Application by Kavita Sharma
[2024] FWC 2634
•24 SEPTEMBER 2024
| [2024] FWC 2634 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.789FC - Application for an order to stop bullying
Application by Kavita Sharma
(AB2024/420)
| DEPUTY PRESIDENT DOBSON | BRISBANE, 24 SEPTEMBER 2024 |
Application for an FWC order to stop bullying – bullying substantiated – orders granted – person named failed to appear pursuant to a notice to appear.
This decision is made in relation to an application for an order to stop bullying at work made by Mrs Kavita Sharma on 6 June 2024 against Mr Steve Moss, the Group General Manager Operations (Moss/Person Named) and Mr Peter Harris, the New South Wales and Australian Capital Territory Manager (Harris) at her employer Winfer Protection Pty Ltd T/A SAI Security (Employer/Respondent).[1] The Applicant’s case against Mr Harris was later discontinued owing to his resignation and departure from the Respondent.
The Applicant seeks orders against the Person Named who the Applicant alleges have engaged in unreasonable behaviour towards the Applicant that has caused a risk to her health and safety.
Legislation
Part 6-4B of the Act deals with applications for orders to stop bullying. s.789FC through to s.789FF have been considered however for brevity I will not repeat them here.
Background
The Applicant has worked for the employer since 2018, initially as a payroll officer and following a promotion in 2020, the Applicant currently holds the role of Chief Financial Officer. Her responsibilities include managing the Finance Department and reporting directly to the owner of the Company Mr Peter Dodeja. It was uncontested that she has an unblemished employment record, albeit that she had made some small mistakes, and her employer was happy with her performance.[2]
In July 2023, her employer acquired another company, Bluestar Security based in Melbourne. The acquisition was completed in August 2023 and the Employer absorbed all of the employees of Bluestar Security into its workforce. This included Mr Steve Moss and his associate Mr Harris.[3]
The Applicant alleges that since Mr Moss joined the company, she has been subjected to relentless bullying and harassment from him.[4] The matter was listed for a conference before me on 31 July 2024 however Mr Moss filed a work capacity statement, accompanied by a statement that it had not yet been lodged with WorkCover, and that he alleges he was too unwell to attend. Mr Harris had resigned so the Applicant discontinued the matter against Mr Harris. The conference proceeded and it was apparent we would not be able to resolve anything without Mr Moss’s presence.
On 31 July 2024, following the Conference, I issued directions for the filing of material and indicated to the parties that as it appeared Mr Moss remained employed with the Employer, he was required to comply with the directions. The Directions included a date and time for the Hearing of the matter, which was subsequently adjourned due to the failure of the Employer to provide their submissions and evidence in accordance with the directions.
On 10 September 2024, Mr Moss was advised of the amended hearing date. That same day, Mr Moss caused his treating psychologist to provide an email seeking he be excused from the Hearing. I instructed my Chambers to write back to Mr Moss and his treating psychologist that the correspondence did not satisfy the requirements for an adjournment and that the inevitable stress that accompanies litigation would be better ameliorated via prompt resolution of the matter. Mr Moss was provided with a further opportunity to provide to the Commission more specific medical evidence that would justify an adjournment of the matter and the added stress that the delay would add to the other parties in the matter. Mr Moss did not provide any further evidence.
On 16 September 2024, my Chambers wrote to all parties to provide the Digital Hearing Book and to provide further information about attending the Brisbane Fair Work Commission location. I also issued orders for Mr Moss to attend, in light of his previously refused adjournment request. At approximately 5:00am on 17 September 2024, the day of the Hearing, Mr Moss wrote to my Chambers, without copying all parties, that he would not be able to attend the hearing as he had “very little sleep due to anxiety throughout the night” and that he did “not feel mentally capable of driving a 7hr round trip to Brisbane”. He also indicated in this correspondence that when he was fit to return to work, that he would “not be returning to the toxic work environment of Winfer Protection.”
At 9:16am that same day, I instructed my chambers to write to all parties as follows:
“Chambers has received correspondence from the person named in this matter indicating that he will not attend the hearing.
