1 Fair Work Act 2009 s.789FC - Application for an order to stop bullying Swarupa Roy (AB2026/15) DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY MELBOURNE, 17 MARCH 2026 Application for an FWC order to stop bullying- application dismissed. [1] Mrs Swarupa Roy (the Applicant) seeks an order to stop bullying pursuant to s.789FC of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). The Applicant alleges that she has been bullied at work during her employment Northend Medical Centre (Northend). More particularly, the Applicant alleges that she has been subjected to bullying at work by Niwi Bambarandage and Poulomi Choudhury, who are employed by Northend. When referenced together, they are hereafter referred to as the “Respondents.” [2] On 4 March 2026, a notice of listing was sent to the Applicant’s nominated email address advising that the application was listed for hearing at 12.00pm on Monday 16 March 2026 via Microsoft Teams. The Applicant, Northend and the Respondents were asked to confirm appearances by no later than two business days prior to the hearing. A reminder email was sent to the Applicant’s email address at 11.52am on Thursday 12 March 2026. At 12.00pm on Friday 13 March 2026, the Applicant sent an email to my Chambers advising: “…Due to a prior work-related commitment at the scheduled time, I respectfully request that the hearing be rescheduled to an alternative date or time when I would be able to attend and participate fully. I apologise for any inconvenience this request may cause and appreciate the Tribunal’s consideration of my request. Please let me know if any further information is required from my side…” (my emphasis) [3] At 9.52am on Monday 16 March 2026, my Associate telephoned the Applicant at my request and advised that while the Commission had received her adjournment request, the hearing would not be rescheduled. While the Applicant claimed that the Respondents were being accommodated but she was not, I did not consider her reason for being unable to attend the hearing was acceptable. The notice of listing was sent on 4 March 2026 and the Applicant made no attempt to advise the Commission about her unavailability until the last business day before the hearing. As such, I consider the Applicant had more than sufficient time to make arrangements to ensure she could attend. I also observe that the hearing was listed to proceed [2026] FWC 882 DECISION [2026] FWC 882 2 via Microsoft Teams, which assists parties by removing travel time to and from the Commission. Thirdly, this application is either a priority for the Applicant or it is not. If the application was a priority, it was incumbent on the Applicant to afford it the requisite priority and attend before the Commission. Despite having been advised that the hearing would proceed in her absence if she did not attend, the Applicant did neither. The Respondents attended and the hearing was conducted in the Applicant’s absence. [4] The relevant remedy in respect of applications for an order to stop bullying are any orders the Commission considers appropriate to prevent the worker from being bullied at work by an individual or group of individuals. This is a discretionary power that is only exercisable if the Commission is satisfied that: 1) the worker has been bullied at work by an individual or a group of individuals; and 2) there is a risk that the worker will continue to be bullied at work by the individual or group. [5] The Commission must therefore be satisfied of the first limb outlined above, and if so, the Commission must then also be satisfied there is a risk that the worker will “continue” to be bullied “at work” by the individual or group responsible for the bullying. [6] The Act provides that a worker is “bullied at work” if, while the worker is at work, an individual or group of individuals repeatedly behaves unreasonably towards the worker and that behaviour creates a risk to health and safety (s.789FD(1)). However, a worker will not be considered to have been bullied at work if the behaviour is reasonable management action carried out in a reasonable manner (s.789FD(2)). [7] The Applicant has claimed that issues started to arise after she raised concerns regarding her working hours. In particular, the Applicant claims she was being rostered at times when she had advised she was unavailable and that her total hours were being gradually reduced. The Applicant claims that having raised these concerns, she was subjected to repeated mistreatment and told that she could be removed from the workplace if she continued to ask questions. [8] The Applicant accused Northend of not having paid her for a public holiday shift worked on 4 November 2025 (Melbourne Cup Day). Having heard evidence from the Respondents, I am satisfied payment was in fact paid when the administrative error was brought to their attention. I am not, however, satisfied that this issue prompted a change in attitude towards the Applicant. [9] The Applicant also described an incident that she said arose when a patient was becoming agitated because her printer was not working. She states she explained the issue with Ms Bambarandage but was dismissed in an offensive manner, being told to “go and find another printer” and left feeling ignored, humiliated, and unsupported. Ms Choudhury said that at that time the Applicant raised the