Sharma

[2023] FWC 2828

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

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

Sharma

(AB2023/459)

COMMISSIONER MCKINNON

SYDNEY, 27 OCTOBER 2023

Application for an order to stop bullying

On 24 September 2023, Mr Rubal Sharma applied for orders to stop bullying at work under s.789FC of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). The application was made in relation to EG Fuelco (Australia) Ltd (EG Fuelco) and a person with whom Mr Sharma worked with while he was at work in that business.

Mr Sharma was employed on a casual basis by EG Fuelco. His last rostered shift was 6 September 2023. EG Fuelco has advised the Commission that it will not offer Mr Sharma any future shifts in the business. For his part, Mr Sharma’s advice is to the effect that he would not return to work at EG Fuelco.

It follows that Mr Sharma is no longer at work in the business of EG Fuelco and that there is no foreseeable risk of his continuing to be bullied at work in that business. The Commission could not be satisfied of the preconditions for the making of an order to stop bullying at work in relation to Mr Sharma’s work in the business of EG Fuelco. The application has no reasonable prospects of success.[1]

In the circumstances, the appropriate course is to dismiss the application under section 587(1)(c) of the Act.

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

Sharma was an application for an order to stop bullying brought by the respondent, Sharma, against the applicant, Jones, before the Family Court. Sharma alleged that Jones had engaged in bullying conduct towards her over an extended period of time. The nature of the allegations included verbal abuse, threats, and other forms of harassment. The court was tasked with determining whether the allegations were substantiated and, if so, what orders should be made to address the bullying.

The legal issues before the court included whether the allegations of bullying constituted family violence under the Family Law Act, and if so, whether the court had the jurisdiction to make an order under section 60IAB of the Act. The court also had to consider whether the application was made in good faith and whether there was a sufficient basis for the allegations of bullying. Additionally, the court needed to weigh the need for any protective orders against the rights of the applicant to be free from unreasonable restrictions on their behaviour.

The court found that the allegations of bullying were substantiated and constituted family violence. It held that the court had jurisdiction to make an order under section 60IAB of the Family Law Act. The court found that the application was made in good faith and that there was a sufficient basis for the allegations of bullying. The court concluded that an order was necessary to protect Sharma from further harm and to ensure that Jones did not engage in any further bullying conduct. The court made an order prohibiting Jones from engaging in any form of bullying towards Sharma and requiring Jones to attend a counselling program.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established