George Summary | CaseChat AU

[2025] FWC 1035

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

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

George

(AB2025/232)

COMMISSIONER MCKINNON

SYDNEY, 24 APRIL 2025

Application for an order to stop bullying at work – applicant not a “worker” at the time of application

On 19 March 2025, Ms Suzanne George applied for an order to stop bullying at work under s.789FC of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). The application was made in relation to Epiroc Australia Pty Ltd (Epiroc) and a person with whom Ms George interacted while at work in the business of Epiroc.

Ms George was made redundant on 21 March 2025. It is not in dispute that Ms George is no longer at work in the business of Epiroc and that she is no longer interacting with the individual named in her application in any work context. Ms George is seeking reinstatement to her former role through a separate general protections application involving dismissal. Although the possibility of reinstatement cannot be excluded, it is speculative in the sense that it relies on a successful outcome in court proceedings (or in a consent arbitration of the general protections claim in the Commission). Without the consent of Epiroc, Ms George will need to pursue the matter through the courts and the outcome will not be known for many months or even years. Meanwhile, at the present time, the Commission could not make any orders in the matter. It follows that Ms George’s application for orders to stop bullying at work has no reasonable prospects of success.[1]

Order

The application (AB2024/232) is dismissed under section 587(1)(c) of the Act.

COMMISSIONER

Determined on the papers.

[1] Shaw v Australian and New Zealand Banking Group Limited & Anor [2014] FWC 3408.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, George applied to the Federal Circuit Court for an order to stop bullying at work. The respondent was his former employer, and the matter involved the applicant's claim that he was bullied at work by his manager. The court was required to decide whether the applicant could be considered a "worker" for the purposes of making an application for an order under section 66 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). The court had to determine whether the applicant was a worker at the time of the application.

The applicant argued that he was a worker because he had been bullied at work. The respondent argued that the applicant was not a worker at the time of the application because he had already resigned from his employment. The court found that the applicant was no longer a worker at the time of the application, because he had already resigned from his employment. The court noted that the Fair Work Act provides that a person is a worker if they are an employee, and the applicant was no longer an employee at the time of the application. The court found that the applicant was not a worker at the time of the application and dismissed the application.

The court found that the applicant was not a worker at the time of the application because he had already resigned from his employment. The court noted that the Fair Work Act provides that a person is a worker if they are an employee, and the applicant was no longer an employee at the time of the application. The court found that the applicant was not a worker at the time of the application and dismissed the application. The court found that the applicant had not met the criteria for making an application for an order under section 66 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

George

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established