Mr Moss, the Deputy President has issued orders for your attendance. Contravention of an Order of the Commission is a serious offence pursuant to s.677 of the Fair Work Act. If you fail to attend, it will be raised with the General Manager of the Commission to refer to the federal police.
The matter today will proceed as listed and may be determined and orders may be issued, in your absence.
You have stated that you will not be returning to Winfer Protection. Should you submit evidence of your unconditional resignation from the Employer Party, taking immediate effect, to Chambers before the proceedings commence this morning, the Deputy President will consider whether the matter should be dismissed on the basis there would be no risk of future bullying occurring in the workplace. To be clear, should you choose to unconditionally resign with immediate effect from the workplace you will need to provide evidence of this before the proceedings commence at 10:00am.”
Mr Moss responded to this correspondence and indicated that he would not attend the hearing and that he was on WorkCover from the “stress and anxiety from working at SAI (Winfer Protection) caused by Peter Dodeja & Kavita Sharma.” He further stated that until he was “mentally fit to return to work” he was “unable to resign due to being on workcover”. I note that it was in evidence that Mr Moss had sent numerous emails to the Applicant during the same period that he was on leave for “stress and anxiety”.[5]
I instructed my chambers to respond as follows:
“Dear Mr Moss
As previously explained, your failure to comply with the Deputy President’s Order to Appear is a serious matter. The Deputy President intends to refer this breach to the General Manager of the Fair Work Commission for referral to the Australian Federal Police. The Deputy President may note this in her decision.
Further, the matter will proceed in your absence and as previously foreshadowed, a decision will be made in our absence which may include orders.”
The hearing proceeded at 10:20am and Mr Moss did not attend. I subsequently referred the failure to comply with the Notice to Attend to the General Manager of the Fair Work Commission to be forwarded to the relevant authorities to determine if any breach of s.675 of the Act.
Applicant’s Case
The Applicant alleges that Mr Moss behaved unreasonably in the manner in which he dealt with her. She alleges a range of unreasonable conduct towards her that can be summarised as:
a)Constantly questioning her capabilities, dominating discussions and making efforts to undermine her authority;
b)The tone of emails and telephone calls to her were hostile and demanding causing a great deal of unwarranted stress;
c)Making repeated attempts to change the organisation structure of the business removing staff whom she managed, her duties and responsibilities;
d)Making repeated attempts to have her report to him rather than to Mr Dodeja;
e)Giving her demanding work with unachievable deadlines and making repeated unreasonable demands;[6] and
f)Treating other staff poorly who she alleges were constructively terminated by feeling they had no choice but to resign as a result of the conduct of Mr Moss.
The Applicant says that this consistent conduct has caused her severe anxiety, inability to sleep, deep distress about her job security and future with the business, humiliation in front of others, feeling under immense mental pressure and left her feeling deeply unhappy and heading towards developing severe depression. She sought the support of Mr Dodeja who she says has attempted to support the Applicant without success.
The Applicant provided documents that she says supports her case which are summarized as follows:
a)Copies of multiple emails from Mr Moss to the Applicant, which she states evinces bullying behaviour in the form of repeated attempts of Mr Moss advising her he was restructuring the company, removing staff from her control, removing her duties and removing her responsibilities by instructing her to perform debt collection work only (in circumstances where the company already had a full-time debt collection officer);
b)Letter of appreciation from the Director, stating she goes above and beyond in her work.
c)Screenshots of employee payslip records, for which the Applicant says Mr Moss had raised issues with the Applicant that they had not been sent.
d)Current and previous organisational charts which the Applicant says demonstrates Mr Moss unilaterally changing her reporting structure.
The Applicant filed an Outline of Argument, Statement of Evidence and a series of supporting documents, these are relevantly summarised as follows:
For the past 7 years, the Applicant says her reporting structure has been clear and concise, with her reporting directly to the Director, Mr Dodeja. Recently, the Applicant states there has been aggressive attempts to alter this in an effort to undermine her position and exert undue influence and control over her work.
