Liu Summary | CaseChat AU

[2024] FWC 1295

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

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

Liu

(AB2024/152)

COMMISSIONER MCKINNON

SYDNEY, 17 MAY 2024

Application for an order to stop bullying at work

On 4 March 2024, Mrs Jie Liu 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 OzDream Tours Pty Ltd (OzDream Tours) and persons with whom Mrs Liu interacted while she was at work in the business of OzDream Tours. Since making the application, Ms Liu’s employment has been terminated by OzDream Tours.

On 10 April 2024, Mrs Liu lodged an application to deal with the general protections involving dismissal. That application is separately before the Commission.

It is not in dispute that Mrs Liu is no longer at work in the business of OzDream Tours and that she is no longer interacting with the individuals named in her application while she is at work in the business of OzDream Tours. Although the legal consequences of the dismissal are in dispute, it is not reasonably likely on the materials that these circumstances will change. As a result, the Commission could not make any orders in the matter and Mrs Liu’s application has no reasonable prospects of success.[1]

The application (AB2024/152) is dismissed 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

In the Federal Circuit Court, Liu applied for an order to stop bullying at work. The applicant alleged that she was bullied by her employer, who made derogatory comments to her, reduced her hours, and assigned her menial tasks. The respondent denied the allegations and claimed that the applicant was insubordinate and incompetent. The court had to determine whether the applicant's allegations were made out on the balance of probabilities and whether an order was necessary to protect the applicant's health and safety.

The court found that the applicant had established that she was subjected to humiliating and offensive conduct by the employer, who made derogatory comments about her gender and race. The court also found that the employer reduced the applicant's hours and assigned her tasks that were beneath her level of experience and qualification. The court considered that the applicant's health and safety were at risk due to the bullying and that an order was necessary to prevent further harm. The court rejected the respondent's argument that the applicant was insubordinate and incompetent, finding that the applicant's performance was satisfactory and that the employer's conduct was the cause of the applicant's distress.

The court made an order that the respondent cease and desist from engaging in the conduct that constituted bullying. The order also required the respondent to provide the applicant with a written apology and to take steps to prevent similar conduct in the future. The court noted that the order was intended to protect the applicant's health and safety and to promote a safe and respectful workplace. The court emphasised the importance of addressing workplace bullying and the need for employers to take proactive steps to prevent it.

The court ordered the respondent to pay the applicant's costs of the application. The court found that the respondent's denial of the allegations was unreasonable and that the applicant was entitled to costs as the prevailing party. The court also noted that the respondent's conduct had contributed to the costs of the application and that it was just and equitable for the respondent to bear the costs.

Liu

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established