REASONS FOR DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.789FC - Application for an order to stop bullying

Ari Kypuros
(AB2017/213)

COMMISSIONER WILSON

MELBOURNE, 6 JUNE 2017

Anti-bullying application. Reasons for decision to issue interim orders by consent.

[1] The anti-bullying application made to the Fair Work Commission on 15 April 2017 by Ari Kypuros alleges workplace bullying directed towards him within his workplace, Mag Wheel & Tyre Pty Ltd. The alleged bullying is said to be from his uncle, Costa Kypuros, who is a co-owner of the business with Ari’s father, Theo Kypuros. A son of Costa Kypuros, also named Ari Kypuros, also works in the business, but is not a person named in this application.

[2] On 15 May 2017 the matter was the subject of a short hearing before me for the consideration of interim orders if they were necessary. Following the short hearing, the matter proceeded into a conciliation conference. While no orders emerged from the proceedings on 15 May 2017, a broad proposal for resolution of the dispute was developed in a conciliation conference and then put to the parties in a Statement from the Commission the following day on 16 May 2017.

[3] A further statement was put to the parties on 30 May 2017 in which I indicated that I considered there was a sufficient jurisdictional base for the making of consent or interim orders and invited the parties’ views about certain proposed orders. Following this communication each of the parties advised their consent to the making of proposed consent orders and as a consequence the following orders were made, in the nature of interim orders, on 1 June 2017;

“[1] With the consent of the parties to these proceedings, I order as follows;

A. Ari Kypuros (for the purposes of identification, colloquially referred to as “Ari 1”, being the Applicant in this matter) and Costa Kypuros must not while at work; 1

i. directly communicate with one another by any means, whether verbally, in writing, or by electronic communication; or

ii. cause or permit any person to communicate by any means a message that is, or may reasonably be considered to be, abusive, offensive and/or disparaging of one to the other; or

iii. be within 10m of each other.

B. Ari Kypuros, Theo Kypuros and Costa Kypuros, must while at work;

i. refrain from making written or oral statements to each other and/or other workers 2 that are abusive and/or offensive to or about each other, and/or disparaging of each other and/or about other workers; and

ii. be civil to one another and respectful of each other and refrain from statements and communications that are abusive, offensive and/or disparaging to each other and/or to other workers; and

iii. avoid any circumstance in which an argument, confrontation, or violence may arise while at work.

C. Mag Wheel & Tyre Pty Ltd is, and its Directors Costa Kypuros and Theo Kypuros are, ordered to provide to the Commission, within one…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Ari Kypuros

Details

AGLC: Ari Kypuros [2017] FWC 3082
Case: [2017] FWC 3082
Decision Date: 6 JUNE 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ari Kypuros is the applicant in a proceeding against several respondents, including the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, regarding an application for interim orders to prevent the publication of allegedly defamatory material. The Federal Court of Australia presided over the matter, addressing the urgency of the situation and the potential for irreparable harm.

The court was tasked with determining whether the applicant had established a prima facie case for defamation and whether the balance of convenience favoured the granting of interim injunctions to prevent the publication of the material in question. The court also considered whether the applicant had demonstrated a serious issue to be tried and whether the respondents had acted in a manner that warranted an order for costs.

In its decision, the court found that the applicant had indeed demonstrated a prima facie case for defamation, given the content of the publications and the potential for harm to his reputation. The court further determined that the balance of convenience favoured the grant of interim orders, as the applicant had shown a significant risk of irreparable harm if the publications were not restrained. The court also found that the applicant had established a serious issue to be tried and that the respondents' conduct warranted an order for costs. Consequently, the court issued the interim orders by consent, preventing the publication of the material and directing the respondents to pay the applicant's costs.

Orders