Mr Moss, according to the Applicant, has been aggressively trying to change the reporting system so that the Applicant reports directly to him instead of her Employer, Mr Dodeja.
Whilst on stress leave, Mr Moss sent a series of emails to the Applicant on 11 July 2024 raising concerns with her attitude. This was in relation to a manager requesting their payslips which had already been on the regular payroll day. The Manager’s request was promptly actioned, and the payslip resent. Mr Moss responded in a manner which appeared to aim at provoking a reaction from the Applicant and exposed payroll material to other staff members who were copied in on the correspondence. These actions left the Applicant feeling intimidated, humiliated, distressed and undermined which has caused her stress and affected her ability to perform her duties effectively.
As per the FWC’s directive to inform the Commission should Mr Moss return to work, Mr Moss sent an email to staff asserting his ongoing employment status whilst, according to the Applicant, appearing to evade the upcoming Commission hearing. The Applicant states that this continues the pattern of harassment that the Applicant previously reported.
Without her consent, the Applicant’s personal phone number was shared with contractors, causing her considerable stress and raised serious concerns about the handling of personal information within the organisation.
The Employer’s Operations Coordinator, Ms Alex Hunt, has filed a F73 Employer Response form on behalf of the Employer unlawfully and without the consent of the Director as he is unaware of drafting such a response. She is neither the Employer/Principal and nor was she served with a copy of the F72 application directly. The Applicant states that this is an idea of the toxic team that she is dealing with.
This harassment has severely affected the Applicant’s mental health, she now suffers from anxiety, sleepless nights and constant and overwhelming worry about her job security and future with the company.
Mr Moss has continued to apply pressure with apparent intention to force the Applicant to resign, unilaterally made changes to the organisational chart and made the work environment uncomfortable. The Applicant has attached a series of email correspondence between Mr Moss and herself to support these submissions.
The Applicant submits that the ongoing bullying and harassment creates a substantial risk to her health and safety.
The Applicant has requested a formal investigation, letter of apology, clear policies and consequences, reinforced reporting structure, role and responsibility protection, disciplinary action, support and counselling, regular monitoring and check-ins, and training and awareness programs.[7]
Respondent/Employer Named Position
The Employer’s case is that there were no concerns with the Applicant fulfilling her role, however he had paid a lot of money to acquire the Bluestar Security and the Person Named had key relationships with the key clients of Bluestar Security and critical knowledge of its operations. He identified his concern that if the Person Named were to exit the business, he would lose the value in the business he had acquired.
Mr Dodeja submits that Mr Moss had resigned on Friday 8 March 2024 when he had tried to resolve these issues with him. Mr Dodeja convinced him to stay on with the assistance of the former owner of Bluestar Security. Essentially, he submits that he was in a very difficult position, and he has tried to resolve the issues both directly and with the assistance of the former owner of Bluestar Security.
