplace scenarios.

New to the regulations? Read our complete compliance guide first, then come back to see these principles in action.

The Pattern You Need to Understand

Before we dive into examples, here's what the regulations demand:

❌ Non-Compliance Looks Like:

• Expecting workers to adapt to harmful conditions
• Relying on training, policies, or EAP as your main approach
• Focusing on individual behavior instead of systemic causes
• No consultation with workers or health and safety representatives

✅ Compliance Looks Like:

• Eliminating hazards where possible, or reducing them through work redesign
• Using training and policies only as supplements, never as primary controls
• Addressing root causes in your systems, not just symptoms
• Meaningful consultation throughout the process

Now let's see this in practice.

Example 1: Accounting Firm During Tax Season

The Hazard: High Job Demands

Accountants routinely work 60-70 hour weeks during March-April. Staff are exhausted, making errors, and taking stress leave immediately after tax season ends.

❌ What Doesn't Work:

• Email about EAP and "we all get through this together" messaging
• Pizza for late-night workers
• Resilience training in February
• Bonus for staff who work the most hours (actually incentivizes harm!)

Why it fails: Doesn't reduce the actual hazard (excessive hours), relies entirely on workers adapting to harmful conditions.

✅ What Compliance Requires:

Eliminate/Reduce the Hazard:

• Hire temporary accountants for peak period
• Start client work earlier to spread load over 4 months instead of 2
• Decline or outsource lowest-margin clients
• Automate routine tax return components
• Set firm-wide maximum: 50 hours/week during peak season

Redesign Systems:

• Rotating schedules with rostered days off
• Mandatory 11-hour break between shifts
• Partners take on client work, not just supervision
• Redistribute work when anyone hits 45 hours

Monitor and Review:

• Track weekly hours for all staff
• Monthly check-ins during tax season
• Post-season debrief with health and safety representative

The Key Principle: You can't "train" someone out of 70-hour weeks. You have to actually reduce the hours by changing how work is designed and resourced.

Example 2: Construction Company Bullying

The Hazard: Workplace Aggression and Bullying

Apprentices report being yelled at, publicly humiliated, and threatened by senior workers and a site supervisor. Several have quit. One has lodged a psychological injury claim.

❌ What Doesn't Work:

• Poster about respectful behavior
• Email reminding staff to "be professional"
• Informal chat with supervisor to "ease up a bit"
• Moving the complainant to another site (punishes the reporter, not the bully)

Why it fails: Focuses on individual behavior without addressing systemic causes that enable bullying.

✅ What Compliance Requires:

Address Underlying Systemic Hazards:

• Audit project timelines: are unrealistic deadlines creating pressure?
• Review staffing: enough experienced workers to support apprentices?
• Assess supervisor workload: are they overwhelmed?
• Check if supervisors have leadership training or just technical skills

Redesign Work to Remove the Hazard:

• Implement realistic schedules with contingency time
• Assign dedicated mentors to apprentices (not the aggressive supervisor)
• Clear behavior standards in all contracts
• Remove bullying supervisor from duties until behavior changes

Change Systems:

• Leadership and communication training (after systemic issues fixed)
• "No yelling" policy enforced by senior leadership
• Time-out protocol when tensions run high
• Assess supervisors on team wellbeing, not just speed

Monitor:

• Anonymous surveys about respectful behavior
• Track turnover by supervisor (high turnover flags problems)
• Regular check-ins with apprentices

The Key Principle: You can't fix bullying by talking to the bully. You have to address time pressure, inadequate support, and poor leadership culture that enable aggressive behavior.

Example 3: Mental Health Service and Vicarious Trauma

The Hazard: Exposure to Traumatic Content and Client Aggression

Clinicians experience vicarious trauma, nightmares, emotional exhaustion. Two staff have taken extended leave for burnout.

❌ What Doesn't Work:

• Self-care and mindfulness workshops
• "This is part of the job" messaging
• Expecting 8-10 client appointments per day with no processing time
• Policy about "take breaks when needed" with no actual mechanism

Why it fails: Relies on individual resilience rather than redesigning inherently demanding work.

✅ What Compliance Requires:

Eliminate Where Possible:

• Lower-risk clients seen by less experienced staff
• Shared care models for complex trauma (two clinicians co-manage)
• Strategic assignment rather than random allocation
• Limit: no clinician sees more than one high-trauma case per day

Redesign Work:

• Maximum 6 appointments per day (not 8-10)
• Mandatory 20-minute gap after each session
• "No-client Friday afternoons" every second week
• Rotate high-intensity cases across team, don't pile on one person

Alter Environment:

• Panic alarms in consulting rooms
• No one works alone after 5pm
• Decompression room for staff between sessions
• Formal handover protocols for on-call staff

Robust Support:

• Weekly team debriefs (not just individual supervision)
• Critical incident debrief protocol after aggressive incidents
• Monthly manager check-ins specifically about psychological load

The Key Principle: Even inherently distressing work can be managed to reduce harm. Fewer appointments, strategic allocation, recovery time, and team support are primary controls. "Just practice self-care" isn't compliance.

