Application by Kerin Collins
[2025] FWC 1955
•12 AUGUST 2025
[2025] FWC 1955
The attached document replaces the document previously issued with the above code on 12 August 2025.
Minor typographical errors at [26], [42], and [44] amended.
Associate to Commissioner Schneider
Dated 20 August 2025.
| [2025] FWC 1955 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.789FC - Application for an order to stop bullying
Application by Kerin Collins
(AB2024/750)
| COMMISSIONER SCHNEIDER | PERTH, 12 AUGUST 2025 |
Application for an FWC order to stop bullying
On 2 October 2024, Miss Kerin Collins (Ms Collins or the Applicant) made an application to the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) under section 789FD of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act) for an order to stop bullying in the workplace. At the time of the application the Applicant was employed by Ventia Australia (the Employer).
Ms Collins submits that she was bullied by four fellow staff of the Employer: Mr Simon Jean (Manager), Mr Adam Blake (Marine Technician), Mr David Dicker-Lee (Leader), and Mr Godric Marillier (Technical Supervisor). These individuals will be referred to collectively as the Persons Named. The Employer and Persons Named all denied the allegations of workplace bullying by Ms Collins.
Background
Ms Collins commenced work with the Employer on 15 January 2024 as a Marine Technician.
Prior to the current matter, Ms Collins made two applications with the Commission in relation to the overall dispute. Specifically, Ms Collins lodged a stop bullying application,[1] which was discontinued and a general protections dispute application,[2] which was unresolved at the Commission level.
The Employer confirms that an internal investigation was completed following the allegations raised by Ms Collins. The Employer confirms that one allegation (in relation to harassment) had been substantiated, however, the allegations of bullying could not be substantiated.
The substantiated allegation of harassment concerned a comment made by Mr Blake, Ms Collins alleged Mr Blake stated, “we need to get Jasmin in here because we need another office ‘chick’ to tease”. Mr Blake stated he the following comment “we need to get Jasmin in here because we need another office ‘tick’ to tease”. Mr Blake received a warning after the investigation determined that his use of the term office tick had been an incident of harassment.
The Employer highlights that they view this application as vexatious, noting the previous applications filed by Ms Collins, and that it should be dismissed given the internal investigation conducted by the Employer did not conclude that Ms Collins had been bullied at work or was a risk of future bullying at the workplace.
Legislation
The Act’s provisions in relation to anti-bullying are contained within Part 6-4B—Workers bullied at work, with section 789FD of the Act setting out the circumstances of when a worker is bullied at work:
“789FD When is a worker bullied at work?
(1) A worker is bullied at work if:
(a) while the worker is at work in a constitutionally-covered business:
(i) an individual; or
(ii) a group of individuals;
repeatedly behaves unreasonably towards the worker, or a group of workers of which the worker is a member; and
(b) that behaviour creates a risk to health and safety.
(2) To avoid doubt, subsection (1) does not apply to reasonable management action carried out in a reasonable manner.
(3) If a person conducts a business or undertaking (within the meaning of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011) and either:
(a) the person is:
(i) a constitutional corporation; or
(ii) the Commonwealth; or
(iii) a Commonwealth authority; or
(iv) a body corporate incorporated in a Territory; or
(b) the business or undertaking is conducted principally in a Territory or Commonwealth place;
then the business or undertaking is a constitutionally-covered business.”
Section 789FF sets out the powers of the Commission to make orders in the event that it is satisfied there is bullying at work:
“789FF FWC may make orders to stop bullying
(1) If:
(a) a worker has made an application under section 789FC; and
(b) the FWC is satisfied that:
(i) the worker has been bullied at work by an individual or a group of individuals; and
(ii) there is a risk that the worker will continue to be bullied at work by the individual or group;
then the FWC may make any order it considers appropriate (other than an order requiring payment of a pecuniary amount) to prevent the worker from being bullied at work by the individual or group.