issue, Northend management were conducting a private meeting addressing an urgent and sensitive patient-related matter. Ms Choudhury said that during this meeting, the Applicant knocked, entered and proceeded to raise her voice regarding the printer issue, at which point she was simply advised to use an alternative printer and asked to close the door due to the confidential nature of the discussion. Ms Choudhury also said that the Applicant [2026] FWC 882 3 did not subsequently report any incident of contemporaneous patient abuse to management and nor did she seek assistance from colleagues, such that management was unaware of any patient- related issues. [10] The Applicant also claims that when she approached the Reception Coordinator, Ms Noor Sharmaye, to advise of her availability for upcoming rosters shortly thereafter, Ms Sharmaye responded unprofessionally, stating that she was “only an option” and because she was a casual employee, she did not need to advise Northend as to her availability. The Applicant stated that this interaction left her distressed and when she raised it with Ms Choudhury, she was shouted at and reprimanded for being an “egotistic person” because she had left the reception desk to seek assistance for the printer issue despite there being a distressed and abusive patient. Northend claims that the Applicant had simply been advised to record her unavailability in the ‘Deputy system’ prior to roster preparation and that any reference to the Applicant being an “option” was a comment made in the context of her being a casual employee amongst a number of other employees and it was not intended as a personal remark. Ms Choudhury denies that personal or inappropriate comments were made to the Applicant in the context of rostering. [11] The Applicant was also aggrieved at having to attend a team meeting after hours on 5 December 2025. She outlined that she had previously advised that day was her wedding anniversary and that she had to cancel her plans as a result. The Respondents gave evidence that this was a paid meeting, that it had been called at short notice because Ms Bambarandage had received advice the previous day that she was immediately required to commence a period personal leave and that there were administrative matters that needed to be discussed with all staff prior to her departure. The Respondents deny that the Applicant was targeted during this meeting and in fact, both gave an account of the Applicant having been a disruptive and disrespectful presence while it was being conducted. [12] The Applicant otherwise complains of having had her shifts reduced without a satisfactory explanation and not having received a meaningful response when she made enquiries. The Respondents countered by outlining that the Applicant had not previously had experience as a medical receptionist, had engaged in inappropriate conduct towards her colleagues, the doctors working at the practice and patients and that she was resistant to feedback. The Respondents claimed that notwithstanding feedback, advice and coaching, the Applicant did not demonstrate improvement and moreover insisted on being allocated shifts according to her availability. The Respondents disclosed that through the doctors who worked at Northend, negative feedback was received from patients regarding their interaction with the Applicant. [13] Ms Bambarandage and Ms Choudhury were credible witnesses. They presented as reasonable individuals who were required to manage an employee who was not up to standard in terms of experience and performance and who tended to act unprofessionally in a professional environment while being almost entirely resistant to feedback regarding her performance. I am satisfied they gave the Applicant the initial opportunity to work for Northend and opportunities to improve in the face of performance and conduct issues. By the time of the hearing, however, they had concluded that the Applicant could not perform her duties to the required standard. [2026] FWC 882 4 Conclusion [14] Based on the evidence before the Commission, I consider that the Applicant lacks insight when it comes to her interactions with others and the standard of her performance, and that she responds negatively when given feedback. I am not satisfied that the Applicant has been “bullied at work” by the behaviour of any of the Respondents. I have not been persuaded that an individual or group of individuals repeatedly behaved unreasonably towards the Applicant. Even if I am wrong in this conclusion, I would not be satisfied that the Applicant will “continue” to be bullied “at work.” The Applicant is a casual employee who has not worked a shift for the Respondent since 22 January 2026 and the Respondents gave evidence that they did not intend to offer her work going forward because they do not consider she has the capacity to perform to the standard they require of a medical receptionist. [15] I therefore dismiss the Applicant’s anti-bullying application. An order dismissing the Applicant’s anti-bullying application will be issued along with this decision. DEPUTY PRESIDENT Appearances: No appearance by Swarupa Roy. N Bambarandage for the Respondent. P Choudhury on her own behalf as a person named Hearing details: 2026. Melbourne and via Microsoft Teams. March 16. Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer <PR797721>