Worker claims he was 'berated, bullied, and attacked' in meeting with his supervisor
The Fair Work Commission (FWC) recently dealt with a case involving a worker who claimed he was dismissed after being forced to resign due to alleged bullying and intimidation by his supervisor.
The worker argued that his resignation followed traumatic treatment during workplace meetings and the employer's inadequate response to his complaints.
The worker contended that he was subjected to a three-hour meeting where he was "berated, belittled, bullied, intimidated, and attacked" by his supervisor, leading to severe psychological distress for both him and his husband.
The employer objected on jurisdictional grounds, arguing the worker was not dismissed but had voluntarily resigned, and that their response to his complaint was appropriate and timely.
Supervisor's alleged bullying at work
The worker started a fixed-term, full-time employment with the university on 25 November 2024 in the role of proposal assurance and submissions officer. On 7 March 2025, the worker claims he was subjected to severe treatment by his supervisor during a three-hour video meeting.
The worker's husband was present in the room during the discussion and agreed with the worker's description of events.
The meeting followed a mid-probation meeting with the supervisor on 5 March 2025, which the worker also described as horrific. The worker took periods of leave following the 7 March meeting, and his husband was hospitalised on 9 March 2025 with heart attack symptoms he attributed to the stress of watching the video meeting.
The worker sent a detailed email to various senior managers of the university on 21 March 2025 raising concerns about his treatment by the supervisor. The subject line of the email was "Urgent Help Requested."
The worker considered his complaint was "passed around" by university representatives and then referred to an external party on 28 March 2025 for a "preliminary assessment."
HR's response to alleged bullying incident
The chief human resources officer (CHRO) replied to the worker's email at 1:39pm on Friday, 21 March 2025, acknowledging receipt and indicating a member of her team would make contact shortly. She recommended the worker contact the Employee Assistance Program to obtain support and stated he could contact her directly for further assistance.
A senior HR partner attempted to call the worker around 4:30pm on 21 March 2025 and left a voicemail, then sent a follow-up email indicating he was available to discuss the worker's concerns "about how to support resolution of the concerns you've raised." The HR partner indicated the worker should feel free to contact him at his convenience.
On 25 March 2025, the senior HR partner advised the worker that he had arranged for him to temporarily report to a different director instead of the supervisor.
The HR partner requested the worker submit a formal report regarding the incident using the university's health and safety reporting system and provided assistance with the process.
Worker's complaints process before resigning
The worker was required to complete several steps to progress his formal complaint. He submitted an incident hazard report on 26 March 2025 and was then advised to send an email to the workplace relations team and complete an online form.
The worker expressed extreme frustration about the various steps required to make a formal complaint.
On 27 March 2025, a workplace behaviour and conduct advisor acknowledged receipt of the worker's complaint and indicated a member of her team would be in contact early the following week.
The worker replied expressing confusion about the process and questioning why he had to wait for someone to contact him, describing the process as convoluted with many steps.
On 28 March 2025, the advisor informed the worker that his complaint had been referred to external consultants for a preliminary assessment process. She indicated a representative would contact the worker the following Monday or Tuesday and stated he did not need to provide any further documentation at this stage.
Worker resigns citing loss of faith
On 31 March 2025, the worker sent an email to the same list of senior managers he had initially contacted on 21 March. He referred to being traumatised about his treatment and stated he did not feel safe, even with the temporary arrangement of reporting to a different director.
The worker noted he was still exposed to group emails including the supervisor.
The worker referred to nine steps he said he had been required to take just to lodge a formal complaint and stated that after taking these steps, his complaint had been referred to an external organisation for preliminary assessment.
He stated he was not provided with contact details for the external organisation and had no idea what the process would entail.
The worker concluded his email by stating: "the entire ordeal has caused me so much physical and mental pain" and that the university "has left me with no choice but to resign effective immediately, today 31/03/2025."
The CHRO expressed regret that the worker had felt it necessary to resign.
FWC's test for forced resignation
The FWC applied the established legal test for determining whether an employee was forced to resign under section 386(1)(b) of the Fair Work Act 2009. The Commission noted that the assessment focuses on the conduct of the employer, not the subjective impact on the employee.
The test requires determining whether the employer intended to force the employee to resign or whether resignation was the probable result of the employer's conduct.
The FWC stated: "The authorities identified above make it clear that the assessment required to determine whether an employee was forced to resign is focused on the conduct of [the employer]. That means it is the conduct of [the university] which must be assessed, not the subjective impact of [the university's] conduct on [the worker]."
The Commission emphasised that the worker's subjective emotional response was not generally relevant to the required legal assessment.
The Commission acknowledged the worker's trauma and distress, stating: "If what [the worker] and [his husband] say about how [the supervisor] spoke to [the worker] in a video meeting on 7 March 2025 is correct, the experience would have been extremely traumatic and upsetting."
However, the FWC noted it could not determine what actually occurred during the meeting as it had not heard evidence from the supervisor.
Employer's response found reasonable and timely
The FWC found that the university treated the worker's complaint seriously and acted promptly to try and resolve his concerns. The Commission noted that university representatives started communicating with the worker about his complaint within four hours of receiving his initial email on 21 March 2025, and by the time he was fit to return to work on 26 March, the university had arranged for him to report to a different director.
The Commission stated: "The prompt taking of this step by [the university] provides a strong indication that [the university] was taking the matter seriously and was attempting to assist [the worker] in returning to work, while also dealing with his complaint."
The FWC noted this action was taken despite no finding having been made that the supervisor had acted inappropriately.
While acknowledging the worker was required to undertake "reasonably painful bureaucratic steps" to progress his complaint, the FWC found this was understandable given the university was a large organisation that needed policies and procedures to ensure consistent handling of issues.
Is there forced resignation?
The FWC concluded there was no evidence the university intended to force the worker to resign. The Commission stated: "[The university] took several steps to try and ensure [the worker] remained employed, particularly by allowing him to report to [the different director]."
The FWC found that even the alleged conduct by the supervisor could not be said to have been authorised by the university as the worker's employer.
The Commission found that resignation was not a probable result of the university's conduct when viewed objectively. The FWC noted: "The evidence suggests [the university] had every intention of fully investigating [the worker's] complaint while he remained an employee."
The FWC concluded: "This is an unfortunate case where [the worker's] trauma and distress caused by his meeting with [the supervisor] ... made [him] feel like he was being forced to resign ... via the way his complaint was handled. I do not consider that was the case based on an objective assessment of all the evidence."
The Commission found the worker was not "dismissed" within the meaning of section 386(1)(b) of the Fair Work Act 2009, upholding the university's jurisdictional objection and dismissing the application.
