Emily Craig

[2025] FWC 2365

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

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

Emily Craig

(AB2025/558)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT COLMAN

MELBOURNE, 13 AUGUST 2025

Anti-bullying application – application dismissed

Emily Craig has made an application under s 789FC of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) for an anti-bullying order against Mallee Family Care Ltd and a named individual (respondents). An antibullying order can only be made if a worker has been ‘bullied at work’ (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 bullied at work (ss 789FD(1) and 789FF(1)). I am not satisfied that the preconditions for making an order have been met.

First, having reviewed the material and heard from the parties, I am not satisfied that Ms Craig has been bullied, because I do not consider that she has been subjected to repeated unreasonable conduct while at work. The essence of this dispute is Ms Craig’s insistence that her employer allow her to engage in outside employment and permit her to continue her remote working arrangements. I do not find there to be anything unreasonable about the employer’s requirement for attendance at the workplace or its restriction on outside employment in Ms Craig’s case, nor do I find that the respondents have otherwise behaved unreasonably. Ms Craig said that she was treated differently from other employees in the same circumstances, but I am not satisfied that the circumstances are the same, or that any differential treatment entailed the ‘singling out’ of Ms Craig.

Secondly, I am not satisfied that the respondents’ conduct created a risk to Ms Craig’s health and safety. Ms Craig said that the respondents had caused her significant distress and had adversely affected her psychological health. She produced a doctor’s certificate stating that her symptoms included anxiety and emotional distress which the doctor considered to be consistent with an experience of bullying. But this does not establish causation. Ms Craig is very upset that her employer has refused the working arrangements she wants. But that does not equate to a health and safety risk. The preconditions for the making of an anti-bullying order are not met and the Commission therefore has no power to make an order.

In any event I consider the case to be without merit. The employer’s requirements of Ms Craig were not unreasonable, but even if they had been, they did not amount to bullying. This matter is simply a dispute about working arrangements. It is not about the mistreatment of a worker. An anti-bullying claim should entail an element that is intrinsically of a bullying nature, such as those identified by Hatcher VP in Mac [2015] FWC 774 at [99]. This case has no such element. Finally, had the power to issue an order been enlivened, I would not have exercised my discretion to issue the orders sought by Ms Craig in her application because they are too general and lacking in practical utility, and because the substance of this matter does not warrant the intervention of the Commission pursuant its anti-bullying powers.

For the above reasons, the application is dismissed.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Appearances:

E. Craig for herself
M. Fullgrabe for the respondents

Hearing details:

2025
Melbourne (by telephone)
13 August

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Emily Craig applied to the Fair Work Commission for an anti-bullying order against Mallee Family Care Ltd and a named individual. Ms Craig alleged that she had been subjected to bullying at work by her employer, which had caused her significant distress and adversely affected her psychological health. The Commission considered whether the application met the statutory requirements for an anti-bullying order under the Fair Work Act 2009.

The Commission first considered whether Ms Craig had been subjected to repeated unreasonable behaviour that created a risk to her health and safety. The Commission found that Ms Craig's dispute with her employer was not about bullying, but rather a disagreement over working arrangements. The Commission found that the employer's requirements for attendance at the workplace and its restriction on outside employment were not unreasonable, and that there was no evidence of bullying. The Commission also found that Ms Craig's distress and anxiety were not caused by the employer's conduct, but rather by her dissatisfaction with her working arrangements.

The Commission also considered whether there was a risk that Ms Craig would continue to be bullied at work. The Commission found that there was no such risk, and that the application was therefore without merit. The Commission further found that even if the employer's conduct had amounted to bullying, it did not warrant the intervention of the Commission pursuant to its anti-bullying powers. The Commission also found that the orders sought by Ms Craig were too general and lacking in practical utility.

The Commission dismissed the application, finding that the preconditions for making an anti-bullying order had not been met. The Commission noted that an anti-bullying claim should entail an element that is intrinsically of a bullying nature, and that this case had no such element. The Commission found that the case was simply a dispute about working arrangements, and not about the mistreatment of a worker. The Commission concluded that the application was without merit and should be dismissed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established