Denise Greed v Hanes Australia Pty Ltd

[2024] FWC 2916

[2024] FWC 2916

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

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

Denise Greed
v

Hanes Australia Pty Ltd and another

(AB2024/736)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT COLMAN MELBOURNE, 21 OCTOBER 2024

Application for an order to stop bullying – application dismissed

1. This decision concerns an application made by Denise Greed under s 789FC of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) for an anti-bullying order against Hanes Australia Pty Ltd (Hanes). Ms Greed contended that she had been subjected to unreasonable management action in connection with a direction by Hanes that she engage in mediation of certain workplace disputes, following a recommendation by the Commission in a different matter that mediation take place.

1. Earlier today I dismissed the application for the following reasons. First, having reviewed the material and heard from the parties, I did not consider that Ms Greed had been subjected to any unreasonable conduct in connection with the proposed arrangements for mediation, or in relation to any other matter. Secondly, I was not satisfied that any conduct of the respondents had created a risk to the applicant’s health and safety. General statements that the applicant has experienced stress and anxiety are not sufficient to establish this essential causative element. Thirdly, there was no basis to apprehend that the applicant would be subjected to bullying in the future.

1. An antibullying order is only available if a worker has been subjected to repeated unreasonable behaviour that creates a risk to health and safety, and there is a risk that the worker will continue to be subjected to such behaviour (see ss 789FD(1) and 789FF(1)(b)). None of these elements were made out. In this case, the parties have disagreed about various dimensions of the proposed mediation, including certain conditions that Ms Greed wants Hanes to meet before she participates in mediation. But a workplace disagreement that has caused a person to be upset is not sufficient to ground an antibullying claim. Even if Ms Greed’s views on the disputed matters were the preferable ones (I make no finding to that effect), this would not mean that the views of Hanes were unreasonable. Matters such as this one should not be brought to the Commission. They should be resolved in the workplace.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Appearances:

A. Gronow for the applicant
A. Gleeson for the respondents

Determinative conference details:

2024
Melbourne (by telephone)
21 October

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR780433>