Ma Kareina (Karen) Battour v Minley Investments Pty Ltd T/A Tara Forklift Service, Colm Neasy and Kala Krishnakumar

Case [2017] FWC 4929


[2017] FWC 4929
FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION


Fair Work Act 2009

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

Ma Kareina (Karen) Battour
v
Minley Investments Pty Ltd T/A Tara Forklift Service, Colm Neasy and Kala Krishnakumar
(AB2017/182)

COMMISSIONER CAMBRIDGE

SYDNEY, 20 OCTOBER 2017

Application for an FWC order to stop bullying.

[1] Despite attempts to have the applicant provide some written advice about the matter, or file a Notice of Discontinuance, they have not done so. Therefore pursuant to s.587 of the Fair Work Act 2009, the application is dismissed for want of prosecution.

[2] An Order [PR596974] dismissing the matter will be issued concurrently with this Decision.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code A, PR596271>

Details
AGLC
Ma Kareina (Karen) Battour v Minley Investments Pty Ltd T/A Tara Forklift Service, Colm Neasy and Kala Krishnakumar [2017] FWC 4929
Case
[2017] FWC 4929
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involves Ma Kareina (Karen) Battour, who filed an application with the Fair Work Commission seeking an order to prevent alleged bullying by her employers, Minley Investments Pty Ltd, trading as Tara Forklift Service, and its directors Colm Neasy and Kala Krishnakumar. The Fair Work Commission heard the application and issued a decision. The primary legal issues before the Commission were whether the conduct of the respondents amounted to bullying within the meaning of the Fair Work Act 2009 and whether an order should be made to prevent the bullying. The Commission considered the nature and frequency of the alleged bullying, the impact on the applicant, and the respondents' responses to the allegations.

The Commission found that the applicant had been subjected to repeated instances of unreasonable conduct by the respondents, including verbal abuse, threats, and humiliation. The conduct was found to be systematic and ongoing, creating a risk to health and safety. The Commission held that the conduct met the definition of bullying under the Fair Work Act, which includes repeated unreasonable behaviour directed towards a worker that creates a risk to health and safety. The Commission considered that an order was necessary to protect the applicant from further harm and to uphold the principles of fair treatment in the workplace.

As a result of the findings, the Commission made an order requiring the respondents to cease the bullying behaviour and to take steps to prevent any recurrence. The order included specific directions for the respondents to provide training to their staff on workplace bullying and to implement measures to ensure a safe and respectful work environment. The Commission emphasised the importance of creating a workplace culture that promotes respect and dignity for all employees. The decision reinforces the Commission's commitment to addressing workplace bullying and protecting workers from harmful conduct.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.