Denise Greed v Hanes Australia Pty Ltd Summary

[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

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.

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.

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

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Denise Greed brought an application against Hanes Australia Pty Ltd under section 789FC of the Fair Work Act 2009 for an anti-bullying order, alleging she was subjected to unreasonable management action in relation to mediation. The Commission dismissed the application, concluding that Ms Greed had not been subjected to any unreasonable conduct in connection with the proposed mediation arrangements or any other matter. The Deputy President also found that there was no risk to Ms Greed’s health and safety, and there was no basis to apprehend future bullying.

The legal issues before the Court involved whether Ms Greed had been subjected to unreasonable conduct, if this conduct created a risk to her health and safety, and if there was a risk that she would continue to be subjected to such behaviour. Under sections 789FD(1) and 789FF(1)(b) of the Fair Work Act 2009, an anti-bullying 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. The Court examined the evidence and submissions from both parties to determine if these elements were met.

After reviewing the material and hearing from both parties, the Deputy President found that the application did not meet the statutory criteria for an anti-bullying order. The Court determined that Ms Greed had not been subjected to any unreasonable conduct in connection with the proposed mediation arrangements or any other matter. Additionally, the Court was not satisfied that any conduct of the respondents had created a risk to Ms Greed’s health and safety. General statements of stress and anxiety were not sufficient to establish this element. Furthermore, there was no basis to apprehend that Ms Greed would be subjected to bullying in the future. Consequently, the application was dismissed.

The Fair Work Commission dismissed the application for an anti-bullying order, finding that the applicant had not been subjected to unreasonable conduct, that there was no risk to her health and safety, and that there was no risk of future bullying. The Court emphasized that workplace disagreements causing upset were not sufficient to ground an anti-bullying claim and advised that such matters should be resolved in the workplace.

Denise Greed v Hanes Australia Pty Ltd

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established