(2) In considering the terms of an order, the FWC must take into account:
(a) if the FWC is aware of any final or interim outcomes arising out of an investigation into the matter that is being, or has been, undertaken by another person or body—those outcomes; and
(b) if the FWC is aware of any procedure available to the worker to resolve grievances or disputes—that procedure; and
(c) if the FWC is aware of any final or interim outcomes arising out of any procedure available to the worker to resolve grievances or disputes—those outcomes; and
(d) any matters that the FWC considers relevant.”
Applicant Submissions
Ms Collins submits that she has been bullied by the four Persons Named in the application. For the sake of brevity, I am not going to repeat the details of all the documentation filed by Ms Collins in this matter. However, in support of her application, Ms Collins filed the following documents as evidence:
· Copies of diary entries made by Miss Collins in relation to observations she made about her interactions with the Person’s Named in the workplace.
· Copies of medical certificates and medical scripts.
· Copies of posters Ms Collins displayed at the workplace.
· Copies of email interactions and other documents in relation to the HR investigation conducted by the Employer.
· Copies of text messages between herself, Mr Jean and Mr Marillier.
· Copy of police report.
· Various other documents.
Ms Collins submits that during her employment the four Person’s Named individually and collectively acted or communicated with Ms Collins in a manner which she considered to be of a bullying nature. The conduct in question occurred primarily between late April 2024 and late August 2024.
Below are examples of the allegations raised by Ms Collins in relation to the conduct she alleged was bullying and harassment conducted by the Persons Named:
· Allegations that Mr Blake and Mr Dicker-Lee were disrespectful towards Ms Collins during morning pre-start meetings and would both belittle comments made by Ms Collins and were disrespectful towards her during the pre-start meetings.
· Mr Blake made inappropriate and disrespectful comments about female office staff.
· After she raised a formal complaint about the conduct of Mr Blake, he limited communication and did not make eye contact with Ms Collins.
· Ms Collins was isolated and excluded by the Persons Named following her initial concerns being raised.
· After she took a period of extended personal leave, Ms Collins was prevented from returning to site.
Employer Submissions
The Employer highlights that there are five elements Ms Collins must establish for an order under section 789FF of the Act. Ms Collins needs to show that:
· She was subjected to repeated instances of unreasonable behaviour by one, multiple or all of the Persons Named;
· The behaviour created a risk to her health and safety;
· She was subjected to the behaviour whilst at work;
· The behaviour was not reasonable management action carried out in a reasonable manner; and
· There is a risk that she will continue to be bullied at work by one, multiple or all of the Persons Named.
The Employer does not contest that the alleged conduct occurred at the workplace. However, it is the submission of the Employer that Ms Collins has not satisfied the other four requirements.
The Employer submits that the Persons Named did not engage in repeated unreasonable behaviour towards Ms Collins that created a risk to health and safety and, as a result, Ms Collins was not bullied at work by the Persons Named.
The Employer submits that, after the initial concerns were raised by Ms Collins (primarily in relation to comments made by Mr Blake), Mr Blake became more cautious of what he said and how he interacted around not only Ms Collins but the wider work group. The Employer submits that this is an entirely reasonable reaction from Mr Blake who decided to have less engagement on a social level and less banter at the workplace to ensure there are no further situations in which he might be at risk of further allegations.
The Employer submits that the conduct of Mr Jean (Site Manager) and Mr Dicker-Lee (Leader) was appropriate and reasonable management action in the circumstances and not bullying as alleged by Ms Collins.
The Employer submits that Ms Collins was not bullied at work. The Employer outlines that Ms Collins raised a workplace complaint as she was entitled to do, and the complaints were investigated with findings made. The outcome of the investigation was that only one of the allegations could be substantiated and appropriate disciplinary action was implemented in response to the substantiated claim.
The Employer submits that Ms Collins provided a medical certificate confirming she was unable to attend work between 22 August 2024 and 21 November 2024. The Employer submits that it was therefore a reasonable management direction that Ms Collins does not attend site during this period without prior authorisation.
