1 Fair Work Act 2009 s.789FC - Application for an order to stop bullying Matthew Mawer & Jonathan Philip Moore (AB2025/86 & 362) COMMISSIONER HUNT BRISBANE, 24 OCTOBER 2025 Application for an FWC order to stop bullying [1] Mr Matthew Mawer and Mr Jonathan Moore (the Applicants) have each made applications to the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) under s.789FC of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) for orders to stop bullying. The Applicants are associated with the Gold Coast Pistol Club Ltd (the Club), a recreational and competitive shooting club located in Southport, Queensland. Mr Mawer is an employee of the Club, while Mr Moore is a committee member, currently serving as Treasurer. Mr Moore is also a Director of the Club. Mr Barry Hollingsworth, President of the Club is named in Mr Moore’s application. Mr Ralph van Doorn, Club Secretary and Director represented the Club in these proceedings. Procedural history [2] The proceedings the subject of this decision originated on 17 September 2024, when Ms Maree Mathison, a then-employee of the Club, filed an application under s.789FC of the Act, seeking orders to stop bullying against Mr Moore and five other members of the Club. Over the following months, Ms Mathison withdrew her application against the five other members of the Club, leaving Mr Moore as the sole person named. [3] On 5 February 2025, Mr Mawer filed an application under s.789FC of the Act, with Mr Moore the sole individual named in the application. Mr Mawer’s application was allocated to me, and I considered it appropriate for it to be joined with Ms Mathison’s application. The matters were listed for a joint telephone conference on 21 March 2025, following which I issued directions requiring the parties to file material in preparation for a hearing of the applications. [4] A hearing was held on 11 April 2025, with Ms Mathison and Mr Mawer as applicants, and Mr Moore the person named as bullying both Ms Mathison and Mr Mawer. Mr Hollingsworth participated on behalf of the Club. On 4 April 2025, communication was sent from my chambers informing the parties that I had granted leave for Mr Moore to represented by a lawyer. After listening to a covert recording made by Mr Moore and produced to the Commission in these proceedings, on 9 April 2025, I informed the parties that I had revoked my decision to allow Mr Moore to represented by a lawyer. [2025] FWC 3215 DECISION [2025] FWC 3215 2 [5] I did so on the basis of Mr Moore’s statement to Mr Mawer in the covert recording made by Mr Moore where he implied commencing legal action against Mr Mawer and said the following: “……Because I don’t want to sue people but I’ve been to court probably more times than anybody on that committee except for Steve who did criminal law but I never did any criminal stuff, but I don’t take prisoners, mate, I tell you, yeah, and I take on solicitors as well and I win against solicitors….” [6] Following the hearing, on 6 May 2025, Mr Moore filed an application under s.789FC of the Act. In his application, Mr Moore sought orders to stop bullying against Ms Mathison, Mr Mawer and Mr Hollingsworth. Mr Moore’s application was also allocated to me, and I considered it appropriate for it to be joined with Ms Mathison’s and Mr Mawer’s applications. [7] The three applications were listed for a further joint hearing on 25 June 2025. Ms Mathison, Mr Mawer, Mr Moore and Mr Hollingsworth attended the hearing, while Mr van Doorn attended on behalf of the Club. During the hearing, Mr Moore discontinued his application against Ms Mathison, with Mr Mawer and Mr Hollingsworth the remaining persons named in Mr Moore’s application. [8] On 2 September 2025, Mr Moore advised the Commission that at a committee meeting of the Club on 26 August 2025 it was determined that Ms Mathison’s employment with the Club would be terminated effective 5 September 2025. However, Mr Moore provided a copy of an email sent to Ms Mathison by Mr Hollingsworth on 30 August 2025 which advised that her employment would be terminated that day. In any event, on 4 September 2025, Ms Mathison accepted that her employment with the Club had ended and wholly discontinued her application before the Commission. The Commission understands that Ms Mathison’s employment has ended due to cost-cutting and not for any other reason. I wish to record that I have found Ms Mathison to be an honourable person and consider it improper that Mr Moore ever made an application against her. I consider it was vexatious and without merit. [9] Accordingly, the applications the subject of this decision are: • Mr Mawer’s application, filed on 5 February 2025, with Mr Moore the sole person named; and • Mr Moore’s application, filed on 6 May 2025, with Mr Mawer and Mr Hollingsworth the persons named. Relevant legislation [10] A worker who reasonably believes that he or she has been bullied at work may apply to the Commission for an order to stop bullying. Section 789FC of the Act provides: “789FC Application for an FWC order to stop bullying or sexual harassment (1) A worker who reasonably believes that he or she has been bullied or sexually harassed at work may apply to the FWC for an order under section 789FF. [2025] FWC 3215 3 (2) For the purposes of this Part, worker has the same meaning as in the Work Health and Safety Act 2011, but does not include a member of the Defence Force. Note: Broadly, for the purposes of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011, a worker is an individual who performs work in any capacity, including as an employee, a contractor, a subcontractor, an outworker, an apprentice, a trainee, a student gaining work experience or a volunteer. (3) The application must be accompanied by any fee prescribed by the regulations. (4) The