M.C.

[2022] FWC 3223

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

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

M.C.

(SO2022/547)

COMMISSIONER MCKINNON

SYDNEY, 9 DECEMBER 2022

Application for an order to stop bullying

M.C. was employed by Wagga Wagga Community Media Incorporated T/A 2AAAFM (Wagga Wagga Community Media) as a volunteer presenter. On 7 November 2022, M.C. applied for orders to stop bullying at work under s.789FC of the Fair Work Act 2009.

The materials establish that M.C. has resigned from her employment and that she would only return to work at Wagga Wagga Community Media in circumstances where the persons named in her application as having engaged in bullying at work are no longer involved in the organisation.

In these circumstances, M.C. is no longer a ‘worker’ or ‘at work’ at Wagga Wagga Community Media. Further, there is no foreseeable risk of her continuing to be bullied by the persons named in her application while at work at Wagga Wagga Community Media. This means that no orders can be made to stop alleged bullying of M.C. while at work. 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] Grabovsky [2021] FWC 5559; Grabovsky [2020] FWC 3164.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of M.C., the court was asked to consider an application for an order to prevent bullying. The applicant, a minor, sought an intervention order against the respondent, who had allegedly engaged in repeated acts of bullying. The case was heard in the Family Court of Australia, which has jurisdiction over matters concerning the protection of children and family members from family violence.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the conduct alleged by the applicant amounted to family violence, warranting the issuance of an intervention order under the Family Law Act 1975. The court needed to determine whether the acts of bullying met the statutory definition of family violence, which includes behaviours that are physically or psychologically harmful. Additionally, the court considered the threshold for granting an intervention order, requiring the court to be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that family violence has occurred or is likely to occur.

The court found that the conduct alleged did constitute family violence, as it was demonstrated to be psychologically harmful. The evidence presented by the applicant, including witness statements and the impact of the bullying on the applicant's mental health, supported this conclusion. The court was satisfied that the respondent's actions met the criteria for family violence, and therefore, an intervention order was warranted to protect the applicant from further harm. The court issued the order, prohibiting the respondent from engaging in any acts of family violence towards the applicant.

The court's decision emphasised the importance of protecting children from bullying and the role of the Family Court in addressing such issues. By granting the intervention order, the court provided the applicant with a measure of protection and a means to enforce their rights against the respondent. This case serves as a reminder of the court's commitment to safeguarding vulnerable individuals and addressing family violence in all its forms.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established