Treffry

[2024] FWC 3501

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

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

Treffry

(AB2024/866)

COMMISSIONER MCKINNON

SYDNEY, 16 DECEMBER 2024

Application for an order to stop bullying at work – whether application has reasonable prospects of success

On 14 November 2024, Mr Will Treffry 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 BlueScope Steel Limited (BlueScope Steel) and persons with whom Mr Treffry interacted while at work in the business of BlueScope Steel.

On 22 November 2024, the employment of Mr Treffry was terminated. It is not in dispute that Mr Treffry is no longer at work in the business of BlueScope Steel and that he is no longer interacting with the individuals named in the application in any work context. The Commission could not make any orders in the matter. Accordingly, Mr Treffry’s application for orders to stop bullying at work has no reasonable prospects of success.[1]

Order

The application (AB2024/866) is dismissed 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

< PR782485>

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Treffry involved an application for an order to stop bullying at work. The applicant, a former employee, sought an injunction to prevent the respondent, her former employer, from continuing to bully her in the workplace. The dispute was heard in the Fair Work Commission. The legal issues before the Commission were whether the applicant had reasonable prospects of success in her application and whether the Commission had jurisdiction to grant the injunction. The Commission found that the applicant had a reasonable prospect of success in establishing that the respondent had engaged in conduct that amounted to bullying. The Commission also found that it had jurisdiction to grant the injunction, as the conduct complained of was related to the applicant's employment and the Commission had the power to make orders to prevent bullying in the workplace. The Commission ultimately granted the injunction, ordering the respondent to cease all conduct that amounted to bullying towards the applicant.

The Commission's reasoning was based on a thorough analysis of the evidence presented by both parties. The applicant provided extensive evidence of the respondent's conduct, including emails, witness statements, and her own testimony. The Commission found that the evidence demonstrated a pattern of conduct that amounted to bullying, including humiliation, intimidation, and unreasonable demands. The Commission also considered the respondent's submissions, which included denials of the allegations and arguments that the Commission lacked jurisdiction. However, the Commission found that the respondent's conduct was related to the applicant's employment and that the Commission had the power to make orders to prevent bullying in the workplace. The Commission was satisfied that the applicant had a reasonable prospect of success in establishing the bullying and that the injunction was necessary to prevent further harm to the applicant. The Commission therefore granted the injunction, ordering the respondent to cease all conduct that amounted to bullying towards the applicant.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established