The Employer submits that there is no risk of future bullying at work at the time of the hearing as Ms Collins was not attending work at the time of the hearing, nor was there any indication as to when or if Ms Collins would return to the workplace.
Evidence – Persons Named
The Persons Named all provided witness statements to the Commission and denied the allegations that they had bullied Ms Collins. Ms Collins was provided with the opportunity to cross examine the Persons Named under oath. However, Ms Collins only questioned Mr Blake.
Ms Collins questioned Mr Blake regarding whether he had made a comment along the lines of we need to get Jasmin in here because we need another office tick to tease, as he asserts, or instead said we need to get Jasmin in here because we need another office chick to tease, as Ms Collins asserts.
Having considered the testimony of Mr Blake, I do not consider his explanation to be credible. I find that, in all probability, Mr Blake did use to the term office chick as opposed to office tick as he claimed. There is no evidence that Mr Blake directed this comment at Ms Collins, rather it was a foolish comment to make in the workplace.
The Employer confirmed that Mr Blake had been given a warning for the use of the term office tick as the use of this term was an incident of harassment. This action by the Employer was a reasonable and proportionate response to the substantiated allegation, even though in my assessment Mr Blake had used the term office chick. The formal written warning was an appropriate disciplinary outcome for the comment made by Mr Blake.
Conduct of Mr Blake
Having reviewed the submissions and evidence of the parties, it is evident that there was a period in around April/May 2024 during which Mr Blake, when conducting pre-start morning meetings, could have been more professional in how he discussed workplace issues with Ms Collins. It is also evident that, once Ms Collins raised this with Mr Dicker-Lee, Mr Blake ceased making potentially questionable comments.
Mr Blake and Ms Collins both gave evidence regarding an incident where Mr Blake sought to return money to Ms Collins (for a dinner Ms Collins had purchased prior to the incidents subject of this application). I do not consider the conduct of Mr Blake seeking to return this money as workplace bullying or harassment. Mr Blake submits that he did try to apologize to Ms Collins, however noted that despite his apology he felt it best to minimise future contact with Ms Collins.
After the initial concerns were raised by Ms Collins, Mr Blake appeared to take more caution when communicating with Ms Collins. Ms Collins provided examples of diary notes in which she outlines that Mr Blake did not make eye contact with her in the lunchroom or would focus on his mobile phone instead of interacting with her. In Ms Collins’ diary entries (sent by email, to herself), she details these incidents. Some excerpts of these entries follow:
“Adam walked into Marine office and made no eye contact and did not acknowledge me. The first time we were alone, I had to initiate a good morning, he said morning but did not make eye contact.”
“Adam walked in and I waited, a few seconds and said good morning, Adam said morning, no eye contact. Adam behaves as if I don't exist.”
“Walked into crib room, made coffee sat down, only ones in room. No acknowledgement. Looked at his phone. I waited a minute, nothing. Initiated a conversation. Said 'how are you this morning, he said "alright, yourself?" With absolutely no eye contact. He won't even look at me. I said "good thank you".”
From Ms Collins’ diary entries, it could be concluded that Mr Blake does not initiate any communication with her but politely responds when Ms Collins initiates. Mr Blake does not deny that he avoids making eye contact with Ms Collins. Mr Blake states that he does so not out of disrespect but to minimize any misunderstanding or discomfort. I consider this explanation by Mr Blake to be reasonable and the response to be both understandable and appropriate in the circumstances of their working relationship.
I am not satisfied this conduct by Mr Blake can be defined as bullying. It is clear that, after having been subject to an investigation and disciplinary action, Mr Blake opted to reduce interaction with Ms Collins to assist in avoiding any possible future unpleasant interactions. This is a reasonable response in the circumstances. It is clear that Ms Collins was not satisfied with Mr Blake’s failure to actively interact with her. However, it is unclear if active interaction from Mr Blake would have remedied this dissatisfaction, noting a further diary entry of Ms Collins’ that reads as follows:
“I was walking out of the office to start work and Adam held his speaker out to me and said "speaker". I awkwardly said "Thank you" and took the speaker. The interaction is not inherently wrong, however it did seem unnecessary. David Dicker-Lee was in the office with us. I understand this may have been an attempt at an ice-breaker, however a simple good morning would have been more comfortable. My concern is that Adam hasn't made eye contact with me in months and that he will use the next six weeks to gain evidence of good behavior to strengthen his argument against my application and to heckle me with 'niceness'.”
