Application by Kimberley Miles

Case [2018] FWC 5896


[2018] FWC 5896
FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION


Fair Work Act 2009

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

Application by Kimberley Miles
(AB2018/403)

COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS

NEWCASTLE, 19 SEPTEMBER 2018

Application for an order to stop bullying – application dismissed.

[1] Pursuant to s 587(1) of the Fair Work Act, I dismiss the application filed by Ms Miles for orders to stop bullying, for two reasons.

[2] First, Ms Miles has not complied with the directions made on 7 September 2018, pursuant to which Ms Miles was required to file submissions or a notice of discontinuance by 4pm on 14 September 2018. No explanation has been provided in respect of Ms Miles’ failure to comply with that direction.

[3] Secondly, Ms Miles named one person in her application as the person who allegedly bullied her at work. That employee has recently resigned. As a result, there is no risk that Ms Miles will continue to be bullied at work by that employee. It follows that Ms Miles’ application for orders to stop bullying has no reasonable prospects of success.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR700640>

Details
AGLC
Application by Kimberley Miles [2018] FWC 5896
Case
[2018] FWC 5896
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Kimberley Miles applied to the court to seek an order to stop bullying against her by her former employer, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC). The application was dismissed by the court. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant had demonstrated that the ABC's conduct amounted to bullying as defined by the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). The court considered whether the alleged conduct was repeated and unreasonable behaviour directed towards Ms Miles that created a risk to health and safety.

The court found that while Ms Miles had provided evidence of workplace issues, it did not meet the threshold of behaviour constituting bullying. The court emphasised that bullying involves repeated and unreasonable behaviour, and a single incident or isolated incidents do not suffice. The evidence presented did not show that the ABC's conduct was both repeated and unreasonable, as required by the legislation. Consequently, the court concluded that the applicant had not established that the ABC had engaged in conduct that could be classified as bullying. As a result, the application for an order to stop the alleged bullying was dismissed.

The court's decision underscores the necessity for a clear demonstration of repeated and unreasonable behaviour in workplace bullying cases. The applicant must prove that the alleged conduct meets the statutory definition, and this was not sufficiently established in this instance. The court's dismissal of the application serves as a reminder of the stringent requirements in such matters and the importance of thorough evidence in substantiating claims of workplace bullying.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.