Worker had no plans to return to work and was seeking psychological treatment after incidents
The Fair Work Commission (FWC) recently dealt with an anti-bullying application from a worker who alleged he experienced bullying at work.
The worker was employed at McDonald's in Queensland as a part-time crew member on 2 December 2024.
Following leave of absence from 17 January 2025 to 6 March 2025, the worker requested a move to a full-time position and subsequently commenced in a full-time role on 5 May 2025. The worker had not been at work since 19 June 2025.
On 22 June 2025, the worker applied to the FWC for an order to stop bullying at work by one of the owners of the business and by the worker's manager.
The worker alleged that he experienced "not only unreasonable, but targeted and repeated" "serious psychological bullying and coercion by his employers during forced conversations".
The worker submitted that these behaviours had caused him significant physical and mental distress and related medical symptoms, directly impacting his "mental health, daily functioning, and future work capacity".
Legal test for bullying
The Commission may make an anti-bullying order if it is satisfied that a worker has been bullied at work, and that there is a risk that the worker will continue to be bullied at work.
A worker is bullied at work if, while the worker is at work in a constitutionally-covered business, an individual or group of individuals repeatedly behaves unreasonably towards the worker and that behaviour creates a risk to health and safety.
The questions to be determined were whether the worker was bullied at work and/or whether the alleged conduct amounted to reasonable management action carried out in a reasonable manner, and whether there was a risk that he would continue to be bullied at work.
The worker submitted that the respondents had behaved unreasonably towards him in various ways, including that on 13 May 2025, when he slipped and injured his wrist on a wet floor in the staff hallway at work, the respondents failed to assist him or follow any workplace injury procedure.
Further, the worker submitted that when he was driven to hospital by a management employee of the respondents, that person did not disclose to the hospital that his injury was a consequence of a workplace accident.
The worker alleged that on 29 May 2025, the owner blamed him for the injury, accused him of wearing the wrong shoes and stated that he "could not afford [the worker's] injury".
He alleged he was not informed of the purpose of this meeting beforehand, and that, at this meeting, he was pressured to return to work early, and no HR representative was provided to be present.
The worker alleged that on 19 June 2025, he was questioned about spending too long in the bathroom, confronted with CCTV footage and accused of not being productive.
He alleged he was forced into this conversation after his shift had finished and consequently suffered a severe emotional collapse requiring him to call 000 for transport to hospital.
Employer's version of events
The worker alleged he was yelled at in front of others about another employee's mistake, he was intimidated and angrily told he was drinking too much water, and he was subjected to unspecified unjustified accusations, verbal aggressions and unreasonable restrictions.
The respondents submitted that following the worker's injury on 13 May 2025, they showed the worker proper care, reported the incident to WorkCover and took the worker to the hospital from his home following his injury.
Further, the respondents submitted that they purchased Ice Gel, Tiger Balm, Nurofen and Panadol to assist the worker, and that it was a matter for the worker to tell the doctor what happened to cause his injury, respecting the patient/doctor relationship.
The respondents submitted that in respect of the meeting on 29 May 2025, they did not blame the worker for the injury, but that they had previously spoken to the worker about wearing incorrect footwear and advised him that he should wear footwear with non-slip soles.
The respondents submitted that this was reasonable management action, and it had been carried out respectfully and they denied that they had pressured the worker to return to work early.
The respondents submitted that the meeting on 19 June 2025 constituted reasonable management action and it was carried out respectfully.
In respect of this meeting they also submitted that the meeting started prior to the worker's shift ending and that he was paid overtime for the 28 minutes it extended beyond his finishing hours.
They submitted that the worker asked to go home at 8.14pm and the owner tried to wind up the meeting but the worker proceeded to ask more questions and it took until 8.28pm for the meeting to end.
A statement from police responded to a request from the owner to assess the worker's complaint that he had been illegally detained.
The statement indicated that police conducted an investigation and concluded that they did not believe the conduct alleged constituted any form of criminal conduct.
WorkCover and police investigations
WorkCover conducted an inquiry into the worker's allegations about the meeting and concluded that the meeting constituted reasonable management action carried out in a reasonable manner and had rejected the WorkCover claim made by the worker in respect of the 19 June 2025 meeting.
