Mr Jimmy Parel - [2025] FWC 3097

[2025] FWC 3097

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

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

Mr Jimmy Parel

(AB2025/353)

COMMISSIONER TRAN

MELBOURNE, 16 OCTOBER 2025

Application for an FWC order to stop bullying - Interim application for member to recuse themself - Insufficient grounds - Recusal application dismissed.

On 2 May 2025, Mr Jimmy Parel applied for the Commission to make an order to stop bullying at work under s 789FC of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). Mr Parel is a nurse and his employer is Northern Health. Mr Parel says that he was bullied by Mrs Casey Crooks, ED Nurse and Team Leader, the education department, other management people and team leaders. Only Mrs Crooks was named in his application.

I conducted conferences in this matter on 5 August 2025 and 12 September 2025. I was unable to assist the parties to resolve the matter. I conducted a case management conference also on 12 September 2025 and programmed the matter for arbitration. I indicated to the parties that I would consider the following matters:

1. Whether there was repeated unreasonable behaviour; and
2. Whether any of the allegations were reasonable management action carried out in a reasonable way.

Recusal application

On 13 October 2025, Mr Parel asked me to recuse myself from this matter in an email to chambers as follows:

The reason why people approach the FWC is, only if they cannot get justice from the workplace management. I have approached the HR and other managers with the issue multiple times prior to complaining to the FWC.
And you allowed the manager (who colluded with the perpetrator (bully) to support the bully by ignoring my complaint? . In my opinion it is a complete disgrace to the whole process. And you allowed Ms Stojanoski to speak during the hearings.? I was initially dismayed by the lack of principles here. Where is the procedural fairness and jurisprudence?
And your behaviour towards me is less than satisfactory as a public servant(unfortunately).
With all respect to the public office (FWC)I would like you to “rescue” yourself from this case and hand it over to someone who can handle it better and not be intimidated by a low profile HR Person please.

This decision deals only with the above application for me to recuse myself from Mr Parel’s application for an order to stop bullying at work.

Consideration

I have not yet conducted any hearings in this matter. I have conducted conferences to try to assist the parties to resolve the dispute. The Full Bench said in Humeniuk v Sculpture by the Sea Incorporated[2025] FWCFB 212 at [38]:

There is no absolute rule that a member of the Commission who has conducted a conference, or another type of discussion aimed at resolving a dispute, cannot then arbitrate or decide the matter. A member may be disqualified if a reasonable apprehension of bias arises as a result of participating in a conference, for example, if the…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Mr Jimmy Parel and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] FWC 3097
Decision Date: 16 OCTOBER 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Fair Work Commission, Mr Jimmy Parel applied for an order to stop bullying at work under s 789FC of the Fair Work Act 2009. The application was against his employer, Northern Health, and specifically named Mrs Casey Crooks, the ED Nurse and Team Leader. Mr Parel alleged that he was subjected to repeated unreasonable behaviour by Mrs Crooks, other management personnel, and team leaders within the workplace. The Commission conducted conferences on 5 August 2025 and 12 September 2025 to attempt a resolution, but these were unsuccessful. The Commission then scheduled the matter for arbitration and indicated it would consider whether there was repeated unreasonable behaviour and whether any of the allegations constituted reasonable management action.

The primary legal issues before the Commission were whether the Commission member had grounds for recusal based on an apprehended bias and whether Mr Parel's allegations against the Commission member were substantiated. Mr Parel submitted an application for the Commission member to recuse themselves, claiming that the Commission had not treated his complaint fairly and that the Commission member had allowed biased individuals to participate in the hearings. The Commission member needed to determine if Mr Parel's claims provided a reasonable apprehension of bias, as established in the principles of Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy.

The Commission member found that Mr Parel had not articulated specific behaviour that demonstrated a reasonable apprehension of bias. The Commission member had not yet made any determinations in the matter and had allowed the respondent's Director of Human Resources & Talent Acquisition to participate as the respondent's representative. The Commission member also highlighted that Mr Parel had been informed of the necessity to include all parties in communications to ensure procedural fairness and impartiality. Furthermore, the Commission member had encouraged Mr Parel to seek legal advice and provided referral information. The Commission member concluded that none of Mr Parel's concerns could ground a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Commission member dismissed the application for recusal, stating that Mr Parel had not provided sufficient grounds to believe that the Commission member would not bring an impartial mind to the resolution of the issues. The Commission member emphasized the importance of performing statutory functions and ensuring that the matter progressed to hearing. The Commission member concluded that the concerns raised by Mr Parel did not justify recusal, and the matter would proceed as scheduled.

Orders