Watton v TAFE Queensland (No. 3) - [2023] QIRC 303

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION: PARTIES:	Watton v TAFE Queensland (No. 3) [2023] QIRC 303 Watton, Rodney Peter (Applicant) v TAFE Queensland (Respondent)
CASE NOS.:	B/2021/1 and GP/2021/11
PROCEEDING:	Application to stop bullying Application to deal with a dispute
DELIVERED ON:	Orders issued on 13 October 2023 with reasons delivered on 19 October 2023
MEMBER	Hartigan DP
HEARD AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE	13, 14, 15 and 16 September 2021 and 10 December 2021
ORDERS:	1. That the application in matter B/2021/1 is dismissed. 2. That the application in matter GP/2021/11 is dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	INDUSTRIAL LAW - QUEENSLAND - BULLYING - application for an order to stop bullying pursuant to s 275 of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 - where applicant believes he has been bullied in the workplace pursuant to s 272 of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 - where applicant claims he has been bullied by way of a campaign to harm, single-out, humiliate and discriminate - where perceived campaign of ostracisation - where independent workplace investigation into applicant's complaints and allegations - where applicant's complaints were not substantiated - where respondent's complaints against the applicant were substantiated - where respondent issued written warning to applicant - where respondent denies applicant has been bullied in the workplace - whether applicant has been bullied in the workplace or will continue to be bullied in the workplace – application dismissed INDUSTRIAL LAW - QUEENSLAND - GENERAL PROTECTIONS - application to deal with a dispute pursuant to s 309 of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 - whether adverse action - where applicant claims investigation into applicant's conduct was adverse action taken against him for exercising his workplace right to lodge a workplace bullying complaint - where applicant claims workplace investigation was unreasonable management action - where respondent submits applicant makes no proper allegation of adverse action - where respondent submits the evidence shows that no adverse action was taken against the applicant for any prohibited reason – application dismissed
LEGISLATION:	Industrial Relations Act 2016, s 273, s 275, s 282, s 284, s 285, s 287, s 288, s 306, s 309, s 314
CASES:	Appellant v Respondent (2015) 249 IR 142 Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Hall (2018) 277 IR 7 Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union v Visy Packaging Pty Ltd (No 3) [2013] FLA 525 Board of Bendigo Regional Institute of Technical and Further Education v Barclay (2012) 248 CLR 500 Campbell v State of Queensland (Department of Justice and Attorney General) [2019] ICQ 18 Celand v Skycity Adelaide Pty Ltd [2017] FCAFC 222 Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v BHP Coal Pty Ltd (2014) 253 CLR 243 Gilbert v Metro North Hospital and Health Service & Ors [2021] QIRC 255 Greenall v State of Queensland (Queensland Corrective Services) [2021] QIRC 264 Jones v Queensland Tertiary Admissions Centre Ltd (No 2) FCA 399 Mac v Bank of Queensland (2015) 247 IR 274 Ms SB [2014] FWC 2104 Police Federations of Australia v Nixon [2008]…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Watton v TAFE Queensland (No. 3) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2023] QIRC 303
Decision Date: 19 October 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Watton commenced proceedings against TAFE Queensland, alleging that he had been subjected to workplace bullying and that he had suffered adverse action as a result of exercising his rights under the Industrial Relations Act 2016. The proceedings were heard in the Fair Work Commission. Watton claimed that he had been bullied by a campaign of ostracisation, discrimination, and humiliation. TAFE Queensland denied these allegations and submitted that an independent workplace investigation had not substantiated Watton’s complaints. Furthermore, TAFE Queensland asserted that its complaints against Watton had been substantiated, leading to a written warning being issued to him.

The court was required to determine whether Watton had indeed been subjected to bullying in the workplace and if there was a likelihood of continued bullying. Additionally, the court had to decide whether the investigation into Watton’s conduct constituted adverse action taken against him for exercising his right to lodge a workplace bullying complaint. Watton argued that the investigation was unreasonable management action, while TAFE Queensland contended that no adverse action had been taken against Watton for any prohibited reason.

The court found that Watton’s complaints of bullying were not substantiated by the independent investigation and that TAFE Queensland had valid reasons to issue a written warning to Watton. The court also concluded that the investigation into Watton’s conduct did not amount to adverse action. Consequently, the court dismissed Watton’s applications, finding that there was no evidence of workplace bullying or unreasonable management action.

The court ordered that the application in matter B/2021/1 and the application in matter GP/2021/11 be dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. That the application in matter B/2021/1 is dismissed.

2. That the application in matter GP/2021/11 is dismissed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.