Was it enough?

The Fair Work Commission (FWC) recently probed an employer’s initiatives after it responded to a worker’s bullying allegations. The Commission determined whether it was adequate or not and if the worker continued to be unsafe in the workplace.

The worker, Feyzullah Kaya, filed an application to address bullying under the Fair Work Act, alleging that several of his co-workers at Team Global Express Pty Ltd bullied him.

He was employed at the Webb Dock location in Melbourne, where freight is trans-shipped to and from Tasmania. An investigation was conducted by the employer's HR business partner and confirmed the following allegations:

• A co-worker told him to "fuck off"
• One of them called the worker a "dickhead"
• A co-worker touched/tapped the worker's face
• Since January 2022, at the Port Melbourne depot, a co-worker inappropriately touched the worker by grabbing his bum on numerous occasions
• The co-worker swore at and spoke aggressively towards the worker.

Employer took ‘appropriate disciplinary action’

The company argued that they took appropriate disciplinary action based on the findings and conducted a toolbox session on acceptable workplace behaviour.

The accused co-workers received a written warning, stating that any further violation of the workplace behaviour policy would result in additional disciplinary action, including termination of employment.

Following the investigation, the worker was also placed at a different location in the workplace, ensuring minimal interaction between the worker and the concerned individuals.

‘Number of initiatives’ to reduce bullying

The employer said it "implemented a number of initiatives aimed at reducing or eliminating the risk of any bullying" against him.

It said there has also been some training of the relevant staff in preventing workplace discrimination, bullying and harassment at the worksite.

Further, the employer gave a "clearer direction for the relevant employees to be stationed in different locations in the warehouse, including requirements that they eat in separate areas and use different bathrooms, in order to reduce or eliminate the prospect of the [worker] coming into contact with the persons named."

Despite the employer's implementation of the various initiatives, the [worker] maintained that he continued to be at risk and said that the Commission should make orders to stop the bullying.

According to records, the worker said he did not feel supported by the company when he requested that the concerned co-workers be kept away from him following the incidents.

The worker believed that the company was hesitant to take action due to his co-workers' seniority. As a result of the bullying, the worker said he experienced mental health issues, including sleeplessness, anxiety, and panic attacks.

Were the employer’s initiatives adequate?

"It is not clear what orders the [worker] would have the Commission make that would extend beyond the actions the employer has already taken," the FWC said.

"In this case, the employer has introduced a number of significant initiatives that have responded to the claims made by the [worker]. Not the least of these has been the relocation of work locations and the reorganisation of start times in order to significantly reduce and likely eliminate the chance of contact between the persons named and the [worker]," it said.

"[His co-workers] been warned about the inappropriate behaviour [and] they have taken on board the warnings and have learnt from the experience.”

“In any event, the employer has directed them to comply with the arrangements that will ensure their separation, and there will be consequences if they do not. The training of staff is also an important component of the initiatives undertaken by the employer,” it added.

It found that "the [worker] is safe to return to the workplace having regard to the changed working environment set out above." The Commission said it "encourages him to return to work."

Consequently, the Commission dismissed the worker’s application.