He listed 301 names to prove bias. The Full Bench wasn't buying it
A worker scoured social media, listed hundreds of a Commissioner's "friends," and asked him to step aside. The Full Bench said no.
When an employee doesn't like who is hearing their case, asking for a different decision-maker is fair game. But a Fair Work Commission Full Bench ruling handed down on May 27, 2026 is a sharp reminder that the bar is high - and that mapping someone's social network won't clear it.
The dispute began as an anti-bullying application. Mark Charteris alleged he had been subjected to bullying across his 16-year career with the Northern Territory Fire and Emergency Service. According to the decision, his application alleged the conduct "had included harassment, coercion, and victimisation," including by members of the United Workers' Union, a union he belongs to. He named several people, among them the union's National President, Jo Schofield.
Then it took a turn. The Commissioner assigned to the matter disclosed at the outset that he had attended university with Schofield in 1986, that their paths had crossed rarely over his 24 years in the union movement, and that she had appeared before him on one or two occasions over 14 years. Charteris asked him to recuse himself - to step aside - claiming a potential conflict of interest.
The Commissioner declined. He said he and Schofield were "nothing more than acquaintances," that he had never socialised with her one-on-one, and that he had never "had a cup of coffee" with her. He added a line many HR readers will recognise: if members had to step aside simply for knowing a party, "the Commission would grind to a halt."
Charteris appealed, and he came with research. He filed a document titled "Shared Associates between Schofield and Riordan," listing 26 names with union and Australian Labor Party notes. He followed up with a 28-page document mapping what he said were common groupings among 301 people he described as the Commissioner's friends. His argument: the shared political and professional ties were undisclosed and mattered.
The Full Bench - Deputy President Colman, Deputy President Masson and Commissioner Fox - wasn't persuaded. It refused to admit the "associates" documents as new evidence, finding they could not have changed the result. Applying the High Court's test from Ebner, it found no "logical connection" between the Commissioner's associations and any feared bias. The two, it said, did not have a "significant connection." In fact, it "scarcely seems meaningful to speak of the Commissioner and Ms Schofield as having any relationship at all."
The bench also rejected the idea that a shared union past tilts the scales. Charteris is a unionist himself, it noted, and belonging to a group does not, on its own, create a reasonable fear that a decision-maker will favour others in it.
A second procedural point deserves HR attention. Charteris argued the Commissioner shouldn't have ruled on his own recusal request and should have reassigned the matter. The bench disagreed, calling the approach "entirely orthodox" and stressing that, without a proper basis to step aside, a member has a "duty to sit."
So what does this mean for the people who run workplace processes?
Start with the standard. Conflict-of-interest and bias complaints are measured against an objective test, not a complainant's gut feeling. A loose sense that a decision-maker "knows people" won't do; there has to be a clear link between the connection and the feared partiality. That principle maps directly onto grievance panels, investigations and disciplinary hearings, where employees often question whether the person running the process can be fair.
Next, disclosure earns its keep. The Commissioner flagged his past links right away. That openness shaped the whole case and helped the ruling hold up. For HR teams, the lesson is plain: surface potential conflicts early, and put them on the record.
Finally, the case confirms that the person facing a conflict claim is often the right one to address it first - and that quickly dismissing a thin challenge is no flaw. The bench said outright that the Commissioner being "efficient" was "not a basis for criticism."
One caveat worth keeping front of mind: this ruling is about process, not the bullying claim itself, which has not been decided. The allegations in the underlying application have not been tested, and no findings have been made against any person named in it. The decision is final at this level - permission to appeal was refused.
