FWC looks at case involving lawyer accused of tardiness, sleeping on the job
The Fair Work Commission (FWC) has dismissed a workplace bullying claim made by a graduate lawyer employed by the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations, ruling that the allegations were unsupported by sufficient evidence.
The Commission found that the actions taken by the lawyer's supervisors were reasonable and consistent with the department's policies and expectations.
The ruling came after the graduate lawyer filed an application under the Fair Work Act 2009, seeking an order to stop bullying he claimed to have experienced within the workplace.
The application named three female employees (the Persons Named), including the lawyer's supervisor, manager, and director, as the individuals responsible for the alleged bullying behaviour.
Among the claims, the lawyer argued that he had been subjected to unreasonable demands such as rigid work schedules that interfered with his health and well-being.
He also alleged that he was unfairly reprimanded for being late to meetings and for his apparent fatigue during training sessions.
The incident that triggered the bullying claim was an email from his supervisor detailing concerns about his attendance, performance, and personal use of work time.
In response, the graduate lawyer accused the department of bullying, claiming that the tone of the email was "menacing" and threatening, especially in relation to an alleged breach of the Public Service Act 1999.
The lawyer's second allegation centred around a confrontation with his supervisor, where he claimed to have been accused of undermining her authority.
He contended that the meeting was disrespectful and amounted to harassment. The lawyer also filed complaints about his treatment regarding his Practical Legal Training and suggested that the department's actions toward him constituted workplace bullying.
In the decision, Deputy President Dean of the FWC ruled that the lawyer's claims of bullying were unfounded.
The FWC found that the actions taken by the department were neither unreasonable nor carried out in an inappropriate manner.
"The matters raised with [the graduate lawyer], involving his lateness to work and to scheduled meetings, falling asleep in meetings, and delays in producing work, were all matters that ought to have been raised with him," Dean stated. "It is incumbent on any employer to set clear expectations of work performance, and this is what the Department appropriately and professionally did."
The FWC emphasised that the feedback provided by the lawyer's supervisors, including concerns about his punctuality, work performance, and use of work time for personal activities, was standard management practice.
"This is clearly not a matter of bullying. There is nothing in the email in question that could be considered menacing, threatening or in any way inappropriate," Dean said.
The Commission also pointed out the lawyer's unprofessional conduct during the proceedings, citing his refusal to follow instructions, evasiveness during cross-examination, and inappropriate communication with the Commission.
"[The applicant] was not a credible witness," Dean stated.
The deputy president concluded that the management actions taken were reasonable, given the circumstances, and that the lawyer's allegations did not meet the legal threshold for bullying under the Fair Work Act.
"There is nothing in the emails from the Persons Named to [the applicant] which could objectively be considered as anything other than appropriate, respectful, and reasonable," Dean said. "There was simply no bullying behaviour at all."
The FWC further noted that there was no ongoing risk of bullying as the graduate lawyer had been reassigned to a different team before the hearing took place.
The department's decision to remove him from direct supervision by the individuals named in the application was also highlighted as a key factor in eliminating any future risk of bullying.
In the end, the Commission dismissed the application, stating that the applicant had not been bullied at work and that all actions taken by the Department were within the bounds of reasonable management conduct.
"I find that [the applicant] was not bullied at work, nor is he at any ongoing risk of bullying, and so I will dismiss his application."
The Department had earlier signalled its intention to seek costs, given the lack of merit in the bullying claims. This matter will be considered separately by the FWC in due course.