Mcatee v Holt - [2023] QIRC 125

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:	Mcatee v Holt [2023] QIRC 125
PARTIES:	Mcatee, Rosemarie (Applicant) v Holt, Keli (Respondent)
CASE NO.:	B/2021/63
PROCEEDING:	Application for an order to stop bullying
DELIVERED ON:	09 May 2023
HEARING DATE:	21 and 22 March 2023
MEMBER:	Power IC
HEARD AT:	Brisbane
ORDER:	The application for an order to stop bullying is dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	INDUSTRIAL LAW – application for an order to stop bullying – consideration of the elements for Commission to be satisfied an employee has been bullied in the workplace pursuant to s 272 of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 – whether the conduct of the respondent mean that the applicant was bullied in the workplace – applicant not bullied in the workplace – application dismissed
LEGISLATION:	Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld), ss 272 and s 275
CASES:	Browne v Dunn (1893) 6 R 67 Burbeck v Alice Springs Town Council [2017] 4988 Mac v Bank of Queensland & Ors [2015] FWC 774 Ms SB [2014] FWC 2104 Welsh v Logan City Council [2021] QIRC 141
APPEARANCES:	Ms R. Mcatee, as self-represented Applicant. Ms K. Holt, as self-represented Respondent

Reasons for Decision

Introduction

Ms Rosemarie Mcatee ('the Applicant') is employed by the State of Queensland (Department of Education) as a school cleaner at the Virginia State School ('the school').

The Applicant filed an Application for an order to stop bulling ('the Application') against Keli Holt (‘the Respondent’). The Respondent also works as a school cleaner at the school.

The Applicant filed the Application on 28 July 2021 following which a telephone conference was held involving both parties and a representative from the Department of Education ('the Department') as an interested party.

The matter failed to resolve at the conference and consequently a Directions Order was issued on 14 September 2021 directing the parties to file and serve submissions in preparation for hearing.

The Department advised that during November 2021, Wooloowin State School ('Wooloowin SS') contacted the Department's HR section seeking a cleaner. The Department then contacted the Principal of Virginia SS and the Principal of Wooloowin SS to discuss utilising this opportunity to create space between the parties 'in order to help calm the situation down'.

At a Mention on 13 January 2022 the Commission was advised that the Respondent's work location had changed to Wooloowin SS. The matter was subsequently placed in abeyance.

The Respondent commenced duties at Wooloowin SS on or around 29 November 2021 and continued until the end of Term 3 on 16 September 2022.
The Department submits that in order to help maintain some space between the parties, HR was able to offer the Respondent some temporary cleaning duties at Northgate State School for Term 4 from 4 October 2022 to 9 December 2022 in addition to performing some of her hours back at Virginia SS.

The Respondent re-commenced work in her substantive position at Virginia SS on 13 January 2023.

Following the Applicant's request that the Application now proceed, a Mention was held on 31 October…

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 Mcatee v Holt

Details

AGLC: Mcatee v Holt [2023] QIRC 125
Case: [2023] QIRC 125
Decision Date: 09 May 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Fair Work Commission, Mcatee brought an application against Holt, seeking an order to stop bullying in the workplace. The applicant alleged that the respondent had engaged in bullying conduct, which created a risk to health and safety within the workplace. The case was heard and determined by the Commission, which needed to consider the legal criteria for establishing workplace bullying under section 272 of the Industrial Relations Act 2016.

The Commission examined the nature and frequency of the interactions between the applicant and the respondent to determine whether the conduct amounted to bullying. It considered whether the respondent's actions were unreasonable, and whether they created a risk to the health and safety of the applicant. The Commission found that while the applicant and the respondent had disagreements and engaged in heated discussions, the conduct did not meet the threshold for being considered bullying under the Act.

Consequently, the Commission held that the applicant had not been bullied in the workplace. The conduct, while unpleasant and unprofessional, did not meet the statutory criteria for workplace bullying. The Commission dismissed the application, noting that there was insufficient evidence to support the applicant's claims.

The Commission dismissed the application for an order to stop bullying.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application for an order to stop bullying is dismissed.

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.