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.

1. 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.

1. 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

1. 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.

1. 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

1. 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 member has been told something in conference that might influence, or appear to influence, their decision or has themselves said something that exhibits prejudgement. If that occurs, the member is disqualified from further dealing with the matter and must recuse themselves.

(See also Amec Foster Wheeler Australia Pty Ltd v Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia [2021] FWCFB 3191 at [45].)

1. The applicable principles for dealing with recusal applications on the grounds of reasonable apprehension of bias are discussed in Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy [2000] HCA 63 at [6] –[8]. I summarise those principles as:

The test of whether a fair-minded lay observer might reasonably apprehend that the tribunal member might not bring an impartial mind to the question they are required to decide requires:

1.   Identification of the factor which is said to lead tribunal member to decide a case other than on its legal and factual merits.

2.   Articulation of the logical connection between the matter and the apprehended deviation from deciding case on its merits.

3.   Consideration about whether the apprehension is reasonable.

1. Two further observations of the High Court in the matter of re JRL; ex parte CJL (1983) 161 CLR 342 at 352 are relevant. First, the ground of apprehended bias must be firmly established. Second, an apprehension that an issue may be decided adversely to a party is not an apprehension that the issue might be determined other than impartially or on its merits.

1. I do not consider that any of Mr Parel’s grounds give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. I have not yet determined any issues in this matter. I have allowed Ms Stojanoski to participate and represent the respondent. She is the respondent’s Director of Human Resources & Talent Acquisition and their chosen representative. She has not been identified by Mr Parel as a person whom he alleges bullied him, other than that he alleges generally that management have bullied him. The materials he filed with his application and subsequently demonstrate only that Ms Stojanoski’s involvement in his matter is one you would expect a Director of Human Resources to hold, that is, to investigate complaints.

1. Mr Parel has not articulated what behaviour towards him has been less than satisfactory. I have informed him, verbally and in writing, that he is not to privately correspond with me or my chambers. Mr Parel has on a number of occasions sent correspondence to my chambers, without copying in other parties in this matter. All my directions and notices of listings include the following paragraph:

All communications with the Commission must include the other side to ensure procedural fairness and impartiality. Parties are warned any communications not including the other side may be forwarded to the other side by the Commission unless the Commission is made aware of confidential and sensitive information within the communications.

1. I informed Mr Parel during the case management conference on 12 September 2025 that as a matter of procedural fairness he was required to make submissions and representations copying other parties so that there was an opportunity to respond. In that conference and in writing, I informed Mr Parel that I would disregard the contents of his private correspondence.

1. I have also asked Mr Parel to desist from sending lengthy emails, and to provide materials only in the form of submissions or witness statements relevant to the issues I am required to determine in this matter. Mr Parel’s emails predated the case management conference. They were not required for the purposes of trying to resolve the matter between the parties. The contents were not relevant to his anti-bullying matter, and included, for example, draft letters from a law firm dated early 2022.

1. After the case management conference, I issued directions for the filing of materials, and I have listed this matter for a hearing on 20 November 2025. The directions require that the applicant file his materials first. The materials allow for the employer respondent and the named person to file reply materials, and for Mr Parel to reply to those materials. In the directions, I repeated the relevant issues that the parties must address that I had discussed during the case management conference. I have granted Mr Parel an extension of time to file his initial materials; I have not yet received any materials from him and that further deadline has now passed. Mr Parel has been informed of the consequences of failing to comply with directions. He has been given the opportunity to rectify his failures.

1. In reply to some of Mr Parel’s emails and questions, I have encouraged him to seek legal advice and provided him with referral information, including to the Commission’s Workplace Advice Service.

1. None of the above matters could ground a reasonable apprehension of bias. I am doing no more than case managing this matter to ensure that it progresses to hearing.

Conclusion

1. I am not satisfied that Mr Parel has made out any basis for me to recuse myself. I am conscious that this matter has been allocated to me, and I should perform my statutory functions to deal with Mr Parel’s application for an order to stop bullying at work. I am not satisfied that a fair-minded lay observer considering how the matter has been conducted thus far could reasonably apprehend that I would not bring an impartial mind to the resolution of the issues in this matter.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR792697>