Application by Saville
Cited 1×
Applicant: Ms Glenda Saville
Respondent: Biripi Aboriginal Corporation Medical Centre; Mr Brett Cowling; Mr Dallas Tucker; Mr Shannon Robertson
Ratio
The application to stop bullying was dismissed on the basis that one of the statutory prerequisites under s789FF could not be satisfied: although the worker may have been bullied at work, there was no risk that she would continue to be bullied at work because the agreed position of the parties was that she would not return to work at the respondent employer.
Outcome
Against applicant
dismissed
Authority signal
Cited 1×
Signal-weighted score: 0.0
Derived from how later decisions have treated this case. Dark green = leading authority,
green = positively treated, grey = neutral or sparse data,
amber = caution, red = treated negatively.
Key facts · 6
- Ms Saville had not been at work since before Christmas 2015
- Ms Saville had used all her accrued sick leave and was stood down on pay from 19 February 2016
- Ms Saville stated she could not and would not return to work at Biripi ACMC
- Biripi ACMC agreed with Ms Saville's assessment that she could not return to work in the future
- Ms Saville expressly stated she was not seeking reinstatement
- Biripi ACMC took the position that the employer/employee relationship had ended
Factors
For
- The applicant alleged bullying by managers at the workplace
- The applicant sought mediation of matters by the Commission
Against
- The applicant agreed she would not return to work at the respondent employer
- The respondent agreed the applicant would not return to work
- The applicant expressly stated she was not seeking reinstatement
- There was no ongoing risk of bullying if the applicant did not return to work
- The statutory prerequisite of a risk of continued bullying 'at work' could not be satisfied
Legislation referenced
- Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) s789FC
- Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) s789FF(1)
- Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) s587(1)(c)
Concept tags · 7
Principles · 3
articulates para 9
One of the prerequisites for the FWC to make a stop bullying order under s789FF is that there must be a risk that the worker will continue to be bullied at work by the individual or group. If there is no such risk, the FWC cannot make an order to stop bullying.
articulates para 10
Where a worker will not return to work at the employer, there is no risk that the worker will continue to be bullied at work, and therefore the jurisdictional prerequisite in s789FF cannot be satisfied.
If there is no risk that a worker will continue to be bullied 'at work by the individual or group', then one of the prerequisites in s789FF of the Act for the Commission to be able to make an order to stop bullying will not be satisfied.
Cases cited in this decision · 1
Cited
[2015] FWCFB 6503
— Garth Atkinson v Killarney Properties Pty Ltd T/A Perm-A-Pleat Schoolwear...
"…ividual or group”, then one of the pre-requisites in section 789FF of the Act for the Commission to be able to make an order to stop bullying will not be satisfied ( Atkinson v Killarney Properties Pty Ltd T/A...…"
Archived text (779 words)
Application by Saville [2016] FWC 1964 (30 March 2016)
[2016] FWC 1964
FAIR WORK COMMISSION
DECISION
Fair Work Act 2009
s.789FC
- Application for an order to stop bullying
Ms Glenda Saville
v
Biripi Aboriginal Corporation Medical Centre; Mr Brett Cowling;
Mr Dallas Tucker; Mr Shannon Robertson
(AB2016/293)
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS
NEWCASTLE, 30 MARCH 2016
[1]
Ms Saville has made an application for an order to stop bullying (the Application) pursuant to
section 789FC
of the
Fair Work Act
2009 (Cth) (the Act).
[2]
On 8 March 2016, the parties participated in a preliminary conference by telephone before the Fair Work Commission (the Commission).
[3]
During the preliminary conference Ms Saville informed the Commission that she:
(a) has not been at work since before Christmas 2015;
(b) has used all her accrued sick leave and has been stood down on pay since 19 February 2016; and
(c) could not return to work at Biripi Aboriginal Corporation Medical Centre (Biripi ACMC) in the future, in light of the way she
says she has been treated in the past.
[4]
Biripi ACMC informed the Commission in the preliminary conference on 8 March 2016 that, having regard to the allegations made by
Ms Saville against Biripi ACMC and the persons named in the Application, it agreed with Ms Saville’s assessment that she could
not return to work in the future.
[5]
In light of the information provided to the Commission during the preliminary conference, as set out in paragraphs [3] and [4] above,
the agreed position of the parties seemed to be that Ms Saville did not wish to, and would not, return to work at Biripi ACMC, notwithstanding
that, at the time of the preliminary conference, she remained employed by Biripi ACMC. In those circumstances, I informed the parties
following the preliminary conference that it may be appropriate for the Commission to exercise its discretion pursuant to
section 587(1)(c)
of the Act to dismiss the Application on the basis that it has no reasonable prospects of success, because there is no risk that
Ms Saville will continue to be bullied at work by any individual or group. Before making any decision in that regard, I invited the
parties to make submissions in relation to that issue.
[6]
In her submissions dated 13 March 2016, Ms Saville informed the Commission that she is “not seeking reinstatement as I am
certain that past harassment and bullying by managers would continue”. Nevertheless, Ms Saville requests to have a “number
of matters mediated” by the Commission.
[7]
Biripi ACMC submits that Ms Saville “does not intend to return to the workplace. Biripi is therefore of the opinion that our
employer/employee relationship has ended”. Biripi ACMC also submits that because Ms Saville is no longer employed the Commission
should exercise its discretion under
section 587(1)(c)
of the Act to dismiss the Application.
Legislative framework
[8]
Section 789FF(1)
of the Act provides as follows:
“FWC may make orders to stop bullying
(1) If:
(a) a worker has made an application under
section 789FC
; and
(b) the FWC is satisfied that:
(i) the worker has been bullied at work by an individual or a group of individuals; and
(ii) there is a risk that the worker will continue to be bullied at work by the individual or group;
then the FWC may make any order it considers appropriate (other than an order requiring payment of a pecuniary amount) to prevent
the worker from being bullied at work by the individual or group.”
[9]
If there is no risk that a worker will continue to be bullied “at work by the individual or group”, then one of the pre-requisites
in
section 789FF
of the Act for the Commission to be able to make an order to stop bullying will not be satisfied (
Atkinson v Killarney Properties Pty Ltd T/A Perm-A-Pleat Schoolwear and Adrian Palm
[2015] FWCFB 6503
at
[21]
).
Conclusion
[10]
In light of the agreed position of the parties that Ms Saville will not return to work at Biripi ACMC, there is no risk that Ms Saville
will continue to be bullied at work by any person, or group of persons. It follows that one of the pre-requisites in
section 789FF
of the Act for the Commission to be able to make an order to stop bullying cannot be satisfied in this case. In those circumstances,
I am satisfied that it is appropriate to exercise my discretion pursuant to
section 587(1)(c)
of the Act to dismiss the Application on the basis that it has no reasonable prospects of success. The Application is dismissed.
COMMISSIONER
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code A, PR578475>