Mr Faisal Mohammed Hamid - [2025] FWC 730

[2025] FWC 730

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

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

Mr Faisal Mohammed Hamid

(AB2024/328)

COMMISSIONER YILMAZ

MELBOURNE, 14 MARCH 2025

Application for an FWC order to stop bullying – Applicant not bullied – no risk of bullying at work – application for an order to stop bullying dismissed on the basis of no reasonable prospect of success.

On 7 May 2024 Mr Faisal Mohammed Hamid (the Applicant) filed an application for an order to stop bullying pursuant to s.789FC of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). Mr Hamid alleges that he has been bullied while at work. The application was made in relation to Cimpress Australia Pty Ltd T/A Vistaprint (the Employer/Respondent) and names two individuals, Mr Hamid’s direct line manager (the first named person) and the senior manager of maintenance and facilities (the second named person).

In the application Mr Hamid describes the conduct that he defines as bullying as follows:

i. On joining the organisation in late May 2023, he formed the view that because “most of the IT services were actually managed by global IT teams” he had limited tasks and opportunity for professional growth. Soon after commencing employment, he applied for a Product Manager role and says that after his unsuccessful application he was taunted, ridiculed, belittled and encountered hostility from his manager. He says this occurred in private and in front of his peers. Specifically, this included no assistance offered from his manager when he asked for assistance to “build” into the Product Manager role.

He submits that he was instructed to prepare security cards and told that he was likely to continue with that task for 3 years. He was further instructed to clear 3 rooms/ 12 pallets of IT waste. He submits that this direction came from the senior facilities manager.

His manager together with HR raised concerns about his behaviour in the workplace with him.

Directions to perform future hardware “cleanups” while in group meetings, which were referred to as projects, he submits were mockery and conduct intended to hurt and destroy his reputation. Mr Hamid submits that he was not briefed on real IT projects.

Mr Hamid did not like being told that he was not responsive enough when he did not finish setting up a laptop for a new HR staff member. He objects to have had to attend a meeting with his manager, the senior facilities manager and HR, submitting this was victimisation. He refused to accept responsibility for the complaints against him and alleges that the behaviour of the three was belittling and cruel. He further submits that the comments by the senior manager that he may leave if he didn’t want to work there, was pressure on him to quit.

He submits that his manager did not address the instances when a co-worker physically hit or punched him as a joke. He submits that he spoke to the employee directly which resulted in an apology…

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 Mr Faisal Mohammed Hamid

Details

AGLC: Mr Faisal Mohammed Hamid [2025] FWC 730
Case: [2025] FWC 730
Decision Date: 14 MARCH 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Mr Faisal Mohammed Hamid, filed an application for an order to stop bullying against his employer, Cimpress Australia Pty Ltd T/A Vistaprint, alleging that he had been subjected to bullying at work. The application was dismissed by Commissioner Yilmaz on the basis that there was no reasonable prospect of success. The Commissioner examined the applicant’s allegations, which included claims of menial tasks, taunting, discrimination, and poor management, and found them to be unsubstantiated. The employer provided evidence and witness statements from multiple employees that contradicted the applicant’s claims. The Commissioner concluded that the employer's actions were reasonable management practices and not bullying. The application was dismissed as it had no reasonable prospects of success.

Orders