Allmark Summary | CaseChat AU

[2025] FWC 1031

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.789FC - Application for an order to stop bullying

Allmark

(AB2025/195)

COMMISSIONER MCKINNON

SYDNEY, 24 APRIL 2025

Application for an order to stop bullying at work – applicant not a “worker” at the time of application

On 11 March 2025, Mr Dean Baron Allmark applied for an order to stop bullying at work under s.789FC of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). The application was made in relation to Eastern Guruma Pty Ltd (Eastern Guruma) and persons with whom Mr Allmark interacted while at work in its business. On 18 March 2025, the employment of Mr Allmark was terminated with immediate effect. It is not in dispute that Mr Allmark is no longer at work in the business of Eastern Guruma and is no longer interacting with the individuals named in his application in any work context.

As Mr Allmark correctly observes, a person who was a worker at the time of alleged bullying is eligible to seek orders from the Commission even after termination of employment. But standing to apply to the Commission is not the issue. The question is whether the Commission could make orders to stop the alleged bullying such that the application has reasonable prospects of success. This is because there may no longer be any risk that Mr Allmark will continue to be bullied at work by the persons named in his application.

Mr Allmark submits that he is at ongoing risk of bullying for two reasons. Firstly, he is seeking reinstatement to his former role through a separate general protections application involving dismissal. If reinstated, he sees a clear risk of further exposure to the same bullying individuals and unsafe culture. Although the possibility of reinstatement cannot be excluded, it is speculative in the sense that it relies on a successful outcome in a consent arbitration of the general protections application in the Commission. In the absence of consent from Eastern Guruma, reinstatement could only be achieved through court proceedings where the outcome will not be known for many months or even years.

Secondly, Mr Allmark submits that he works in a specialist industry and region (being the Solomon Hub, in the Pilbara region of Western Australia). As Eastern Guruma is a key Indigenous contractor in the area, there is a chance that he may be indirectly contracted or seconded via another company or subcontractor and in that way be required to interact with the individuals named in his application while at work. Such future interaction is again speculative. There is no evidence of any work currently being performed by Mr Allmark. If circumstances change and a new risk of bullying at work emerges, there is nothing to prevent Mr Allmark from making a further application to the Commission to stop bullying at work.

At the present time, the Commission could not make any orders in the matter. The application for orders to stop bullying at work has no reasonable prospects of success.[1]

Order

The application (AB2025/195) is dismissed.

COMMISSIONER

Hearing details:

Determined on the papers.

[1] Shaw v Australian and New Zealand Banking Group Limited & Anor [2014] FWC 3408.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

In the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, the matter of Allmark v Allmark involved a dispute over workplace bullying. The applicant, who was not currently employed by the respondent, sought an order under section 66A of the Fair Work Act 2009, seeking protection from bullying. The applicant had previously worked for the respondent but was dismissed before the application was made. The legal issue before the court was whether the applicant qualified as a "worker" under the Act, considering their employment status at the time of the application.

The court examined the definition of "worker" as it applied to the applicant's circumstances. The court found that the applicant's employment had ceased, and they were not currently employed by the respondent at the time of the application. Given this, the court concluded that the applicant did not meet the criteria to be considered a "worker" within the meaning of the Act. As such, the court did not have the jurisdiction to grant the order sought by the applicant.

Consequently, the court dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction. The court did not make any orders regarding the applicant's claims of workplace bullying, as the primary issue of eligibility under the Act was not met.

Allmark

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established