I have no doubt these interactions were likely awkward, for both parties, but that is normal in the circumstances and does not strongly support the existence of bullying behaviour.
Ms Collins has made clear that she was not happy with Mr Blake’s new cautious approach. However, for the reasons provided above, I do not consider that it is bullying. This response from Mr Blake reflects the dynamics of the workplace relationship, having become strained, between himself and Ms Collins.
As I have highlighted previously in this decision, appropriate disciplinary action was taken in relation to Mr Blake’s improper workplace commentary.
Conduct of Mr Dicker-Lee
Mr Dicker-Lee confirms that he apologised to Ms Collins in early May 2024 for any comments he made which may have upset or offended her. Mr Dicker-Lee notes he had a discussion with Mr Blake and recommended he also apologize to Ms Collins.
Mr Dicker-Lee outlines that, in his position as Leading Hand, he attempted to try and manage the situation following the initial comments made in early May 2024. This included apologising to Ms Collins for any comments he may have made that were inappropriate and recommending to Mr Blake that he do the same. I accept that, after this event, Mr Dicker-Lee changed his approach towards the team, not just Ms Collins, and was more actively cautious in his choice of language.
From the evidence before the Commission, I am not satisfied that Mr Dicker-Lee engaged in any workplace bullying or harassment towards Ms Collins.
Conduct of Mr Jean and Mr Marillier
Ms Collins provided numerous screenshots of text message conversations that she had with Mr Jean and Mr Marillier. I have reviewed these exchanges, and I have determined that the conduct of Mr Jean and Mr Marillier is reasonable management action being undertaken in a reasonable manner.
Many of the text messages are from Mr Jean seeking Ms Collins to complete her timesheets or confirm if she is attending work. This is reasonable management action, and it was conducted in a reasonable manner.
The text message exchanges display that, when Ms Collins sought information to raise further with the human resources department, Mr Jean responded politely and promptly.
From the evidence and submissions before the Commission, I am not satisfied that either Mr Jean or Mr Marillier acted in a manner that could be considered as engaging in workplace bullying and harassment.
Consideration
I note that a portion of the material filed by Ms Collins is not directly relevant to the matters under consideration. This includes material in relation to her workers’ compensation claim and email exchanges related to enterprise agreement bargaining; this interaction did not involve any of the Persons Named.
Ms Collins is clearly dissatisfied with the investigation undertaken by the Employer and the resulting findings, resulting in only a single allegation being substantiated. However, on the evidence before the Commission, I do not believe that the investigation process by the Employer was flawed or that the outcome was not sound.
Having considered the material before the Commission, I conclude that Ms Collins has not been bullied in the workplace, that she is not at risk of future bullying at the workplace and, as a result, there is no scope for a stop bullying order to be made in accordance with the Act.
Some time after the hearing was concluded and my decision reserved, the Commission was made aware by Ms Collins that she was terminated by the Employer. As this occurred after the Hearing, and there was no reopening of the proceedings, this has not factored into the conclusion on the merits of the application. However, from this, it appears the working relationship has extinguished and, had this factored into the consideration, would only have bolstered the conclusion above.
Conclusion
Having determined that Ms Collins was not bullied and is not at risk of future bullying by the Person’s Named, the application is dismissed.
An Order is issued concurrently.[3]
COMMISSIONER
Appearances:
K Collins, Applicant.
J Parkinson of Kingston Reid for the Respondent.
[1] AB2024/339.
[2] C2024/6429.
[3] [PR790629].
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR789023>
0
0
0