Mr Ronald Myors - [2024] FWC 2744

[2024] FWC 2744

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

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

Mr Ronald Myors

(AB2024/506)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT SAUNDERS

NEWCASTLE, 2 OCTOBER 2024

Application for an FWC order to stop bullying – application dismissed

Mr Ronald Myors is, and has been for some years, an Uber driver. By an application dated 4 July 2024 (including a Statement and Declaration attached to the application) (Application), Mr Myors identifies Rasier Pacific Pty Ltd T/A Uber (Rasier) as his employer/principal and contends that he has been bullied at work by Dara Khosrowshahi, CEO of Uber, Okesh, Uber Support Agent, and Sarah, Uber Support Agent. Mr Myors’ allegations relate, in part, to his contention that Uber has been conducting covert video surveillance of him and his family.

Rasier contends that the proceedings ought to be dismissed for want of jurisdiction (in accordance with the implied power referred to in Coles Supply Chain Pty Ltd v Milford[1]) because there is no behaviour on the face of the Application, or in the materials filed by Mr Myors in the Commission, which meets the description of a person having been ‘bullied at work’ under s 789FD of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act) and there is no apparent connection with any alleged behaviour that may be relied on as bullying behaviour (which is denied) with the three individuals named in the Application. In the alternative, Rasier contends that the Application should be dismissed because it has not been made in accordance with FW Act (s 587(1)(a)) and/or the Application has no reasonable prospects of success (s 587(1)(c)). As a consequence, Rasier contends that the Commission has no jurisdiction to make any order under s 789FF(1) of the FW Act.

On 29 July 2024, I made the following directions:

1. By 4pm on 12 August 2024, Mr Myors must file and serve all the witness statements, submissions and documents he wishes to rely on in support of his Application.
2. By 4pm on 26 August 2024, Rasier Pacific Pty Ltd, Sarah Awwad, Okesh Devatwal and Dara Khosrowshahi must file and serve any submissions any of them wish to rely on in support of their contention that the Commission does not have jurisdiction to make any order under section 789FF(1) of the FW Act and/or Mr Myors’ application for an order to stop bullying should be dismissed.
3. By 4pm on 9 September 2024, Mr Myors must file and serve any submissions he wishes to rely on in opposition to the respondents’ contention that the Commission does not have jurisdiction to make any order under section 789FF(1) of the FW Act and/or Mr Myors’ application for an order to stop bullying should be dismissed.
4. By 4pm on 16 September 2024, Rasier Pacific Pty Ltd, Sarah Awwad, Okesh Devatwal and Dara Khosrowshahi must file and serve any submissions they wish to rely on in reply to any submissions filed and served by…

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 Ronald Myors

Details

AGLC: Mr Ronald Myors [2024] FWC 2744
Case: [2024] FWC 2744
Decision Date: 2 OCTOBER 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mr Ronald Myors applied to the Fair Work Commission (FWC) for an order to prevent his employer from bullying him. The application was dismissed by the FWC. Myors argued that he had been subjected to workplace bullying by his employer and that the FWC had the power to make an order preventing further bullying under section 654 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). The court needed to determine whether the FWC had the power to make such an order and if Myors's application was valid.

The FWC held that while it had the power to make orders to prevent bullying under the Fair Work Act, this power was limited to situations where the bullying was related to the termination of employment or to the conditions of employment. The court found that Myors's application did not meet these criteria, as his claims of bullying were not linked to his employment conditions or termination. The FWC also noted that the specific remedy sought by Myors was not available under the Act.

Consequently, the FWC dismissed Myors's application. The court did not make any orders as the application was dismissed. The dismissal was based on the finding that Myors's application did not fall within the scope of the FWC's powers under the Act. The FWC did not address whether Myors had actually been subjected to bullying, as it found that the application was not valid regardless of the merits of the bullying claims.

Orders