In relation to the subject of the meeting, the owner submitted that the worker was observed by another manager to be missing for lengthy periods and when the owner subsequently noticed the worker coming out of the disabled toilet, he went into the disabled toilet himself and noticed the room was not cleaned.
The owner submitted that he reviewed the CCTV footage and noted that the worker remained in the disabled toilet for 16 minutes, yet the sink and mirror had not been cleaned, nor had the male or female toilets been cleaned.
The owner alleged he raised these issues with the worker to give him feedback and not for the purposes of disciplinary discussions.
The respondents submitted the worker was not yelled at about another employee's mistake.
The respondents submitted the worker was not restricted in his water intake but instead that they had repeatedly requested the worker advise the respondents when he left his workstation so that he could be replaced with someone else.
The respondents submitted the worker was not subjected to unspecified unjustified accusations, verbal aggressions and/or unreasonable restrictions.
The worker gave evidence at hearing that he had no plans to return to work, was seeking psychological treatment and did not know if he might return to work in the future.
Commissioner's findings on allegations
The FWC examined whether the worker was bullied at work. The Commissioner stated: "I accept that the Respondent took all reasonable action to support [the worker] in relation to his injury.
However, even if the Respondent did not, the Respondent's failure to provide proactive support to [the worker] in obtaining medical attention, in circumstances where [the worker] decided to drive himself home after the incident occurred, does not of itself constitute bullying behaviour."
When the worker's housemate called his employer after he got home to ask for assistance, the owner's wife drove immediately to the worker's home and took the worker to the hospital.
The owner's wife stayed with the worker until he was finished and then drove him home. The owner's wife did not accompany the worker into the treatment room.
The Commissioner stated: "[The worker's] expectations of his employer were that [the owner's wife] should have come in to see the doctor with him and that she should have communicated to the doctor for him was not a reasonable expectation."
The Commissioner also stated: "[The owner's wife's] actions – purchasing items for [the worker] on his way home and lodging his claim with WorkCover – were demonstrable of further support. [The worker's] expectations of his employer were not strict obligations on his employer and his employer's failure to meet his high expectations does not constitute workplace bullying."
In respect of the meeting of 29 May 2025, the Commissioner stated: "On the evidence, I find that the Respondent raised with [the worker] that he should wear shoes with non-slip soles to prevent future trips. An employer is obligated to take all relevant steps to prevent a recurrence of a work-related injury, and these steps must be taken in a reasonable manner. I am satisfied that the meeting amounted to reasonable management action carried out in a reasonable manner."
As for the meeting of 19 June 2025, the Commissioner stated: "I find the evidence demonstrates that [the owner] took reasonable management action in raising work concerns with [the worker] in a reasonable manner. [The worker's] reaction to the meeting was disproportionate to what had occurred in the meeting. I am satisfied that [the worker] was not subjected to workplace bullying conduct at that meeting."
In respect of the worker's water intake, the Commissioner accepted the evidence of the manager that she was asking the worker to let her know if he left his workstation rather than restricting his water intake.
The Commissioner stated: "I accept that perhaps there was a misunderstanding by [the worker] of what [the manager] had requested of him and it is possible that [the manager] demonstrated an element of frustration when [the worker] did not comply with her request. I am not satisfied, however, that this met the threshold of constituting repeated conduct carried out in an unreasonable manner."
No bullying finding made
The Commissioner stated: "On the evidence before me, I conclude that [the worker] had unreasonable expectations of his employer, and further, that his reaction to his employer's reasonable management of him was extreme. [The worker] was relatively new to the workplace, and I conclude that his reactions may well have stemmed from a lack of experience or understanding of the world of work rather than any ill-intended motivation."
The FWC examined whether there was a risk that the worker would continue to be bullied at work.
The Commissioner stated: "[The worker] has been absent from work since 19 June 2025 and on his own evidence he has no plans to return to work and does not know if he will, even if I make the orders he seeks. For this reason, I am not satisfied that there is any future risk of [the worker] being bullied at work. If these circumstances change and [the worker] does decide to return to work, it is open to him to file a further application for orders at that time."
The Commissioner stated: "For these reasons, the Commission cannot be satisfied that [the worker] was bullied at work for the purposes of the Act. There is also no future risk of [the worker] continuing to be bullied at work." The application was dismissed.
