Appeal against decision [2025] FWC 1349 of Commissioner Crawford at Sydney on 15 May 2025 in matter number AB2024/896 - Application for orders to stop bullying – Commissioner was satisfied there was a risk that worker would continue to be bullied at work for the purposes of s 789FF(1)(b)(ii) –Whether arguable case of appealable error – Permission to appeal refused.

Introduction

NBN Co Limited (NBN) has lodged an appeal, for which permission is required, against a decision of Commissioner Crawford at Sydney on 15 May 2025 in Re Camilleri[2025] FWC 1349 (the Decision). The Decision relates to an application for an order to stop bullying (the Application) under s 789FC of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth)(the Act).

The Application had named NBN and a number of NBN employees as Respondents to the proceeding, however only Mr Camilleri’s claims that he had been bullied at work by his Field Area Manager, Mr Paul Fitzpatrick, and so by NBN, were pressed.

The present matter was listed to deal with the question of permission to appeal and the

merits of the appeal. For the reasons that follow, we have determined that permission to appeal should be refused.

Decision under appeal

After setting out the statutory context in which the Application was to be determined, the Commissioner recorded the factual background to the Application and the respective positions advanced by the parties.

It is unnecessary to traverse the full facts in the matter because, while Mr Camilleri ultimately advanced nine instances of alleged bulling by Mr Fitzpatrick at first instance, the Commissioner only found there was substance to two of the nine alleged instances of bullying. Further limiting the enquiry on appeal was the scope of the alleged errors asserted, being that NBN only challenged the second of the two alleged instances of bullying.

The first alleged instance of bullying found to exist, titled by the Commissioner as “#3 – Mr Fitzpatrick took disciplinary action taken against Mr Camilleri concerning an RDO taken on 18 October 2024” (the First Finding), related to facts and findings of the Commissioner expressed as follows:

[30] On 17 September 2024, Mr Fitzpatrick sent Mr Camilleri a follow-up email after their meeting earlier in the day. The email relevantly stated:
“As mentioned in the meeting, you will be removed from the RDO roster as of 4 weeks from today. This means your last RDO will be on or before 17/10/2024 depending on where it falls, and you will return to a 7:00am to 3:06pm roster or a 8:00am to 4:06pm roster.”

[31] Mr Camilleri took a day of personal leave on 17 October 2024. Mr Camilleri was absent from work on 18 October 2024 on what he claims was an RDO. Mr Fitzpatrick determined that Mr Camilleri had failed to comply with the…

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 NBN Co Limited V Adam Camilleri

Details

AGLC: NBN Co Limited V Adam Camilleri [2025] FWCFB 226
Case: [2025] FWCFB 226
Decision Date: 10 OCTOBER 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

NBN Co Limited has lodged an appeal against a decision of Commissioner Crawford in the Fair Work Commission, seeking an order to stop bullying under section 789FC of the Fair Work Act 2009. The appeal was against the Commissioner's determination that NBN Co had engaged in repeated unreasonable behaviour towards Adam Camilleri, which created a risk to his health and safety. NBN Co contested two findings of bullying, but only appealed the second finding, which concerned an allegation that Camilleri had missed a call while on standby. The appeal was brought under section 604 of the Fair Work Act, which requires permission from the Commission to proceed. The Commission considered whether there was an arguable case of appealable error and whether it was in the public interest to grant permission to appeal.

The Full Bench found that NBN Co's grounds of appeal did not disclose an arguable basis for appealable error. The Commissioner had considered all relevant evidence and findings, and NBN Co and its employee were on notice of the issues at hand. The Full Bench rejected NBN Co's arguments that the Commissioner had made errors of fact and law in finding that the employee's manager had acted unreasonably. The Full Bench concluded that permission to appeal should be refused as there was no appealable error and it was not in the public interest to grant permission.

The Full Bench emphasised that an appeal exists for the correction of error, not a hearing de novo. The Full Bench would not re-evaluate the evidence and findings made by the Commissioner at first instance unless there was a clear error of law or fact. The Full Bench found that the Commissioner had not erred in determining that the employee's manager had acted unreasonably towards the employee in raising an unfounded allegation that the employee had missed a call while on standby. The Full Bench held that the decision of the Commissioner was not attended with sufficient doubt to warrant reconsideration.

Orders