Example 4: Education Provider During Restructure

The Hazard: Poor Organizational Change Management

Three different restructure proposals in 6 months. Staff don't know if jobs are secure. Communication is inconsistent. Workload increased as roles aren't backfilled. Staff report anxiety and loss of trust in leadership.

❌ What Doesn't Work:

• Email announcements with minimal explanation
• "We're all dealing with uncertainty, just do your best"
• No consultation with staff or health and safety representatives
• Changing plans repeatedly without explanation
• Expecting normal performance during upheaval

Why it fails: Doesn't identify poor change management as a psychosocial hazard requiring systematic control.

✅ What Compliance Requires:

Improve the Change Process:

• Commit to ONE plan and stick to it
• Clear timelines: "Decisions by [date], notification by [date], implementation by [date]"
• Transparent rationale: why is change needed? What criteria for decisions?
• Voluntary redundancy before forced redundancy where possible

Reduce Uncertainty:

• Share what you CAN share: "We need to reduce 5 roles. Here's the process we'll follow..."
• Weekly updates even if it's "no new decisions, timeline unchanged"
• Assign each affected person a contact for questions

Manage Workload:

• Review: what work can be paused during restructure?
• Redistribute redundant roles' work OR reduce output expectations
• Pause non-essential projects
• Don't expect business as usual during major change

Mandatory Consultation:

• Involve health and safety representatives in ALL stages
• Staff forums to raise concerns
• Actually incorporate feedback where possible

The Key Principle: Organizational change is a recognized hazard. You can't eliminate change, but you can dramatically reduce harm through transparency, consultation, realistic workload, and genuine support.

What This Means for Your Business

Notice the common threads?

Every compliant response:

1. Identified the real hazard (not just the symptom)
2. Tried to eliminate it or reduce it through work redesign
3. Consulted workers in developing solutions
4. Used training/policies as supplements only, not primary controls
5. Monitored whether controls were working

Every non-compliant response:

1. Expected workers to adapt to harmful conditions
2. Relied on training, resilience, or EAP as the main solution
3. Focused on individual behavior rather than systemic causes
4. Had no monitoring or review

Your Next Steps

This Week:

1. Identify which of these scenarios (or similar) exist in your workplace
2. Honestly assess: are you addressing hazards at the source or expecting workers to cope?
3. Download our free self-assessment checklist

This Month:

1. Complete comprehensive hazard identification across all 14 categories
2. Review your current controls against the hierarchy
3. Start consulting with workers and health and safety representatives
4. Develop a realistic compliance roadmap

Before December 1:

1. Secure leadership commitment and resources
2. Begin implementing controls that address root causes
3. Establish monitoring and review systems
4. Document your approach

Common Questions

"These solutions sound expensive. How do we afford this?"

Compare the cost to:

• Psychological injury claims
• Turnover and recruitment costs
• Reduced productivity from stressed workers
• Regulatory penalties

Often the "expensive" controls pay for themselves. And job redesign and schedule changes frequently cost little but deliver significant risk reduction.

"Our work is inherently stressful. Doesn't that exempt us?"

No. Even challenging work can be managed to minimize psychological harm. The question isn't whether work is stressful, it's whether you've done what's reasonably practicable to minimize psychosocial risks.

"How do we know if our solutions are good enough?"

Ask:

1. Have we genuinely tried to eliminate the hazard?
2. If not possible, have we reduced risk through work redesign?
3. Are solutions addressing the source, not just helping people cope?
4. Did we consult workers and HSRs?
5. Do we monitor effectiveness and review when needed?

If yes to all five, you're on track.

The Business Case Beyond Compliance

The accounting firm that redesigns workload: Retains talent, reduces errors, builds reputation, increases productivity.

The construction company that fixes systemic bullying: Reduces turnover costs, improves safety outcomes, attracts skilled workers.

The mental health service that redesigns clinical work: Retains experienced clinicians in a sector with chronic shortages, delivers better client outcomes.

The education provider that manages change well: Maintains productivity, retains knowledge, protects reputation, emerges with engaged workforce.

Good psychosocial risk management isn't just compliance. It's good business.

Get Expert Support

InCheq specializes in translating regulatory requirements into practical, industry-specific solutions.

We've helped Victorian businesses across professional services, construction, healthcare, education, manufacturing, and retail implement compliant psychosocial risk management that actually works.

Start Here:

• Free Self-Assessment Checklist - Identify your priority gaps in 15 minutes
• Complete Compliance Guide - Understand the 5 critical priorities
• Contact InCheq - Get industry-specific implementation support

December 1 is approaching. The businesses that start now will be ready. The ones that wait won't.

Related Articles:

• Victorian Psychological Health Regulations 2025: 5 Critical Priorities
• Understanding the Hierarchy of Controls for Mental Health
• Free Victorian Psychosocial Risk Self-Assessment

‍