Fair Work Commission and Stop Bullying Orders
The following is not advice. It is a review of two cases on bullying for information purposes only.
WHAT ARE STOP BULLYING ORDERS?
These are legal orders that workers can request from the Fair Work Commission when they’re being bullied at work. Think of them as a formal way to get protection and require employers to take specific action to stop workplace bullying.
KEY INSIGHTS
Workers can apply to the Fair Work Commission for Stop Bullying Orders under the Fair Work Act. Two recent cases demonstrate contrasting outcomes:
SUCCESSFUL APPLICATION (KAVITA SHARMA V SAI SECURITY)
• Granted: Stop Bullying Order issued due to repeated unreasonable conduct
• Evidence: General Manager constantly questioned capabilities, hostile communications, attempted role restructuring, unachievable deadlines
• Impact: Detailed evidence of harmful, distressing, intimidating effects
• Employer response: Supported the applicant’s claims, acknowledging no basis for performance management
UNSUCCESSFUL APPLICATION (INDERJEET KAUR V BUPA)
• Denied: No evidence of repeated unreasonable behaviour
• Claims: Inappropriate responses to staff concerns, unfair investigation treatment
• Outcome: Individual complaints didn’t constitute unreasonable behaviour; actions deemed reasonable management
REQUIREMENTS FOR STOP BULLYING ORDERS
• Repeated unreasonable behaviour
• Risk to health and safety
• Ongoing risk of continued bullying
• Employer failure to prevent it
REASONABLE MANAGEMENT ACTION
Management can take reasonable directions even if not perfect, provided actions are lawful, not irrational, and consider established policies and worker impact.
I’ll break down this section to explain how Fair Work Commission Stop Bullying Orders work and what makes applications successful or unsuccessful.
THE TWO CONTRASTING CASES
Why Kavita Sharma’s Case Succeeded:
The key difference was pattern and severity. Steve Moss (the General Manager) engaged in a sustained campaign of undermining behaviour over time:
- Systematic undermining: Constantly questioning her abilities in front of others
- Hostile communication: Aggressive tone in emails and phone calls
- Deliberate sabotage: Trying to strip away her responsibilities and staff, essentially demoting her from CFO to a collections officer
- Impossible standards: Setting unachievable deadlines designed to make her fail
- Ongoing harassment: Even continued sending hostile emails while he was on stress leave
Crucially, her own employer supported her case, acknowledging that Moss’s behaviour had no legitimate business justification. This showed the behaviour was clearly unreasonable, not genuine performance management.
Why Inderjeet Kaur’s Case Failed:
Her situation involved isolated incidents rather than a pattern:
- Individual responses to workplace concerns
- Investigation procedures following a serious incident (resident death)
- While the treatment may have felt unfair, each action was within management’s reasonable authority
- The FWC found these were legitimate management decisions, even if imperfect
THE LEGAL TEST – FOUR KEY REQUIREMENTS
For a Stop Bullying Order, you must prove:
- Repeated unreasonable behaviour – Not just one incident, but a pattern
- Risk to health and safety – The behaviour is causing or could cause harm
- Ongoing risk – It’s likely to continue happening
- Employer failure – The employer hasn’t adequately addressed it
REASONABLE MANAGEMENT vs BULLYING
This is the crucial distinction. Managers can:
- Give directions and feedback (even if workers don’t like it)
- Conduct investigations
- Make staffing decisions
- Set deadlines and expectations
- Take disciplinary action when justified
The behaviour becomes unreasonable bullying when it’s:
- Disproportionate to the situation
- Lacks legitimate business purpose
- Is delivered in a hostile, humiliating manner
- Continues despite no valid reason
- Causes significant harm to the worker
The Sharma case crossed this line because the manager was systematically trying to undermine and demote her without cause. The Kaur case, while unpleasant for her, involved legitimate management responses to workplace issues.