In its initial F73 response form, the Employer states that due to structural changes, including outsourcing of payroll, the Applicant’s role was changed to focus on critical financial responsibilities such as managing cash flow and addressing outstanding debts. They submit that these changes were intended to focus on critical areas for the company’s finances and not an effort to diminish her role.[8]
With regards to the communication and reporting structure, when the Applicant raised her concerns with the Director, she was advised to communicate directly with Mr Moss regarding operational managers as this was the reporting line.[9] The Employer submits that as the Group General Manager, Mr Moss handles the day-to-day operations of the business and has implemented changes to improve and streamline these operations. Further, as a result of this, the Director has taken a step back to focus on strategic development and growth. The Employer stresses that it is essential for the effective functioning of the organisation that all team members work collaboratively and communicate openly, given they work remotely.[10]
In its second F73 response form, authored by Mr Dodeja, the Employer submits that when the Applicant first emailed him with her concerns, he asked her to raise her concerns directly with Mr Moss. He explained that he had given Mr Moss responsibility for operational management of the business at that time.[11]
In an email to Chambers on 5 September 2024, admitted as Mr Dodeja’s witness statement, he submits that after expressing dissatisfaction with the Applicant, Mr Moss informed him that if the Applicant was not dismissed from the Company, he would resign.[12] Mr Dodeja states that on 21 May 2024, Mr Moss once again reiterated his demand that the Applicant be dismissed, or he would resign from the Company without notice. He submits that this situation placed him in significant stress as he was torn between retaining a key employee and his commitment to the Applicant, who had been with the Company for over seven years and a vital part of the team.[13]
Mr Dodeja states that as a result of this, he felt he had no choice but the advice of Mr Harry Devanaris, the previous owner of Bluestar Security, who agreed to assist.[14] Mr Devenaris spoke to Mr Moss, and later advised Mr Dodeja that he had informed Mr Moss to focus on the operations side of the business and to leave the accounts department to the Applicant, an arrangement that had been in place when Mr Moss worked at Bluestar Security. However, Mr Dodeja states that shortly following this conversation, Mr Moss commenced stress leave and has not returned to work since. He has made efforts to contact Mr Moss but has not been successful in receiving a response.[15]
Mr Dodeja submits that he is now in a difficult position. He feels immense pressure due to this situation escalating beyond what he expected. Consequently, it was affecting his ability to lead the Company, and it was also impacting on his own mental health.[16]
Person Named Position
The Person Named (Mr Moss) submitted an initial response however he did not file a statement in these proceedings and nor did he attend the hearing so there was no evidence before the Commission of any probative value or at all. It should be noted that none of Mr Moss’s correspondence to the Commission was admitted into evidence as a consequence of Mr Moss’s failure to appear at the hearing. Mr Moss was unable to be cross examined in respect of this correspondence and on that basis little if any weight can be afforded to it.
In his initial F74 response form, Mr Moss made submissions that I will repeat here for completeness however noting my comments in the preceding paragraph about their weight. Further, these submissions were contested by the Applicant and the Respondent in their evidence and at hearing. Mr Moss states that due to the merger between the Employer and Bluestar Security, and the significant size of these companies, he was appointed as Group General Manager to oversee all departments, facilitate a smooth operation and handle the company’s day-to-day operations.[17] Consequently, the merger brought increased pressure on the finance department. Mr Moss alleges that the Applicant had expressed to him that managing payroll consumed a significant amount of time and detracted from her ability to address critical cash flow management and planning tasks. As a result of this, and after discussions with Mr Dodeja, he claims it was decided that the Applicant’s expertise was better utilised addressing cash flow and outstanding debts, which had amounted to several million dollars. Mr Moss submits that this was an effective solution, and the Applicant was then promoted to CFO, working directly with Mr Dodeja.
Mr Moss submits that due to the scale of the merger however, a new management structure was implemented and the Applicant struggled to accept the changes brought about by the merger and continually refused to follow instructions regarding reporting and her role. Further, he states that the Applicant has consistently distanced herself from the team, failed to respond to emails, ignored instructions and requests for information and, as a result, has led to repeated requests for information. Mr Moss submits the Applicant has interpreted this as harassment, rather than understanding the frustration of her colleagues.
Mr Moss submits the Company has made efforts to understand her reluctance to change and to work with her and does not believe this is indicative of relentless bullying and harassment, but an expectation that she fulfils her role and collaborate with colleagues effectively. He asserts there has been no attempt to undermine her role but a genuine concern about her ability to cope with the increased workload.[18] In fact, he submits, the Applicant would retain her title as CFO and the associated salary. Further, he submits that her responsibilities would be reduced to lighten her load and allow her to focus on critical issues. Mr Moss submits that he believed this restructure would benefit the Applicant but maintains that the organisational chart and the Applicants reporting relationships, would remain unchanged.
On 29 August 2024, Mr Moss sent email correspondence to Chambers outlining a response to each of the Applicant’s allegations of workplace bullying and harassment, these are relevantly summarised below:[19]
Any structural changes to the company and reporting lines, which the Applicant appears to have issues with, are always done in close consultation with the Director (Mr Dodeja) prior to implementation.
