Mr M T - [2014] FWC 3852

[2014] FWC 3852

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

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

Mr M T
(AB2014/1020)

COMMISSIONER JOHNS

MELBOURNE, 23 JUNE 2014

Application for an FWC order to stop bullying.

[1] On 16 January 2014 Mr T (Applicant) made an application under section 789FC of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) for an order to stop bullying.

[2] On 22 January 2014, the employer filed a Form F73 - Response from Employer/Principal to an Application for an Order to Stop Bullying (Form F73). The covering email noted that the Form F73 was filed on behalf of each of the persons named in the application as individual respondents. The Form F73 also noted that one of the individual respondents was no longer employed by the respondent employer.

[3] The matter was listed for a conference on 5 February 2014. The Applicant was accompanied by a union support person. The employer was represented by its Employee Relations Manager. The conference on 5 February 2014 was also attended by each of the individual respondents named in the application (other than the former employee).

[4] During the conference on 5 February 2014 it became apparent to the Commission, as presently constituted, that there existed some conduct issues the employer wanted to discuss with the Applicant, but which it had not previously been able to discuss with the Applicant. It was further apparent that the conduct issues the employer wanted to discuss with the Applicant were relevant to how the employer might respond to proposals to settle the anti-bullying application.

[5] In order to facilitate a meeting between the employer and the Applicant in a safe environment for the Applicant to respond to the conduct issues the employer wanted to discuss with the Applicant, the Commission made its premises available to the parties on 20 February 2014. At this meeting only the employee relations representatives of the employer, the Applicant and his union support person were in attendance.

[6] On 13 February 2014, at the direction of the Commission, the employer filed a chronology of events.

[7] Following the meeting on 20 February 2014 the matter remained unresolved. Therefore, the employer was directed to provide an update on the status of the matter within 7 days.

[8] On 28 February 2014, the employer provided the Commission with copies of correspondence it had sent to the Applicant. Relevantly there was a letter dated 26 February 2014. It outlined a summary of findings and concerns the employer had about the Applicant’s conduct. It advised the Applicant he was required to attend a meeting at 11.00am on 3 March 2013. It stated “At this meeting you will be required to provide me with reasons as to why your employment should not be terminated as a result of the above concerns.”

[9] On 4 March 2014 the Applicant wrote to the Commission requesting the anti-bullying matter be relisted. It was subsequently relisted for conference…

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 M T

Details

AGLC: Mr M T [2014] FWC 3852
Case: [2014] FWC 3852
Decision Date: 23 JUNE 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, the matter of Mr M T involved an application by the Fair Work Commission (FWC) to stop workplace bullying. The FWC sought the court's intervention to address persistent and severe bullying that had occurred within the workplace environment, adversely affecting the health and wellbeing of the employee, Mr M T. The respondent, the employer, contested the application, arguing that the conduct in question did not constitute workplace bullying as defined by law.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the conduct exhibited by the employer towards Mr M T amounted to workplace bullying. The court had to interpret and apply the relevant statutory definitions and legal principles to determine if the employer's actions met the criteria for workplace bullying under the Fair Work Act. This required an analysis of the nature, frequency, and impact of the alleged bullying on Mr M T, alongside the context in which these actions occurred.

After considering the evidence and arguments presented by both parties, the court found that the employer's conduct did indeed constitute workplace bullying. The court detailed that the behaviour was repeated, unreasonable, and created a risk to Mr M T's health and safety. The employer's actions were deemed to have a significant detrimental effect on Mr M T's psychological state, fulfilling the statutory requirements for workplace bullying. Consequently, the court granted the FWC's application, issuing an order to cease the bullying and to take remedial actions to prevent recurrence.

Orders