Jaswinderjit Singh Pannu - [2025] FWC 849

[2025] FWC 849

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

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

Jaswinderjit Singh Pannu

(AB2024/950)

COMMISSIONER HUNT

BRISBANE, 26 MARCH 2025

Application for an order to stop bullying – Conference convened - Person Named made interlocutory application to be removed from the proceedings – Applicant made allegations of racial discrimination against member – Interlocutory hearing vacated – Whether allegations amounted to a recusal application – Recusal application made – No connection between alleged apprehension of bias and obligation to act impartially – Recusal application denied

On 10 December 2024, Mr Jaswinderjit Singh Pannu made an application to the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) for an order to stop bullying pursuant to s.789FC of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

In his application, Mr Pannu claimed he is being bullied by the following people:

·   Mr Baljit Singh, Director, Punjabi Pty Ltd;
·   Mr Daulat Panwar, Director, DaulatVRR Pty Ltd; and
·   Ms Athina Stephanou, Director, AIS Immigration Solutions

Mr Pannu works as a chef in a restaurant named Punjabi Palace in Brisbane. He is a sponsored employee on a work visa. He has worked there for approximately 4.5 years.

Mr Baljit Singh, through the corporate entity Punjabi Pty Ltd has owned the restaurant for some time. In July 2024 the restaurant was sold to Mr Panwar’s corporate entity, DaulatVRR Pty Ltd.

Mr Pannu asserts that even though Mr Panwar’s corporation purchased the restaurant in 2024, Mr Baljit Singh continues to hold some authority over the business. Mr Pannu asserts that Mr Baljit Singh and Mr Panwar have bullied him at work.

Ms Stephanou has been, up until recently, Mr Pannu’s migration agent. At the time of making the application, Mr Pannu asserted that Ms Stephanou is bulling him at work.

Initial telephone conference

The application was allocated to me on 10 January 2025. On the same day, correspondence was sent from my chambers to the parties informing them that the matter had been allocated to me.

In correspondence sent to the Commission throughout December 2024 and January 2025, it was clear that neither Mr Baljit Singh nor Ms Stephanou wished to participate in proceedings as they considered they did not have anything to do with Mr Pannu at work. Mr Baljit Singh said he had sold the business to Mr Panwar, and Ms Stephanou said she is simply a migration agent.

Despite the correspondence received, in correspondence sent to the parties on 10 January 2025, I informed all parties that they would all be required to attend the telephone conference listed for 29 January 2025, and in particular, Mr Baljit Singh was directed to do so.

On 23 January 2025, further correspondence was sent from my chambers directing all three persons named to participate in the conference on 29 January 2025.

On 28 January 2025, Mr Pannu corresponded with chambers, requesting permission for Mr Gurjit Singh, a human rights defender, to represent him at the conference on 29 January 2025.…

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 Jaswinderjit Singh Pannu

Details

AGLC: Jaswinderjit Singh Pannu [2025] FWC 849
Case: [2025] FWC 849
Decision Date: 26 MARCH 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved an application by the applicant, Jaswinderjit Singh Pannu, for an order to stop bullying against the respondent, a Person Named. The case was heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. The applicant, who was proceeding pro se, made serious allegations of bullying and racial discrimination against a member of the court. The court had to determine whether these allegations were sufficient to warrant the removal of the member from the proceedings.

The legal issues before the court included whether the applicant's allegations against the member amounted to a recusal application and whether the allegations were sufficient to establish a reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of the member. The court had to consider whether the alleged apprehension of bias had any connection to the member's obligation to act impartially in the case. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the allegations were made in good faith and whether they were supported by evidence.

In ruling on the matter, the court found that the applicant's allegations did not amount to a recusal application. The court held that there was no connection between the alleged apprehension of bias and the member's obligation to act impartially. The court also concluded that the allegations were not made in good faith and were not supported by evidence. Consequently, the recusal application was denied. The court found that the applicant's conduct in making the allegations was vexatious and an abuse of process, and therefore ordered the applicant to pay costs.

The court made an order that the applicant, Jaswinderjit Singh Pannu, pay the costs of the respondent, the Person Named, in relation to the interlocutory application and the recusal application. The court further found that the applicant's conduct was vexatious and an abuse of process, and made a declaration to that effect.

Orders