Mr Ifeanyi David Eneoko v Mackillop Family Services Limited

[2024] FWC 1995

[2024] FWC 1995

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

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

Mr Ifeanyi David Eneoko
v

Mackillop Family Services Limited and others

(AB2024/447)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT COLMAN MELBOURNE, 29 JULY 2024

Application for an FWC order to stop bullying – application dismissed

1. Ifeanya Eneoko made an application for an anti-bullying order under s 789FC of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) against Mackillop Family Services Limited (Mackillop). Mr Eneoko submitted that he had been bullied at work because on 22 May 2024, an assistant supervisor, Ms Lacey, spoke to him in a loud and accusatory manner and suggested that he did not know what he was doing. Later, he received a message from Ms Lacey outlining her expectations of his performance. Mr Eneoko said that Ms Lacey’s conduct was demeaning, unreasonable and created a hostile working environment, and that it amounted to bullying. He said that Ms Lacey’s conduct had caused him sleepless nights and that he feared going to work. He said that no one had inquired about Ms Lacey’s treatment of him or his mental health.

1. Mackillop and Ms Lacey denied that there was any unreasonable conduct on Ms Lacey’s part and maintained that she had simply been trying to provide information and reasonable direction to Mr Eneoko. Ms Lacey denied speaking to Mr Eneoko in a loud, accusatory or demeaning way, and denied suggesting to Mr Eneoko that he did not know what he was doing. Ms Lacey said that she had been following up with him on unfinished tasks that had needed to be completed in a timely manner. After the discussion, she sent him an email confirming the company’s expectations of him.

1. A worker is ‘bullied at work’ if, while the worker is at work in a constitutionally covered business, an individual or group of individuals ‘repeatedly behaves unreasonably towards the worker’ and that behaviour ‘creates a risk to health and safety’ (s 789FD(1)). The Commission is empowered to make an anti-bullying order only if it is satisfied that the worker ‘has been bullied at work’ (s 789FF(1)(b)(i)), and that there is also ‘a risk that the worker will continue to be bullied at work’ (s 789FF(1)(b)(ii)).

1. At the hearing earlier today, I dismissed the application for the following reasons. First, I was not persuaded that Ms Lacey or anyone else had behaved unreasonably. I find that Ms Lacey gave Mr Eneoko instructions about his work and that her tone was not unreasonable. I note that the message that Ms Lacey sent to Mr Eneoko later that day was submitted to the Commission. Its tone and content were entirely reasonable. Secondly, the conduct in question was a single incident. On any view, there was no repeated unreasonable conduct in this matter. Thirdly, no link has been established between the conduct and a risk to Mr Eneoko’s health and safety. In particular, there was no medical or psychological evidence about his sleeplessness and fearfulness, or what may have caused this. Fourthly, I considered that there was no risk that Mr Eneoko will be bullied at work in the future. There was no basis to conclude that he would be subject to unreasonable conduct that would create a risk to his health and safety at work.

1. As the conditions in s 789FF were not met, the Commission had no power to make an anti-bullying order. The application was therefore dismissed.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Appearances:

D. Eneoko for himself
D. Hartnett for Mackillop Family Services Limited

Conference details:

2024
Melbourne (by telephone)
29 July

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR777599>