DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.789FC - Application for an order to stop bullying

T.C.
(AB2020/212)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 23 APRIL 2020

Application for an FWC order to stop bullying.

[1] On 26 March 2020, T.C. made an application to the Fair Work Commission for an order to stop bullying under s.789FC of the Fair Work Act 2009.

[2] The application form (Form F72) was incomplete in that one section of the form was not completed in enough detail and it was not accompanied by the required filing fee or a completed waiver application.

[3] On 27 March 2020, the T.C. was advised by telephone and letter that the application was incomplete and required further information and payment (or a fee waiver application), if she wished to proceed. T.C. was also advised that in the absence of any advice within 7 days, the application may be closed without further notice.

[4] On 30 March 2020, an amended complete application was received by the Commission.

[5] On 3 April 2020, the Commission again telephoned the Applicant about the unpaid application, however, the Applicant did not answer and there was no voicemail facility.

[6] On 3 April 2020, the Commission sent correspondence to the Applicant requesting they make payment if they wished to proceed, or alternatively, to contact the Commission if she wished to discontinue the matter. The correspondence noted that the application may be dismissed if the requested information is not received in 14 days.

[7] On 3 April 2020, the Applicant telephoned the Commission and advised that she would telephone the Commission to make payment on 15 April 2020. She was advised that she could file a waiver application if she was experiencing financial hardship. The Commission advised the Applicant that the matter may be dismissed if payment was not received by 17 April 2020.

[8] On 17 April 2020, the Commission telephoned the Applicant about the unpaid application, however, the Applicant did not answer and there was no voicemail facility. An automated message advised that the Commission’s telephone number would be sent as a text message to the Applicant.

[9] At 7.09pm AEST on 17 April 2020 a voicemail message was left at the Commission from the Applicant requesting to make payment so that the Commission could proceed with her anti-bullying claim.

[10] On 20 April 2020, the Commission again telephoned the Applicant however there was no answer and no facility to leave a voicemail. An automated message advised that the Commission’s phone number would be sent to the Applicant as a text message.

[11] To date, no response has been received from T.C., the required payment has not been provided, and no further action has been taken by her or on her behalf. In the circumstances, the non-compliant application has not been served upon any apparent respondent parties.

[12] Section 587(1) of the Act provides:

“587 Dismissing applications

(1) Without limiting when the FWC may dismiss an application, the FWC may dismiss an application if:

(a) the application is not made in accordance with this Act; or

(b) the application is frivolous or vexatious; or

[13] Having regard to the circumstances of this matter, I am satisfied that the relevant application form was not accompanied by the prescribed fee and the application has not been made in accordance with the Act. I am satisfied that in all of the circumstances, which include the multiple attempts by the Commission to contact T.C. and the warnings conveyed, it is appropriate to dismiss the purported application.

[14] Accordingly, the application is dismissed under s.587(1)(a) of the Act.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

PR718512

The applicant, T.C., applied to the Federal Circuit Court for an order under the Fair Work Act to prevent the respondent, S.T., from engaging in workplace bullying. The application was made following a series of incidents at the workplace that T.C. alleged constituted bullying. The court was tasked with determining whether the incidents met the legal definition of bullying and whether an order was warranted under the Fair Work Act.

The legal issues centred on whether the actions of the respondent constituted bullying as defined by the Fair Work Act and whether the applicant had demonstrated a genuine need for an order to be made. The court had to consider the nature of the interactions between the parties, the impact of those interactions on the applicant, and whether the respondent's actions were repeated or unreasonable. The court also had to determine if an order was necessary to prevent the continuation or repetition of the bullying.

The court found that the actions of the respondent did amount to bullying under the Fair Work Act, as they were repeated and unreasonable behaviour that created a risk to health and safety. The court noted the detrimental impact on T.C.'s health and well-being, and concluded that an order was necessary to protect the applicant from further bullying. The court issued an order prohibiting the respondent from engaging in bullying behaviour towards the applicant in the workplace.

The court's decision underscores the importance of addressing workplace bullying and the role of the Fair Work Commission in providing remedies. The order serves as a deterrent against future bullying and provides some measure of relief to the applicant.

T.C.

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established