By Gaby Grammeno Contributor

The ruling was the FWC’s response to a worker’s application for a stop-bullying order.

The worker was employed by a security company with branches across the country, initially as a payroll officer, then since 2020, Chief Financial Officer. She had an unblemished employment record, and her employer was happy with her performance, despite some small mistakes. 

When the company acquired another business in August 2023, it was joined by a new Group General Manager of Operations (Group GM). The worker felt that he was constantly questioning her capabilities, dominating discussions and making efforts to undermine her authority.

She found the tone of his emails and phone calls hostile and demanding, that he kept giving her demanding tasks with unachievable deadlines and made repeated attempts to restructure the business so as to remove her staff, duties and responsibilities.

His behaviour humiliated her in front of others and caused her severe anxiety, difficulty sleeping and deep distress about her job security and future with the business. She felt his treatment had her heading for severe depression.

The worker applied to the Fair Work Commission for a stop-bullying order against the Group GM and the NSW/ACT Manager, who later resigned and left the company, so the case against him was discontinued. She claimed that the Group GM’s unreasonable behaviour towards her caused a risk to her health and safety.

The FWC’s hearing of the case was postponed a number of times due to the employer’s failure to provide their submissions and evidence in time, and the Group GM’s claims that he was not well enough to attend the hearing.  

These claims were questioned by the FWC’s Deputy President Theresa Dobson, who warned him that his failure to attend despite being ordered to was a serious offence and would be raised with the FWC’s General Manager for referral to the federal police.

The case was ultimately heard despite his absence on 24 September 2024.

In the Commission

The worker alleged that she’d been subjected to relentless bullying and harassment by the Group GM since he joined the company.

She also claimed he’d treated other staff poorly, prompting them to feel they had no choice but to resign as a result of the conduct.

The owner of the company submitted that he relied on the Group GM’s relationships with the key clients and critical knowledge of the operations of the newly acquired part of the company, he was concerned lest the Group GM exit the business, and that he had tried to resolve the issues raised by the worker.

The owner argued that structural changes including outsourcing of payroll were intended to focus on critical areas for the company’s finances and not an effort to diminish the worker’s role.

However, he admitted that the Group GM had demanded the worker be sacked, and threatened that if she wasn’t he’d resign without notice.

Deputy President Dobson heard evidence that the Group GM went off on stress leave following an attempt to separate his responsibilities from those of the worker.

He failed to attend the hearing so could not be cross examined or contest the worker’s evidence. Her testimony was supported by the testimony of the employer, who showed frustration with his inability to resolve the situation.

Deputy President Dobson was satisfied that there had been multiple incidents of substantiated unreasonable behaviour and that the worker had been repeatedly bullied by the Group GM. She found that if he returned to work, there would be an ongoing risk to the worker’s health and safety, noting that the employer was obliged to provide a safe workplace and that it was vicariously liable for the actions of the bully.

She ordered the employer to put in place a comprehensive anti-bullying policy that describes the kind of conduct which constitutes bullying and the impact such behaviour can have on people, as well as the procedure for raising and responding to complaints in a timely manner, and the possible consequences of workplace bullying.

The employer was ordered to ensure the policy and procedure are consistent with contemporary practices by consulting a properly qualified employment lawyer or human resources expert, and to communicate this policy to its employees within 30 days.

The employer was also ordered to train all existing employees in this policy within 60 days and all new staff within 30 days of starting work with the company. The employer was also required to ensure all staff receive regular refresher training at least annually.

The Commission also ordered the Group GM to have no direct communication with the worker but direct all communications to the owner of the company. 

He was also ordered to behave in a civil and professional manner at all times towards the worker if he returned to work with her, and to refrain from disparaging her.

What it means for employers

Employers should ensure their anti-bullying policy and procedures are up to expected standards, that all staff are well aware of what type of behaviour is considered to amount to bullying, and that the amount of information and training staff receive is sufficient to ensure the policy and procedure are complied with.

Read the decision

Application by Kavita Sharma [2024] FWC 2634 (24 September 2024)