The worker made an application for anti-bullying orders against the Australian Association of Social Workers (AASW). She contended she had been subjected to bullying by the association and two individuals.
Since becoming a director of the AASW in November 2021, the worker claimed she had experienced bullying and harassment online. This had occurred on Facebook as well as on professional networking websites.
The online bullying escalated in September 2022 when the AASW agreed to moderate an AASW Facebook page for the upcoming AASW elections for directors. The director claimed the page was moderated poorly and it became a vehicle for AASW members to bully directors by posting unreasonable negative comments that criticised directors and contained misinformation.
The AASW submitted that the FWC had no power to issue an anti-bullying order because the conduct the director complained about had not occurred “at work” and therefore did not meet the description of bullying in section 789FD(1). The association also denied that any of its conduct had been unreasonable or that it had posed any risk to the director’s health and safety.
Decision
Deputy President Alan Colman ruled that the application must be dismissed because the conduct did not occur “at work”.
“Although the modern workplace can extend beyond the physical to the virtual and online world, work-related online posts would only occur ‘at work’ if they had a rational connection with the work that the director was required or expected to perform,” the deputy president said.
“It was not part of the director’s role as a director of the AASW to involve herself in the online commentary on the AASW elections or to support or comment on particular candidates. The director’s involvement with the election’s Facebook page was not a work-related activity.”
Deputy President Colman said that even if it was concluded the relevant conduct occurred “at work”, it did not amount to bullying within the meaning of the Fair Work Act.
The FWC found none of the online posts submitted constituted bullying. The commission found it was not unreasonable for a person to raise questions or express a genuinely held belief about whether a director of the association had acted unethically by endorsing a candidate in the election.
The FWC was also not persuaded that the conduct created any risk to her health and safety.
“The [director] claimed that she believed her psychological and mental health was at risk from the online criticisms and from the conduct of the AASW, but she did not refer to any medical evidence, nor did she provide any details of the risk that the conduct had allegedly created,” Deputy President Colman said.
The commission held that the director was not bullied at work and was not satisfied there was a risk of bullying at work in the future. The application was dismissed.
Read the judgment
E.E. v Australian Association of Social Workers and others [2022] FWC 3019 (15 November 2022)
