Worker claims 'difficult, isolating experience' with managers amid additional training
The Fair Work Commission (FWC) recently dealt with a case involving a worker's application for anti-bullying orders against her employer and two of its employees.
The worker contended that she had been subjected to bullying behaviour in the workplace, while the employer denied that any bullying had occurred. She cited instances of unnecessary training, personal comments about women in produce roles, and being prevented from performing certain tasks.
The worker, employed as a produce assistant, alleged that her direct superior, the produce manager, had treated her poorly from her first shift.
The worker also claimed that after raising her grievances with the office manager, her shifts were cut, and she was moved out of the produce department in retaliation.
Employer gives ‘additional training’
The employer's witnesses, including the office manager and the produce manager, refuted the worker's allegations.
They maintained that the training provided to the worker was standard for all employees and that any additional training was due to the worker's incorrect completion of tasks.
The produce manager attributed the poor working relationship to communication difficulties and denied making pointed personal comments.
On the other hand, the office manager asserted that the worker's shift reductions were due to her unavailability and an overall decrease in casual labour at the premises.
Moreover, following the worker's bullying allegations, the company took several measures, including:
- Providing training to all staff managers in mental health awareness and workplace bullying and harassment awareness.
- Rolling out new company policies for bullying and handling grievances.
- Designating a new direct report for the worker, given her complaint against the Office Manager.
Was there bullying at work?
The FWC found that while the worker genuinely believed she had been bullied at work, the evidence did not support a finding of bullying behaviour by the employer or its employees.
The FWC noted that the issues between the worker and the produce manager were due to their different personalities and communication styles, and the company's poor management of the worker's concerns.
The FWC determined that even if bullying had been found, there was no current risk of future bullying, given the worker's extended absence and the company's actions in providing training and updating policies. As no bullying was found, the FWC said that its power to make stop-bullying orders could not be exercised.
“It can be a very difficult and isolating experience when you do not get along or communicate well with your manager or co-workers,” the FWC said.
“I do not doubt the genuineness of [the worker’s] distress. However, that does not necessarily translate to a finding of bullying,” it added.
Consequently, the FWC dismissed the worker's application against the employer.
