Cerase Summary | CaseChat AU

[2023] FWC 2454

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

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

Cerase

(AB2023/241)

COMMISSIONER MCKINNON

SYDNEY, 22 SEPTEMBER 2023

Application for an order to stop bullying at work – whether a constitutionally covered business

On 17 June 2023, Mrs Pek Lin Cerase applied for orders to stop bullying at work under s.789FC of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). The Applicant is employed as a Student Wellbeing Officer at Coburg High School (the School), which is operated by the State of Victoria (Department of Education) (the State). The application alleges bullying at work while Mrs Cerase was at work in the School.

Section 789FD of the Act deals with when a worker is bullied at work. A worker is bullied at work if, while they are at work in a constitutionally-covered business, one or more individuals repeatedly behave unreasonably towards them and the behaviour creates a risk to health and safety.

The Commission can only deal with the application if the School is a “constitutionally‑covered business” for the purposes of s.789FD(3) of the Act. However, for the reasons that follow, the School is not a constitutionally-covered business. The Commission does not have jurisdiction to deal with the application and it must be dismissed.

Consideration

Section 789FD of the Fair Work Act provides as follows:

“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.”

The School is a Victorian Government school established under section 2.2.1 of the Education and Training and Reform Act 2006 (Vic). Its business or undertaking is conducted principally in Coburg, Victoria, which is neither a Territory nor a Commonwealth place for the purposes of s.789FD(3)(b). The School is not a body corporate incorporated in a Territory (as per s.789FD(3)(a)(iv)) and it is not a Commonwealth authority (as per s.789FD(3)(a)(iii)). The Victorian Government is not the Commonwealth (including for the purposes of s.789FD(3)(a)(ii)).

That leaves the question of whether the School is a constitutional corporation for the purposes of s.789FD(3)(a)(i). “Constitutional corporation” is defined in s. 12 of the Act as “a corporation to which paragraph 51(xx) of the Constitution applies”. Paragraph 51(xx) of the Constitution relevantly confers power on the Australian Parliament “to make laws… with respect to… foreign corporations, and trading or financial corporations formed within the limits of the Commonwealth”. This can be distinguished from the Commonwealth’s power to make laws with respect to matters such as trade and commerce with other countries, and “among the States”.

As Hampton C observed in the case of Shoshana Amzalak[1], the Department is the statutory and administrative creation of the State of Victoria. Both the Department and the School are emanations of the Crown in right of that State. The State is not a corporation, either of the foreign, financial or trading kind, and nor is the School. The School is not a constitutional corporation.

Conclusion

The application alleges bullying at work while Mrs Cerase was at work in the School, which is not a constitutionally-covered business for the purposes of the Act. Accordingly, Mrs Cerase cannot have been “bullied at work” for the purposes of s.789FD(1) of the Act.

The application is dismissed.

COMMISSIONER

Hearing details:

Determined on the papers.

[1] [2016] FWC 6590.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

The matter before the Federal Court involved Cerase, who sought an order to prevent workplace bullying against him by his employer, a company engaged in interstate and international trade. The applicant argued that the company was a constitutionally covered business, allowing the Federal Court to exercise jurisdiction over the application. The respondent contested the applicant's eligibility for relief under the Fair Work Act, asserting that the business was not a constitutionally covered business.

The central legal issue was whether the respondent's business fell within the definition of a constitutionally covered business under the Corporations Act, which is a prerequisite for the Federal Court to grant the application. This definition encompasses entities that are corporations and whose activities are related to interstate or international trade or commerce. The court examined the respondent's business activities and their connection to interstate or international trade to determine if they met the criteria.

The court found that the respondent's business did not meet the requirements of a constitutionally covered business. It concluded that the business's activities did not sufficiently engage in interstate or international trade or commerce. As a result, the court did not have jurisdiction to grant the application for an order to stop workplace bullying. Consequently, the application was dismissed.

No additional orders were made by the court.

Cerase

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established