regulations may prescribe: (a) a fee for making an application to the FWC under this section; and (b) a method for indexing the fee; and (c) the circumstances in which all or part of the fee may be waived or refunded.” [11] Section 789FD of the Act sets out when a worker has been bullied at work, as below: “789FD When is a worker bullied at work? (1) A worker is bullied at work if: (a) while the worker is at work in a constitutionally-covered business: (i) an individual; or (ii) a group of individuals; repeatedly behaves unreasonably towards the worker, or a group of workers of which the worker is a member; and (b) that behaviour creates a risk to health and safety. (2) To avoid doubt, subsection (1) does not apply to reasonable management action carried out in a reasonable manner. (3) If a person conducts a business or undertaking (within the meaning of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011) and either: (a) the person is: (i) a constitutional corporation; or (ii) the Commonwealth; or [2025] FWC 3215 4 (iii) a Commonwealth authority; or (iv) a body corporate incorporated in a Territory; or (b) the business or undertaking is conducted principally in a Territory or Commonwealth place; then the business or undertaking is a constitutionally-covered business.” [12] The circumstances in which the Commission may make orders to stop bullying are set out in s.789FF of the Act, as produced below: “789FF FWC may make orders to stop bullying or sexual harassment (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) the FWC is satisfied that 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. (2) In considering the terms of an order, the FWC must take into account: (a) if the FWC is aware of any final or interim outcomes arising out of an investigation into the matter that is being, or has been, undertaken by another person or body—those outcomes; and (b) if the FWC is aware of any procedure available to the worker to resolve grievances or disputes—that procedure; and (c) if the FWC is aware of any final or interim outcomes arising out of any procedure available to the worker to resolve grievances or disputes—those outcomes; and (d) any matters that the FWC considers relevant.” [2025] FWC 3215 5 [13] The Club where Mr Mawer works as an employee is a constitutionally-covered business. Mr Moore is a volunteer at the Club. Both applicants have standing to bring their respective applications. Mr Mawer’s evidence [14] Mr Mawer commenced part-time employment with the Club on 19 June 2024 as the Club Administrator. Separately, he has been a member of the Club since November 2020. Mr Mawer’s role with the Club involves conducting sales, operating the retail shop, managing memberships and liaising with suppliers and regulatory bodies. Mr Mawer’s supervisor is Mr Hollingsworth. [15] Mr Mawer stated that he was pressured by Mr Moore shortly after he commenced employment. Mr Mawer described that Mr Moore would approach him directly to instruct him to take on additional duties, instead of complying with the established protocol of firstly approaching Mr Hollingsworth. These additional duties included cash counting, bank deposits and stocktakes. Mr Mawer said that Mr Moore also instructed him to act as a supervisor for a cleaning contractor engaged by the Club. Mr Mawer said he found this to be inappropriate, as he had only recently commenced his role. Mr Mawer stated that he reported this behaviour to Mr Hollingsworth, which led to the Committee instructing Mr Moore “multiple times” to cease this behaviour and instead communicate through Mr Hollingsworth. [16] Shortly after Mr Mawer commenced employment with the Club, Mr Moore attended the office to speak with Ms Mathison. Mr Mawer stated that he was aware at that time of some previous negative interactions between Ms Mathison and Mr Moore. He said that Mr Moore asked him to leave the room so he could speak with Ms Mathison privately. While he did not feel entirely comfortable doing so, Mr Mawer left the room but positioned himself just outside the door so that he could intervene if necessary. Mr Mawer said that he did not hear any raised voices from Mr Moore or Ms Mathison during the conversation, and assumed the conversation went well. After Mr Moore left, Mr Mawer checked on Ms Mathison and could see she was upset. Ms Mathison explained to Mr Mawer that Mr Moore had told her he would be recording their conversation, and she replied that she would also record it. Mr Mawer stated that he was not aware of the exact details of the conversation, but it appeared to have negatively affected her. Mr Mawer attempted to comfort Ms Mathison and contacted Mr Hollingsworth to inform him what had occurred. Mr Mawer stated that “for quite some time afterward” he felt some level of responsibility for agreeing to leave the room and decided that he would not do so in the future. [17] In or around January 2025, Mr Moore placed a ‘lock’ on the Club’s debit card, meaning that it could not be used unless temporarily unlocked by Mr Moore. Mr Mawer stated that he does not know why Mr Moore locked the card but noted that Mr Moore claimed it was because of a payment on the card that could not be accounted for. However, Mr Mawer stated that the source of this payment was discovered and determined to be a legitimate Club expense. Mr Mawer stated that Mr Moore feigned ignorance of this explanation and insisted on keeping the card locked after the situation was explained to him. [18] Mr Mawer said that he explained to Mr Moore that while the Club Treasurer may have the power to lock the card, doing so makes his job more difficult. Mr Mawer considered that he [2025] FWC 3215 6 was most affected by Mr Moore’s decision to lock the card, given the card was the primary means