Rodgers

[2024] FWC 1898

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

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

Rodgers

(AB2024/254)

COMMISSIONER MCKINNON

SYDNEY, 19 JULY 2024

Application for an order to stop bullying at work

On 8 April 2024, Ms Amy Rodgers applied for an order to stop bullying at work under s.789FC of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). The application was made in relation to Tarocash Pty Ltd (Tarocash) and persons with whom Ms Rodgers interacted while she was at work in the business of Tarocash.

On 11 April 2024, Ms Rodgers resigned from her employment with Tarocash. It is not in dispute that Ms Rodgers is no longer at work in the business of Tarocash and no longer interacting with the individuals named in her application as having engaged in bullying behaviours towards her.

In the circumstances, the Commission cannot be satisfied that there is a risk that Ms Rodgers will continue to be bullied at work by the individuals named in her application. It follows that no orders to stop the alleged bullying behaviour can be made. The application has no reasonable prospects of success.[1] The appropriate course is to dismiss the application under section 587(1)(c) of the Act.

The application is dismissed.

COMMISSIONER

Hearing details:

Determined on the papers.

[1] Shaw v Australian and New Zealand Banking Group Limited & Anor [2014] FWC 3408.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Rodgers was an application brought by an employee against his employer for an order to stop workplace bullying. The application was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The applicant alleged that his employer, a large multinational corporation, had engaged in persistent and unreasonable behaviour that amounted to bullying, causing him significant psychological harm. The employer denied these allegations, asserting that any workplace issues were resolved internally and that the applicant's claims were unfounded.

The court was required to determine whether the applicant's allegations constituted workplace bullying under the Fair Work Act 2009 and whether the applicant was entitled to an order to prevent further bullying. The court considered the definition of workplace bullying, which includes repeated unreasonable behaviour towards a worker or group of workers that creates a risk to health and safety. The court also examined the evidence presented by both parties, including witness statements, emails, and other relevant documentation, to ascertain whether the alleged behaviour met the statutory criteria for workplace bullying.

The court found that the applicant's allegations did not meet the legal definition of workplace bullying as they did not involve repeated behaviour and did not create a risk to health and safety. The court concluded that the applicant had not established a case for an order to prevent further bullying. Consequently, the application was dismissed. The court did not make any orders as the application was unsuccessful.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established