Keshia Apter Summary | CaseChat AU

[2022] FWC 555

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

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

Keshia Apter

(SO2022/79)

COMMISSIONER MCKINNON

SYDNEY, 20 APRIL 2022

Application for an order to stop bullying.

On 12 February 2022, Ms Keshia Apter applied for orders to stop bullying at work under s.789FC of the Fair Work Act 2009.

Ms Apter is neither a ‘worker’ nor ‘at work’ in the business of the respondents to the application. She worked one shift for the business on 4 January 2022 and was not then offered any further work. On the materials before me, there is no prospect of that position changing in the future.

As Ms Apter is not a ‘worker’ or ‘at work’ in the business of the respondents, there is no foreseeable risk that she will continue to be bullied while at work in that business. The application has no reasonable prospects of success.[1]

The application is dismissed under section 587(1) of the Act.

COMMISSIONER

Appearances:

S Stevens for the Applicant.
No appearance for the Respondent.

Hearing details:

2022.
Sydney (by video):
April 20.

[1] Grabovsky [2021] FWC 5559; Grabovsky [2020] FWC 3164.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Keshia Apter, sought an order under the Fair Work Act 2009 to stop bullying at work against unnamed respondents. The application was made to the Fair Work Commission, with Commissioner McKinnon presiding over the case in Sydney on April 20, 2022. Ms Apter had worked one shift for the respondents' business on January 4, 2022, but was not offered any further work. Consequently, there was no foreseeable risk of her continuing to be bullied at work in the respondents' business, as she was neither a 'worker' nor 'at work' in their business.

The central legal issue the court needed to decide was whether the application had reasonable prospects of success. The court considered whether Ms Apter was a 'worker' or 'at work' in the business of the respondents, as defined by the Fair Work Act. Given that Ms Apter had only worked one shift and was not offered further employment, the court determined that there was no foreseeable risk of continued bullying in the respondents' business. Therefore, the application lacked reasonable prospects of success.

The Commissioner dismissed the application under section 587(1) of the Fair Work Act, concluding that the application had no reasonable prospects of success. The Commissioner relied on precedents such as Grabovsky [2021] FWC 5559 and Grabovsky [2020] FWC 3164 to support the decision. The Commissioner noted that Ms Apter was neither a 'worker' nor 'at work' in the respondents' business, and thus, there was no foreseeable risk of continued bullying. Consequently, the application was dismissed.

No orders were made by the court, as the application was dismissed on the grounds that it lacked reasonable prospects of success. The Commissioner did not grant any relief to Ms Apter as there was no foreseeable risk of her being bullied at work in the respondents' business, given her limited employment history and lack of ongoing employment.

Keshia Apter

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established