Mr Moss claims he was unaware that the Applicant’s personal mobile number was being utilised to deal with disgruntled staff, contractors’ payments or non-payment issues as there was no other Australian-based individual to address them.
Mr Moss is currently on approved stress-related WorkCover and still employed as the Group General Manager.
Mr Dodeja requested Ms Alex Hunt to complete the initial F73 response form and provided his signed final approval. After being requested to remove her from employment by Mr Dodeja, Mr Moss evaluated her and found that she had the necessary qualifications and was an integral part of the Company.
The 2024 Organisation chart was implemented for the substantial growth of the company.
All correspondence provided to the Applicant during the restructure was done in a professional, fair and compassionate way to assist her in transitioning to the new role. Mr Moss reiterated he has not disadvantaged the Applicant but made her work responsibilities lighter and offered ongoing support.
The Applicant was provided 3 weeks’ notice, in writing, of the changes to her position, this was not responded to. Due to this lack of response, Mr Moss organised an in-person meeting with the Applicant to discuss the restructure to which the Applicant did not respond to, nor attend.
Mr Moss sent follow-up correspondence to the Applicant regarding what would have been discussed at this meeting, no response or acknowledgement of receipt was received from the Applicant.[20]
Mr Moss submits that the Applicant has not provided any evidence of workplace bullying or harassment in her submissions and has only provided correspondence of her being unhappy with being performance managed, the restructure and his appointment to the role of Group General Manager. Having been in the industry for 27 years and previously owned a business for 11 years, he submits he understands the importance of bullying and harassment policies and has requested his senior managers to issue policies around this at least 3 to 4 times a year.[21]
Determinative Conference
At the conference, given the views expressed by the parties, I determined the matter should proceed as a determinative conference.
Evidence
The Applicant gave evidence at the hearing in support of her allegations. Her evidence was credible, she made concessions where appropriate, provided appropriate detail when asked and demonstrated a reasonably balanced assessment of the situation despite its impact on her. She was understandably frustrated by the situation and her lack of success (despite her many attempts) to resolve the situation. Further, the Applicant provided evidence from another employee, by virtue of a written resignation in which that employee complains of similar conduct directed at him by Mr Moss. It included allegations of an unreasonable construction that the employee’s position was no longer required to be performed by anyone, derogatory communications, a lack of consultation, being dismissive of concerns raised and placing upon him, burdensome responsibilities that were unachievable.[22]
The Applicant’s uncontested testimony was supported by the testimony of the Respondent at hearing who also demonstrated a level of frustration with his inability to resolve the situation himself. It was apparent however that the Respondent had been reluctant to take appropriate steps to investigate and deal with the issues presently before the Commission because he was concerned that Mr Moss would exit the organisation, and this would have a significant impact on the Respondent’s ability to retain key clients/key business that was gained through the acquisition of Bluestar Security. The Respondent had and has a vicarious liability for the actions of Mr Moss and a duty to provide a safe place of work for the Applicant. I accept the Respondent’s evidence that at first he gave Mr Moss some leeway to manage the business, but once he realised that Mr Moss was being unreasonable in his management of the Applicant including by reducing her duties in a manner that was illogical, attempting to “performance manage” the Applicant in circumstances where the Respondent contends he had no proper basis as there were no issues with the Applicant’s performance throughout her history with the Respondent[23] and the manner in which Mr Moss communicated with the Applicant, he realised he had a problem and sought the assistance of the seller of Bluestar Security to assist him to manage the Person Named and to mitigate the potential impact on the client base, confidential information and intellectual property that came with Bluestar Security to the Respondent’s business as a result of the acquisition.
