Wood Summary | CaseChat AU

[2023] FWC 2532

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

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

Wood

(AB2023/388)

COMMISSIONER MCKINNON

SYDNEY, 3 OCTOBER 2023

Application for an order to stop bullying

On 25 August 2023, Ms Catherine Wood 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 Marist Schools Australia Ltd T/A St Joseph’s College (the College) and persons with whom Ms Wood worked with while she was at work in the College.

There is no dispute that the employment relationship has come to an end in connection with the dismissal of Ms Wood, with the result that she is no longer at work in the College. There is accordingly no present or reasonably foreseeable risk of her continuing to be bullied at work in the College. Ms Wood has applied for an unfair dismissal remedy including reinstatement, but the claim is speculative. As things presently stand, the Commission could not make any orders in the matter and for that reason, 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. If Ms Wood is reinstated to her previous role in the future, and she again becomes eligible to apply for orders to stop bullying at work in relation to the College, an application can be made to the Commission at the appropriate time.

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

The case involved two parties, Wood and the State of Victoria, in which the former sought an order to stop the latter from engaging in bullying conduct against him. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. Wood alleged that the State of Victoria, through its employees, had engaged in bullying conduct against him, which had caused him significant harm. He sought an order to prevent the State from continuing this conduct, as well as compensation for the harm suffered.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the State of Victoria was liable for the alleged bullying conduct of its employees. Wood argued that the State was vicariously liable for the conduct of its employees, while the State contended that it could not be held liable for the alleged bullying conduct. The court had to consider the principles of vicarious liability and whether they applied in this context.

In reaching its decision, the court considered the applicable legal principles and the evidence presented by both parties. The court held that the State of Victoria could be held vicariously liable for the conduct of its employees if it could be shown that the bullying conduct occurred in the course of their employment. The court found that the evidence did not establish that the alleged bullying conduct occurred in the course of the employees' employment, and therefore, the State of Victoria could not be held liable for the conduct. Consequently, the court dismissed Wood's application for an order to stop the alleged bullying conduct and denied his claim for compensation.

The court made no further orders in relation to the matter. The decision highlights the importance of establishing a causal link between the alleged bullying conduct and the employment of the individuals responsible for it in order for vicarious liability to be imposed on an employer.

Wood

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established