Daniel Krcho

Daniel Krcho applied to the Fair Work Commission (FWC) for an order to stop workplace bullying. The Commission dismissed his application and subsequent appeal. Krcho sought a further interim order to stop the bullying. He also sought an order for the Commission member to recuse themselves, and orders for the anonymisation of his and his wife's names, restoration of an undertaking and confidentiality of medical and financial records. The Commission had previously ordered that no action be taken by the University to effect Krcho's dismissal until his stop bullying application was determined. Krcho had been directed to attend an Independent Medical Examination, but he refused to comply with this direction. The Commission had refused to vary its earlier decision and restore the undertaking. Krcho's application to anonymise his and his wife's names was also refused. The Commission also refused confidentiality orders relating to his medical records, but granted limited confidentiality orders relating to his financial circumstances. The Commission refused the recusal application. The Commission held that the principles for interim orders were not established, there were no reasonable prospects of success and the balance of convenience did not favour granting interim orders. The application for interim orders was refused, save for an order at [63].

Krcho argued that the Commission had made errors in law, fact and procedure in its earlier decision and appeal. He also argued that the Commission had failed to consider relevant material and had failed to properly apply the law. The Commission held that the arguments were based on the same issues that were considered and rejected in the earlier decision and appeal. The Commission held that the arguments were without merit. Krcho also argued that the direction to attend an Independent Medical Examination was unlawful and unreasonable. The Commission held that the direction was lawful and reasonable. Krcho's continued refusal to attend the Independent Medical Examination was a factor that weighed against granting interim orders. The Commission held that the application to vary the earlier decision and restore the undertaking was refused, the application to anonymise Krcho and his wife's names was refused, the confidentiality orders relating to medical records were refused and the recusal application was refused. The Commission held that the principles for interim orders were not established, there were no reasonable prospects of success and the balance of convenience did not favour granting interim orders. The application for interim orders was refused, save for an order at [63].