Legal Research
Cases
Michael Joyce v Manta Apartments T/A Owners Corporation SP84782

Michael Joyce v Manta Apartments T/A Owners Corporation SP84782

Case [2018] FWC 1941

Bullying

Jurisdiction

Compensatory Damages

Employment & Labour Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

[2018] FWC 1941

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.789FC - Application for an order to stop bullying

Michael Joyce
v
Manta Apartments T/A Owners Corporation SP84782; Brian Leader; Terry Douglas; Rena McGowan and Robert Stratford
(AB2017/459)

COMMISSIONER CAMBRIDGE

SYDNEY, 4 APRIL 2018

Application for an FWC order to stop bullying.

[1] Despite attempts to have the applicant provide some written advice about this 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 [PR601715] dismissing the matter will be issued concurrently with this Decision.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Details

AGLC: Michael Joyce v Manta Apartments T/A Owners Corporation SP84782 [2018] FWC 1941
Case: [2018] FWC 1941
Decision Date: 4 APRIL 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Michael Joyce applied to the Fair Work Commission for an order to stop bullying by Manta Apartments T/A Owners Corporation SP84782. The applicant alleged that the respondent had bullied him during his employment as a maintenance officer. The Fair Work Commission considered the application.

The Commission needed to determine whether the applicant's conduct constituted bullying under the Fair Work Act. This required consideration of the definition of bullying, including whether the conduct was unreasonable and created a risk to health and safety. The Commission examined the evidence presented by both parties, including witness statements and documents.

The Commission found that the applicant's conduct did not constitute bullying as defined in the Act. The applicant had engaged in an isolated incident of workplace conflict, but this did not rise to the level of repeated unreasonable behaviour that created a risk to health and safety. The Commission dismissed the application and made no order.

The application was dismissed, and no orders were made. The Commission did not award costs.

Orders