Business Toolbox

Background 

The application involved five employees engaged in cartage services in Wollongong, New South Wales, under the supervision of Graeme Bradley. The employees, collectively referred to as ‘the applicants’, claimed instances of yelling, abuse, belittling, undue criticism, intimidation and threatening behaviour by Bradley, causing them anxiety and fear. 

Applicants' submissions 

The applicants submitted about 50 incidents dating back to 2017, alleging bullying by Bradley. However, inconsistencies were revealed during cross-examination, with one applicant's reconstructed diary entries undermining their credibility. The Transport Workers’ Union (TWU) represented the applicants, but FWC Deputy President Michael Easton found lack of evidence in their common statement. 

The applicants argued that Bradley's behaviour created a risk to health and safety, leading to anxiety and stress, and having to take sick leave. 

Respondents' submissions 

FedEx's human resources department advised Bradley to avoid arguments and create diary notes when interactions escalated. Bradley followed this advice, providing comprehensive witness statements and extensive notes in support, detailing the events when they occurred. He was cross examined for several hours.  

Considerations and findings 

Easton referred to Section 789FF of the Fair Work Act, defining workplace bullying, and found that the applicants did not collectively experience bullying as a group. Each application was assessed individually, with only two applicants exhibiting a consistent attitude towards Bradley. 

The findings revealed there was insufficient evidence to support the claims of yelling, abuse, belittling, intimidation or threats by Bradley. Additionally, the actions taken by Bradley were deemed reasonable management action, supported by a full bench decision. The FWC said the behaviour did not create a health and safety risk, and there was no likelihood of future bullying. 

Specific allegations, such as directing an employee to drive an eight-tonne truck, requiring another to stay back for two weeks, and directing the delivery of overweight suitcases, were individually examined. In each case, Easton found no basis to support the claims of repeated bullying behaviour. 

Easton found the steps taken were 'reasonable management actions' carried out in a 'reasonable manner'. With no evidence supporting the distress claimed by the applicants, the FWC said a stop bullying order could not be issued under Section 789FF of the Act. 

The applications were dismissed. 

Has this article raised some questions? Our Employee Relations Helpline is available on (08) 9365 7660, or via [email protected].