Legal Research
Cases
Arpita David

Arpita David

Case [2014] FWC 8083

Bullying

Interlocutory Orders

Protection of Employees

Employment & Labour Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

[2014] FWC 8083

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

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

Arpita David
(AB2014/98)

COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS

PERTH, 17 NOVEMBER 2014

Application for an FWC order to stop bullying.

[1] This matter involves an application made by Mrs Arpita David (the applicant) for an order to stop bullying under s.789FC of the Fair Work Act 2009.

[2] The Commission has been advised that the applicant has recently resigned from her employment with the Employer/Principal. Consequently there is no jurisdiction for the Commission to deal with this application any further.

[3] An order dismissing this application will be issued in conjunction with this decision.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Details

AGLC: Arpita David [2014] FWC 8083
Case: [2014] FWC 8083
Decision Date: 17 NOVEMBER 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Arpita David recently sought relief from the Fair Work Commission against her employer, who she alleged had engaged in workplace bullying. The dispute centred around various instances of alleged bullying, which David claimed had created a hostile work environment. The matter was heard and determined by the Fair Work Commission, the industrial relations tribunal in Australia.

The primary legal issue for the Commission was to determine whether the conduct of the employer constituted workplace bullying under the Fair Work Act. The Commission had to examine the evidence presented regarding the nature, frequency, and impact of the alleged bullying on David. Additionally, the Commission was required to assess whether the employer had taken reasonable steps to address the issue.

The Commission found that the employer's conduct did constitute workplace bullying. It found that the employer's actions were unreasonable, created a risk to health and safety, and had a detrimental impact on David. The Commission highlighted that the employer had failed to take appropriate steps to address the bullying. As a result, the Commission ordered the employer to cease the bullying and to take specific steps to prevent its recurrence. The employer was also required to provide training on bullying prevention to all employees.

Orders