Daniella Sigur Summary

[2022] FWC 665

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

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

Daniella Sigur

(SO2022/31)

COMMISSIONER MCKINNON

SYDNEY, 25 MARCH 2022

Application for an FWC order to stop bullying – application for interim orders – application for interim orders dismissed.

On 24 January 2022, Ms Daniella Sigur applied for orders to stop bullying at work. On 4 March 2022, Ms Sigur made an urgent application for an interim order “to protect [her] so that her main bullying application [could] be heard”. On 7 March 2022, I heard the application for an interim order and dismissed the application.

This is an edited version of the decision made on transcript on 7 March 2022:

“I am not satisfied, on the current evidence, that Mr Savva has repeatedly behaved unreasonably toward Ms Sigur. I am also not satisfied of the risk that Ms Sigur will continue to be bullied at work by Mr Savva.
Behaviour is to conduct oneself and to act in a specified way. The issue here is the failure to act, in the past, in relation to an employee who is no longer employed by the business. The circumstances of that alleged failure are in dispute and the brief available evidence does not satisfy me, at this stage, that the conduct of Mr Savva was both repeated and unreasonable, in relation to Ms Sigur.

Ms Sigur seeks orders to prevent her termination of employment and to hold Mr Savva accountable, in some way, for his past alleged failures. It may be that at some point in the future those alleged failures are established but, at the current time, they are not.

While I accept that Ms Sigur is worried about the prospect of termination of employment, I am not satisfied on the evidence before me that such a finding of risk can be made. The evidence on that issue is that conversations are ongoing about a concern that Ms Sigur made some comments about her previous Managing Director, and the need for accountability for those comments. They do not rise to the level of the prospect of termination and there is nothing more before me to satisfy me that termination is an impending or likely result or consequence.

Even if it was, an order preventing the Respondent from terminating Ms Sigur’s employment would not be an order directed to the prevention of bullying by Mr Savva, in circumstances where the perceived threat of dismissal does not involve him but, rather, Ms Fabienne Lopez and the present or acting CEO, Mr Ryan Stevens.

I also take into account actions taken by the Respondent to address Ms Sigur's concerns in recent weeks, including updating policies and procedures and offering to provide for an alternative reporting channel for Ms Sigur for future complaints.

For those reasons, the application for interim orders is dismissed.”

COMMISSIONER

Appearances:

D Sigur on her own behalf.
A Denton of Counsel for the respondent.

Hearing details:

2022.
Sydney (by video):
March 7.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Fair Work Commission, Ms Daniella Sigur applied for orders to stop bullying at her workplace, as well as interim orders to protect her while her main application was being heard. Ms Sigur applied to the Commission on 24 January 2022 and made an urgent application for interim orders on 4 March 2022. The Commission dismissed the application for interim orders on 7 March 2022. The Commission was required to determine whether interim orders were appropriate in the circumstances and whether there was a risk that Ms Sigur would continue to be bullied by her former manager, Mr Savva.

The Commission found that there was insufficient evidence to establish that Mr Savva had repeatedly behaved unreasonably toward Ms Sigur. The Commission found that while Ms Sigur was concerned about the prospect of termination of her employment, there was no evidence to support the conclusion that termination was an impending or likely result or consequence. Furthermore, the evidence suggested that the perceived threat of dismissal did not involve Mr Savva, but rather, Ms Fabienne Lopez and the present or acting CEO, Mr Ryan Stevens. The Commission also noted the actions taken by the respondent to address Ms Sigur's concerns, including updating policies and procedures and offering to provide an alternative reporting channel for future complaints. For these reasons, the application for interim orders was dismissed.

The Commission dismissed the application for interim orders. The Commission found that there was insufficient evidence to establish that Mr Savva had repeatedly behaved unreasonably toward Ms Sigur. The Commission also found that there was no evidence to support the conclusion that termination was an impending or likely result or consequence of Ms Sigur's concerns. Finally, the Commission noted the actions taken by the respondent to address Ms Sigur's concerns, including updating policies and procedures and offering to provide an alternative reporting channel for future complaints.

No orders were made. The Commission dismissed the application for interim orders and made no orders.

Daniella Sigur

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established