In respect of the allegations about the restructuring of the business, adversely impacting on the duties of the Applicant, the Respondent gave evidence that the supported the Applicant’s position that Mr Moss sought to remove her duties and staff from her and narrowed her Chief Financial Officer role to instead only performing debt collection work.[24] Furthermore, it was the evidence of both the Applicant and the Respondent that this was despite there already being an employee engaged full time in the Applicant’s team, who was engaged to perform this function. On that basis the Applicant and Respondent gave corroborating evidence of the unreasonableness of Mr Moss’s attempts to change the Applicant’s role. This is further supported by the emails attached to the Applicant’s claim from Mr Moss to her, in which Mr Moss directs and then repeatedly presses these changes.[25]
Mr Moss (Person Named) Evidence
Mr Moss failed to attend and was unable to either have his evidence admitted nor was he able to provide any contest to the evidence put by the Applicant or the Respondent.
Consideration
Jurisdiction
It is uncontested that the Applicant is an employee of the Respondent employer.[26] Further it is uncontested that the allegations of conduct against Mr Moss and Respondent occurred at work in a constitutionally covered business[27] and Mr Moss is an individual.[28] As required by s.789 FF I am therefore satisfied that the Applicant is a worker as defined by s.7(1) of the Workplace Health and Safety Act 2011 (Qld) in a constitutionally covered business.
Behaves Unreasonably
It was uncontested at hearing, and I accept that Mr Moss unreasonably restructured the business, removing staff, duties and responsibilities from the Applicant in her role as Chief Financial Officer. I don’t accept that this was done to lighten the Applicant’s load particularly given that her duties were narrowed to work that was already being performed by a full-time employee.
Further, there is a lack of evidence demonstrating there were sound or defensible reasons for such a significant narrowing of the Applicant’s role. There is a vast difference between the duties of a Chief Financial Officer managing a team responsible for payroll, finance and administrative functions across the organisation and those of a Credit/Debt Collections Officer with no staff performing just one of the finance functions of a business. It is difficult to imagine a more unreasonable change to a senior manager’s role.
On that basis, I have concluded that a reasonable person would reach the same assessment that the Applicant has, that such conduct was unreasonable management action.[29]
The bullying conduct has been set out in the preceding paragraphs and I have made findings that I am satisfied that there are multiple incidents of substantiated unreasonable behaviour. As required by s.789 FF, I am therefore satisfied that the Applicant has been bullied at work by Mr Moss.
Repeated Behaviour
There are repeated emails and correspondence to the Applicant over a period of time repeating these directions, adding new and varied restrictions in respect of the alleged “restructure.”[30] The further correspondence pressing this issue over and over and adding different variations to the changes is consistent with the “repeated” element required to establish that bullying has or is occurring.[31] Disturbingly, the emails have continued whilst Mr Moss has been on “stress leave” and have often copied other senior managers.[32] There are other allegations made by the Applicant about Mr Moss’s conduct that were uncontested including incessant questioning of the Applicant’s capabilities, dominating discussions, undermining the Applicant’s authority, hostile and pressurising phone calls and emails,[33] however I find it unnecessary to go further given the conclusions I have already reached.
Behaviour Creates a risk to the Health and Safety of the Applicant
The Applicant gave uncontested evidence about the impact that the conduct of Mr Moss has had on her mental health. [34] The Applicant gave detailed evidence that the impacts have been harmful, deeply distressing, humiliating, intimidating and far reaching.[35] I accept this is the case.[36]
I am satisfied that repeated unreasonable behaviour has created an ongoing risk to the health and safety of the Applicant given:
(i)the substantiated unreasonable conduct;
(ii)the evidence in respect of the distress caused to the Applicants as a result of this conduct;
(iii)the evidence of the parties as set out in the preceding paragraphs;
(iv)the history of the matter before me;
(v)my view that the Respondent has failed to take action to stop the conduct;
(vi)given the history of the matter, it is my view that there is a risk that Mr Moss will return to work and/or even while he is off work, will continue the unreasonable behaviour towards the Applicant; and
(vii)it is my view that the Respondent has been unable to prevent this conduct from occurring.
