Mrs Ayla Rose Hannah v Aegis Aged Care Pty Ltd
[2025] FWC 1953
•23 JULY 2025
| [2025] FWC 1953 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.789FC - Application for an order to stop bullying
Mrs Ayla Rose Hannah
v
Aegis Aged Care Pty Ltd
(AB2025/225)
| COMMISSIONER SCHNEIDER | PERTH, 23 JULY 2025 |
Application for an FWC order to stop bullying
On 17 March 2025, Mrs Ayla Rose Hannah (Mrs Hannah / the Applicant) lodged an application with the Fair Work Commission (the Commission), pursuant to section 789FC of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act). Mrs Hannah alleges that she has been bullied at work during her employment with Aegis Aged Care Pty Ltd (Aegis / the Employer) by Vishavjeet Gill (Person Named) who is the Facility Manager at Aegis Balmoral, Mrs Hannah’s place of work.
The Employer and the Person Named raised a jurisdictional objection, namely that the alleged bullying was reasonable management action, carried out in a reasonable manner. The matter was not resolved at conciliation and as a result a hearing was held on 19 June 2025 to determine the dispute. For the reasons outlined further in this decision, the jurisdictional objection is upheld and the application is dismissed.
Factual Background & Submissions
Applicant
Mrs Hannah gave evidence on her own behalf in support of her application. Mrs Hannah came across as a very passionate and caring aged care worker who is dedicated to her job. Mrs Hannah is ordinarily rostered to work Tuesday, Wednesday, Sunday and alternate Saturday’s. Mrs Hannah confirmed that she is rostered to work on the night shift and as a result has little direct interaction with the Person Named.
Mrs Hannah provided evidence that confirmed she is currently seeking treatment and support for various mental health challenges, I am not going to discuss these in detail, but I wish Mrs Hannah the best in receiving the support she requires.
Mrs Hannah’s concerns in relation to workplace bullying are primarily in relation to the matters outlined below.
Mrs Hannah submitted that there is inadequate staffing for the night shift staff which means it is hard to work to the required standard and within the confines of the Employer’s code of conduct. Mrs Hannah submitted that due to the lack of staff on nightshift, staff are required to work during their allotted break periods and are often rushing from resident to resident to stay on top of their duties.
Mrs Hannah submitted that she did not believe that the management action she was subjected to by the Person Named or the Employer was consistent with how other staff members had been treated by the Person Named or the Employer.
Mrs Hannah outlined that she is a transgender person, and she believes that this may have also led to the inconsistent treatment and bullying that she believes has occurred. Mrs Hannah does not feel respected or valued by her Employer.
Employer & Person Named
It was the submissions of the Employer that the alleged bullying was instead reasonable management action carried out in a reasonable manner by various staff of the Employer.
The Employer led evidence from the below four witnesses:
· Mr Philip Simich (Senior People & Culture Consultant)
· Ms Chunxiang Miao (Clinical Nurse Manager)
· Ms Joanne Eyre (People & Culture Consultant)
· Mr Vishavjeet Gill (Facility Manager & Person Named).
It was the consistent evidence of the witnesses that the Employer is required under the Aged Care Act 1997 (Cth) to investigate all complaints whereby there are allegations of Resident Neglect or Injuries to Residents that are the result of alleged Resident Neglect. The witnesses for the Employer outlined that when allegations were raised involving Mrs Hannah, a standard and consistent process was followed as it would have been with any other employee of the Employer. All four witnesses confirmed that they had been involved in well over 100 other similar investigative processes whilst employed by the Employer and that the interactions with Mrs Hannah were routine and consistent.
The witnesses also confirmed that they were not aware that Mrs Hannah is transgender and denied that this played in any part in the decision to investigate and where appropriate discipline Mrs Hannah in accordance with the Employer procedures.
The Employer confirmed in their submissions that the staffing levels at Aegis Balmoral are consistent with staffing levels at Aegis’ other twenty-eight (28) facilities. The Employer confirmed that the staffing levels are consistent with the staffing levels required by the Commonwealth Department of Aged Care.
The Employer submitted that Mrs Hannah has not provided any evidence that supports her claim that she has been bullied by the Person Named whilst at work with the Employer.
Consideration
I expect that my decision may upset Mrs Hannah, however this is not my intention. I accept that Mrs Hannah feels that she has been bullied by the Person Named whilst employed with the Employer. However, I agree with the submissions of the Employer that there is no substantive evidence that supports the position that Mrs Hannah has in fact been bullied.
I make the following observation in relation to Mrs Hannah; I consider the evidence provided by Mrs Hannah in relation to her motivation and reasons for working in the aged care sector to be honest and noble. Mrs Hannah works in this industry because she is truly passionate about providing a professional level of care for residents in her care.
I find that all four witnesses of the Employer provided consistent evidence that is logical, consistent and truthful. I do not believe that any of the witnesses either individually or collectively wish Mrs Hannah any form of ill will or were conspiring against her.
On the evidence before the Commission, I do not believe that Mrs Hannah has been bullied because of her status as a transgender person. The witnesses all confirmed under oath that they were not aware that Mrs Hannah is a transgender person until Mrs Hannah disclosed this during these proceedings.
It is not uncommon that employees and management have differing views in relation to the required staffing levels in workplaces. It is not my place to determine if the staffing levels are adequate or not, however on the evidence before the Commission, Mrs Hannah’s workplace has staffing levels that are consistent with the Employer’s wider operations. Therefore, the staffing levels are not something that is being targeted directly at Mrs Hannah during her shifts.
The witnesses are all experienced professionals in the aged care industry and their evidence outlines investigation processes that are consistent with standard human resource management procedures, such as providing written notice of allegations, conducting interviews and proving written findings of any disciplinary action.
The Employer is legally required under the Aged Care Act 1997 (Cth) to complete an investigation when a complaint or allegation is raised, and this must be completed in a way that is professional and determines if the allegations are substantiated or not. It is unfortunate that Mrs Hannah found this process to be stressful and, in her words, demeaning, however it is not uncommon that someone who is being investigated by their Employer feels stressed and is upset by the investigation. However, this does not mean that the process is unreasonable.
The Employer confirmed that not all the allegations or complaints that were made against Mrs Hannah have been substantiated, but for the allegations that were substantiated against Mrs Hannah, Mrs Hannah received a disciplinary outcome that is consistent with the policies and procedures of the Employer.
The actions taken by the Employer and the Person Named appear to be routine and not targeted specifically at Mrs Hannah. This action is fundamentally reasonable management action which on the evidence before the Commission was conducted in a reasonable manner.
Conclusion
Having considered the witness evidence of Mrs Hannah and the Employer, I have determined that the jurisdictional objection that the allegations of bullying were in fact reasonable management action conducted in a reasonable manner to be upheld. As a result, the application for a stop bullying order is dismissed. An order to the effect will be issued in due course.[1]
COMMISSIONER
Appearances:
A Hannah, Applicant
G Waldron, Respondent
Hearing details:
2025
Perth:
June 19
[1] PR789021.
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR789015>
0
0
0