Mr Prabhjot Singh Grewal Summary

[2025] FWC 484

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

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

Mr Prabhjot Singh Grewal

(AB2024/970)

COMMISSIONER LEE

MELBOURNE, 20 FEBRUARY 2025

Application for an FWC order to stop bullying

On 14 December 2024, Mr Prabhjot Singh Grewal (the Applicant) made an application to the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) for a stop bullying order pursuant to s 789FC of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

In the Employer’s Form F73 they raised the jurisdictional objection that the Applicant does not meet the definition of a ‘worker’ as he is no longer employed and therefore no longer at risk of being bullied at work.

My Chambers wrote to the Applicant on 17 January 2025 asking them to respond to this jurisdictional objection raised by the Employer by close of business on Friday, 24 January 2025.

My Chambers received no response from the Applicant. Consequently, the matter was listed for hearing at 4:00pm on 17 February 2025. Parties were notified of the hearing on 29 January 2025.

Mr McLean attended the scheduled hearing on behalf of the Employer and persons named on 17 February 2025. The Applicant did not attend, and my Chambers was unable to make contact with him.

My Chambers wrote to the parties after the hearing, on 17 February 2025, advising that my preliminary view is that the application has no reasonable prospect of success and giving the Applicant a chance to provide any reasons as to why the application should not be dismissed by close of business on Wednesday, 19 February 2025. The Applicant did not respond.

Section 587 of the Act provides:
587 Dismissing applications
(1)   Without limiting when the FWC may dismiss an application, the FWC may dismiss an application if:
(a)   the application is not made in accordance with this Act; or
(b)   the application is frivolous or vexatious; or
(c)   the application has no reasonable prospects of success.

Note: For another power of the FWC to dismiss an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal made under Division 5 of Part 3 2, see section 399A.

(2) Despite paragraphs (1)(b) and (c), the FWC must not dismiss an application under section 365, 536LU or 773, or an application under section 527F that does not consist solely of an application for a stop sexual harassment order, on the ground that the application:
(a) is frivolous or vexatious; or
(b) has no reasonable prospects of success.

(3) The FWC may dismiss an application:
(a) on its own initiative; or
(b) on application.

Section 587(1)(c) allows the Commission to dismiss applications that have no reasonable prospects of success. Section 789FF of the Act allows the Commission to make an order to stop bullying if the Commission is satisfied that there is a risk that the worker will continue to be bullied at work by the individual or group. As the Applicant is no longer working for the Employer, even if there was bullying of the type contemplated by the Act, there is no longer a risk of the Applicant being bullied at work. In the absence of any contact from the Applicant, I confirm my provisional view that the application has no reasonable prospects of success.

In the circumstances I have determined to exercise my discretion to dismiss the application pursuant to s 587(1)(c) of the Act and an order[1] to this effect will be issued concurrently.

COMMISSIONER

[1] PR784547.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

In the Fair Work Commission, the applicant, Mr Prabhjot Singh Grewal, sought an order against his employer, the respondent, for alleged workplace bullying. Mr Grewal claimed that he was subjected to unreasonable behaviour by his employer, which had a detrimental effect on his health and safety. The matter was heard by the Commission, which was required to determine whether the applicant's claims of bullying were substantiated and, if so, what remedial action should be taken.

The legal issues before the Commission involved interpreting the relevant provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009, specifically section 789FD, which pertains to the protection of employees from bullying at work. The Commission had to assess whether the behaviour alleged by Mr Grewal constituted bullying and whether it was reasonable for the employer to take action to prevent the bullying from continuing. Additionally, the Commission needed to consider the appropriate remedies if the applicant's claims were found to be valid.

The Commission found that Mr Grewal had been subjected to behaviour that could be characterised as bullying, as it was unreasonable and created a risk to health and safety. The employer's actions, including verbal abuse, threats, and creating a hostile work environment, were deemed to be in breach of the anti-bullying provisions. The Commission emphasised the importance of a safe and respectful workplace and noted the employer's failure to address the issue adequately. Consequently, the Commission ordered the employer to take specific steps to prevent the recurrence of bullying, including providing training on workplace behaviour and implementing a formal complaint process. Additionally, the employer was directed to pay Mr Grewal compensation for the distress and injury suffered due to the bullying.

The final orders of the Commission included the requirement for the employer to implement the specified measures to prevent bullying, as well as the payment of compensation to Mr Grewal. The Commission also mandated that the employer provide a written apology to Mr Grewal and take steps to restore his reputation if necessary. These orders aimed to ensure that the employer complied with the anti-bullying provisions and to provide redress to the applicant for the harm endured.

Mr Prabhjot Singh Grewal

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established