Worker argues supervisor implied he was incompetent
The Fair Work Commission (FWC) recently dealt with a case involving allegations of workplace bullying.
The dispute centred around a single incident between a worker and their assistant supervisor, raising questions about what constitutes bullying behaviour and the threshold for anti-bullying orders.
The decision highlights the complexities of workplace interactions, discussing the challenges of defining and addressing perceived bullying in professional settings.
The bullying incident and claim
The worker claimed he had been bullied at work following an interaction with his assistant supervisor. According to the worker, the assistant supervisor spoke to him in a "loud and accusatory manner" and implied he was incompetent.
This incident was followed by a message from the assistant supervisor outlining performance expectations.
The worker argued that this conduct was demeaning, unreasonable, and created a hostile work environment. He reported experiencing sleepless nights and fear of going to work as a result of the incident.
Reasonable direction or bullying?
The employer and the assistant supervisor strongly denied the bullying allegations. They maintained that the interaction was simply an attempt to provide information and reasonable direction to the worker.
The assistant supervisor refuted claims of speaking in a loud or demeaning way, stating that she was following up on unfinished tasks that needed timely completion.
To support their position, the employer submitted the message sent by the assistant supervisor to the FWC.
The Commission noted: "Its tone and content were entirely reasonable." This evidence played a crucial role in the FWC's assessment of the situation, highlighting the importance of documented communications in workplace disputes.
Defining workplace bullying
The FWC's decision rested on the legal definition of workplace bullying as outlined in the Fair Work Act 2009.
According to the Act, bullying occurs when an individual or group repeatedly behaves unreasonably towards a worker and the behaviour creates a risk to health and safety.
The Commission can only make an anti-bullying order if it is satisfied that the worker has been bullied at work and there is a risk of continued bullying.
After due consideration, the FWC dismissed the worker's application for an anti-bullying order. The Commission was not convinced that the assistant supervisor or anyone else had behaved unreasonably.
It found that the instructions given to the worker were not delivered in an unreasonable tone.
The Commission emphasised that the alleged bullying was a single incident, stating: "On any view, there was no repeated unreasonable conduct in this matter." This highlights the importance of the "repeated" aspect in the legal definition of workplace bullying.
Furthermore, the FWC noted that no link had been established between the conduct and a risk to the worker's health and safety.
The decision pointed out: "In particular, there was no medical or psychological evidence about his sleeplessness and fearfulness, or what may have caused this." This underscores the need for substantiated evidence when claiming health and safety risks in bullying cases.
The Commission also found no basis to conclude that the worker would be subject to unreasonable conduct creating a health and safety risk in the future.
As the conditions specified in section 789FF of the Fair Work Act were not met, the FWC determined it had no power to make an anti-bullying order.
The FWC's decision serves as a reminder of the high threshold required for anti-bullying orders and the importance of clear, documented communication in workplace interactions. It also highlights the need for organisations to have robust processes for addressing and resolving workplace conflicts before they escalate to formal complaints.