Risk that the Applicant will Continue to be Bullied at Work
Mr Moss corresponded with Chambers about his failure to attend the hearing. In doing so he communicated that he did not intend to return to the employment of the Respondent. When asked if he had resigned from his position with the Respondent, Mr Moss responded that he had no intention to resign as he was presently on worker’s compensation. On the basis of this and Mr Moss’s ongoing employment with the Respondent there is an ongoing risk to the health and safety of the Applicant as there is nothing to prevent Mr Moss to return to his role with the Respondent. Further, as evidenced by Mr Moss relentless conduct towards the Applicant over many months, including whilst he has been on stress leave, I find it unlikely that if he were to return, such conduct would cease.
Orders
Being satisfied that repeated unreasonable conduct has occurred and that there is an ongoing risk to the health and safety of the Applicants as defined by s789FF, the Commission’s jurisdiction is enlivened, and consequently it is appropriate to make orders.
The Applicant gave evidence, supported by relevant correspondence, that she has made a complaint to the Respondent. The Respondent submitted that a policy is in place, however there was no evidence before me to support this assertion. I have not been made aware of any procedure available for the Applicant to otherwise seek any protection from this conduct nor have there been any steps by the Respondent taken to either investigate or act upon the complaint made.
The Applicant seeks a range of actions in the form of orders.[37] Some of those actions are no longer necessary given my findings.[38]
I find that it is appropriate however to make the following orders:
(a) The Respondent is required to:
a. put in place a comprehensive Anti-Bullying policy that includes an explanation of what kind of conduct constitutes bullying conduct, the impact of such conduct on those affected, how complaints can be raised, what process will be followed in a timely manner and what are the consequences of such conduct in the workplace. The Respondent should seek assistance from a properly qualified employment lawyer or human resources expert to ensure it is consistent with contemporary practices and communicate this policy to its employees within 30 days of these orders being made;
b. ensure that all existing employees receive training in this policy within 60 days of these orders being made;
c. ensure that a process is put in place to ensure all new staff receive such training within 30 days of their commencement; and
d. ensure that a process is put in place for all staff to receive regular refresher training at least annually but no less than biannually.
(b) In respect of Mr Moss,
a. he is not permitted to communicate with the Applicant and instead must direct all communications to Mr Dodeja;
b. if he returns to work with the Applicant, he is required to behave in a civil and professional manner at all times towards Applicant; and
c. he is not permitted to disparage the Applicant.
Orders will be issued separately.[39]
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
[1] Digital Court Book (DCB) pp.1-8.
[2] DCB p.11.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid p.46; See also email of 11 July 2024 DCB pp.66-67.
[6] Ibid pp.12-14.
[7] Ibid pp.42-84.
[8] First F73 Employer Response Form at Q15, DCB p.92.
[9] Ibid at Q10, DCB p.90.
[10] Ibid at Q15, DCB p.92.
[11] Second F73 Employer Response Form at Q10, DCB p.101.
[12] Witness Statement of Peter Dodeja, DCB p.107.
[13] Ibid p.107.
[14] Ibid, DCB p.111.
[15] Ibid p.107.
[16] Ibid.
[17] Initial F74 Response Form at Q9, DCB p.117.
[18] Ibid, DCB p.118.
[19] Ibid pp.122 – 124.
[20] Ibid.
[21] Ibid.
[22] Ibid pp.27-28.
[23] Ibid p.20.
[24] Ibid p.26.
[25] Ibid pp.21-22, 26, 35, 37-38.
[26] Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) ss.789FB-789FC.
[27] Ibid s.789FD(1)(a) and s.789FD(3).
[28] Ibid s.789FD(a)(i).
[29] Ibid s.789FD(a).
[30] DCB pp.21-22, 26, 35, 37-38.
[31] Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) ss.789FD(a).
[32] DCB p.46; See also email of 11 July 2024 DCB pp.66-67.
[33] Ibid p.45.
[34] Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) p.45.
[35] DCB p.45-46 and 48-49.
[36] Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) s.789FD(1)(b).
[37] DCB pp.50-52.
[38] Ibid pp.50-51.
[39] PR779564
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR779561>
0
0
0