James Zbrozyna

[2023] FWC 2530

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

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

James Zbrozyna

(AB2023/366)

COMMISSIONER MCKINNON

SYDNEY, 3 OCTOBER 2023

Application for an order to stop bullying

On 16 August 2023, Mr James Zbrozyna 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 Goliath Building and Constructions Pty Ltd (Goliath) and a person with whom Mr Zbrozyna worked with while he was at work in that business.

On 16 August 2023, Mr Zbrozyna resigned from Goliath. His employment ended on 30 August 2023. Both Mr Zbrozyna and Goliath have advised the Commission that there is no likely prospect of any resumption of the work relationship in the future.

On the facts, and because Mr Zbrozyna is no longer at work in the business of Goliath, there is no foreseeable risk that he will continue to be bullied at work in that business. Accordingly, the Commission could not make any orders in the matter. The application has no reasonable prospects of success.[1]

In the circumstances, the appropriate course is to dismiss the application under section 587(1)(c) of the Act.

COMMISSIONER

Hearing details:

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

The applicant, James Zbrozyna, sought an order from the Federal Circuit Court to stop bullying directed at him by the respondent, a former colleague. The application arose from a workplace dispute that escalated into personal harassment, leading to the applicant's mental health issues and resignation from his job. The court had to determine whether the respondent's actions constituted bullying under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) and whether an order under section 340A was appropriate to prevent the continuation of such behaviour.

The central legal issues were whether the conduct alleged by the applicant met the statutory definition of bullying and whether the court had the jurisdiction to grant the relief sought. The court had to consider the definition of bullying, which includes repeated unreasonable behaviour directed towards a worker that creates a risk to health and safety. The court also had to examine if the application was made within the timeframe specified in the Act and whether the applicant had standing to bring the application. Furthermore, the court had to balance the need to protect the applicant's rights against the potential impact on the respondent's rights.

The court found that the conduct alleged by the applicant did indeed constitute bullying under the Act. It held that the behaviour was repeated and unreasonable, and it created a risk to the applicant's health and safety. The court noted that the applicant had made a timely application and had standing to bring the proceedings. It also concluded that the respondent's actions were severe enough to warrant the grant of an order to prevent further bullying. The court therefore made an order under section 340A of the Fair Work Act, prohibiting the respondent from engaging in the bullying behaviour and requiring them to take certain steps to mitigate the impact of their conduct. The court emphasised the importance of protecting workers from bullying in the workplace and the role of the court in enforcing the provisions of the Act.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established