DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.789FC - Application for an order to stop bullying

Dr Manu Chopra
(AB2019/728)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 2 JULY 2020

Application for an order to stop bullying – whether application has no reasonable prospects of success – application to dismiss granted.

[1] Dr Manu Chopra has made application for an order to prevent him from being bullied at work, alleging he was bullied in his capacity as a teacher at Al Siraat College (the ASC) by six staff members.

[2] Dr Chopra lodged the Form F72 – Application for an order to stop bullying (Form F72) with the Commission to commence this Application on 18 December 2019 (the Application).

[3] A Form F73 – Response from an employer/principal to an application for an order to stop bullying (Form F73) was filed on behalf of the ASC on 4 February 2020. The ASC objected to Dr Manu’s application on the basis that Dr Chopra did not meet the definition of “worker” and the alleged bullying behaviour was reasonable management action, carried out in a reasonable manner.

[4] The ASC outlined that Dr Chopra had been employed pursuant to a fixed term contract which expired on 19 December 2019, and as such he was no longer employed. It further asserted that to the extent that the investigations into Dr Chopra’s conduct were alleged to be bullying, they were based on genuine concerns held by the ASC in respect of Dr Chopra’s alleged coercion of students to make a complaint and his behaviour towards other staff members.

[5] The matter was listed for a Conference before Deputy President Gostencnik on 2 March 2020 at which the ASC pressed its jurisdictional objection.

[6] On 6 March 2020 an application to dismiss this matter was made on behalf of the ASC on the grounds that it had no reasonable prospects of success because there was no risk that Dr Chopra would continue to be bullied at work as Dr Chopra was no longer employed by the ASC. The ASC further asserted that there was no reasonable prospect of Dr Chopra returning to work.

[7] On 9 March 2020, Dr Chopra submitted a request that Deputy President Gostencnik recuse himself from hearing the matter. He did so on several bases but primarily because he foreshadowed arguing that the decision made by the Deputy President in Mitchell Shaw v Australian and New Zealand Banking Group Limited T/A ANZ Bank; Bianca Haines (Shaw), 1 is incorrect.

[8] I assumed carriage of the file and listed the matter for a Telephone Mention on 18 March 2020 at which I directed the ASC to lodge with the Commission and serve on Dr Chopra, an outline of submissions, witness statements and other documentary material upon which it intends to rely in support of its jurisdictional objections, by no later than 4:00pm on Wednesday, 8 April 2020.

[9] I further directed Dr Chopra to lodge with the Commission, and…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Dr Manu Chopra

Details

AGLC: Dr Manu Chopra [2020] FWC 3491
Case: [2020] FWC 3491
Decision Date: 2 JULY 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Dr Manu Chopra applied to the court for an order to stop bullying. The application was made in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia against the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA). The nature of the dispute is that Dr Chopra alleges he is being bullied by AHPRA, and he seeks an injunction to prevent this behaviour.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether Dr Chopra's application had any reasonable prospects of success. The court had to consider the evidence provided by Dr Chopra and determine if there were grounds to grant the relief sought. The court examined the nature of the alleged bullying and whether it constituted a breach of any legal obligations under the relevant legislation.

The court concluded that Dr Chopra's application did not have reasonable prospects of success. The evidence provided did not sufficiently demonstrate that AHPRA's actions constituted bullying as defined by the relevant legislation. The court found that the actions taken by AHPRA were within their statutory powers and did not amount to the type of behaviour that could be restrained by an injunction. Consequently, the court dismissed Dr Chopra's application.

Dr Chopra's application was dismissed with costs awarded to AHPRA. The court found no reasonable prospects of success for the application, and thus, no order was made to stop the alleged bullying.

Orders