Employer argues it took reasonable management steps to address worker's concerns
The Fair Work Commission (FWC) recently dealt with a case involving allegations of workplace bullying.
The matter centred around a worker, a chef, who claimed he was bullied by his employer and managers after being temporarily reassigned to a different department.
The worker alleged that he was subjected to unreasonable requests while on personal leave, faced unwarranted disciplinary action, and experienced delays in communication from management.
Alleged bullying in the workplace
The case unfolded at an Adelaide casino where a chef de partie was moved from the Conference and Events Department to the Kitchen Department due to a business slowdown.
This change meant he had to report to a new manager and work on a different roster. The chef was unhappy about the move and the new roster, which led to initial discussions with his original manager.
On August 7, 2024, the chef called in sick for a shift in the Kitchen Department. He followed the company's procedure by notifying the designated health hotline. Later that day, his original manager asked him to also inform the Kitchen Department manager directly of any absences.
The chef refused this request, sending several text messages to his original manager expressing his displeasure. He said he didn't want to open communication channels or have contact with the Kitchen Department manager outside of work hours.
Specific bullying allegations
The worker claimed three instances of bullying:
- Being asked to take an extra step to notify his absence while on personal leave.
- The employer holding a meeting to discuss his refusal and refusing to cancel it.
- Delaying information about the meeting's outcome for three weeks.
In response to the chef's refusal to notify the Kitchen Department manager, the employer scheduled a meeting on August 13 to discuss the matter.
The chef was informed that disciplinary action was possible depending on the outcome of the meeting.
The employer argued that their actions were reasonable management steps. They said the extra notification request was reasonable given the chef's temporary assignment, the meeting was needed to address his refusal to comply with a management direction, and the delay in providing the outcome was because the chef was on personal leave.
Is it a reasonable management directive?
The FWC examined each of the chef's claims in detail. Regarding the notification request, the Commission said:
"[The worker] has at least an arguable case that the request was unreasonable because it was accompanied by an expectation of compliance in circumstances where [the worker] had already exercised a workplace right."
However, the FWC noted that for conduct to be considered bullying, it must be repeated and create a risk to health and safety. Neither condition was met in this case.
About the disciplinary meeting, the Commission found:
"In the circumstances, and given that on at least one view ([the manager's]) a lawful and reasonable instruction had been refused, it was not unreasonable for [the employer] to decide that the issue needed formal discussion and explanation."
While the FWC acknowledged that the three-week delay in providing the meeting outcome was long, it didn't find this to be bullying. Most of this period overlapped with the chef's personal leave.
The FWC ultimately dismissed the bullying application, finding that the employer's actions didn't meet the legal definition of workplace bullying. However, the Commission offered some observations:
"It is apparent from my findings that whilst both [the employer], [the manager] and [the worker] faced a challenging and disputed situation, there are learnings on all sides."
The FWC suggested that other options could have been explored:
"I have observed in these reasons that other options were open to [the employer] short of convening a formal meeting of potential disciplinary consequence to resolve the workplace conflict."
Finally, the Commission noted:
"That no disciplinary action was taken against [the worker], despite [the worker's] refusal to comply with [the manager's] request, because [the worker] had already exercised a workplace right in accordance with policy and procedure, may provide a basis for rebuilding the workplace relationship."
This case highlights the importance of clear communication and following established policies when dealing with employee conflicts, especially during departmental changes. It also underscores the need for employers to carefully consider their approach when addressing workplace disputes, and the potential benefits of exploring less formal resolution methods before escalating to disciplinary proceedings.