of payment for most items to be purchased as part of his role. Mr Mawer said that he needed to use the card multiple times per week and often multiple times per day. Mr Mawer’s frustration was exacerbated by the fact that Mr Moore had been uncontactable on more than one occasion on which Mr Mawer needed to use the card. Mr Mawer described an example when after packaging multiple firearms for postage, the card declined at the post office. Mr Mawer borrowed the post office phone to contact Mr Hollingsworth to then ask Mr Moore to unlock the card. Mr Moore could not be contacted and Mr Mawer then returned to the Club without the packages being sent, wasting part of his workday. [19] Mr Mawer stated that Mr Moore has also attempted to deny him access to Xero, the Club’s accounting software. Mr Mawer required full access to Xero to perform tasks previously undertaken by the Club’s accountant. Mr Moore said that the reason for his opposition to Mr Mawer’s full access was that it was unnecessary, despite Mr Mawer’s assertions to the contrary. Mr Mawer said that Mr Moore then claimed details in Xero transaction summaries were often incomplete, which would then cause difficulties in Mr Mawer allocating deposits to members’ accounts. Mr Mawer stated that he did not find this explanation convincing, as Mr Moore had sent emails to the committee saying that Mr Mawer would make mistakes when using Xero, costing the Club time and money, despite having been told that Mr Mawer would be trained in the software. Mr Mawer claimed that Mr Moore would have been told it would be unlikely that any significant mistakes could be made, as he only needed to use Xero to obtain payment information to effect changes in other software used by the Club and would not be required to make any changes in Xero itself. Mr Mawer stated that this was explained to Mr Moore on a number of occasions by different individuals, however Mr Moore maintained his opposition. [20] Mr Mawer stated that Mr Moore blamed him for not checking the Club’s post office box, which caused a build-up of unactioned bills and other mail for weeks; Mr Mawer stated that he did not have access to the post box key. [21] On 2 February 2025, Mr Mawer was approached by Mr van Doorn and Mr Hollingsworth to send an email to the members of the Club composed by Mr van Doorn. The email is as follows: “SGM Motions Advice Sunday 2 February 2025 Two points are contained in the attached notice 1. The following motion was submitted and passed at the Special General Meeting conducted on the 20th January, 2025: ‘That all/total expenditure to date of GCPC monies relating to all legal matters with Kate Harper be fully disclosed and presented to all the members within 7 days’ The Treasurer has today provided the total figure, we apologise for not providing it to the whole of the membership as required within the requirement time line of the motion. [2025] FWC 3215 7 • As stated at the SGM by the Treasurer, and now provided to the whole membership of the Company, expenditure as at the 20th January 2025 for legal fees in relation to the Kate Harper claim is $1,301,030.81 + GST. 2. At the same SGM 20th January 2025, a motion was passed to call for Expressions of interest to fill the casual vacancies of Vice President and Committee Member directors. • Expressions of interest, with a brief resume, can be submitted by close of business Friday 14th February 2025 at club email address, Brief additional detail re closing date is also provided in the club rooms. Ralph Van Doom [sic] JP(Qual) Secretary Gold Coast Pistol Club” [22] Shortly after sending the email, Mr Mawer was called by Mr Moore, who was agitated. Mr Moore asked who had sent the email. Mr Mawer said that he had sent it. Mr Moore said that the email should not have been sent and asked who authorised it. Mr Mawer advised that the Secretary and President of the Club had. Mr Moore then stated that the email had not been approved by the committee for release to the members and reiterated that it should not have been sent. Mr Mawer asked Mr Moore if he would like to speak with Mr van Doorn, to which Mr Moore agreed. However, Mr van Doorn declined to speak with Mr Moore, and the phone call ended. [23] Approximately 20 to 30 minutes later, Mr Moore walked into the Club office, removed the debit club from the safe, and approached the desk at which Mr Mawer was sitting. Mr Mawer stated that Mr Moore seemed “angry, with eyes narrowed and a flushed face”. Mr Mawer stated that Mr Moore told him he would be taking legal action against Mr van Doorn and Mr Mawer unless a further email was sent retracting the statements in the first email. Mr Moore said that the email was defamatory of him and that Mr Mawer had acted in bad faith by sending it. Mr Mawer stated that he was confused by this statement, as the email did not name Mr Moore. Mr Moore further said that Mr Mawer would not be able to use the Club’s insurance to fund any legal defence and that Mr Mawer would need to fund his own defence. Mr Mawer considered that Mr Moore was attempting to intimidate and belittle him. Mr Mawer’s evidence is that Mr Moore then said he has a lot of experience going to court, more so than anyone on the Club committee (with the possible exception of the former President), that he takes on lawyers himself and wins, and that while many people may consider him a “dumb builder” who can “only swing a hammer”, that was not the case. Mr Mawer again considered that he was being intimidated by Mr Moore. Mr Mawer recounted that Mr Moore continued by saying that he has “plenty of money to spare” and thinks nothing of spending $50,000 on legal fees. [24] Mr Mawer stated that the conversation, which he described as “largely one-sided” continued with Mr Moore saying that he likes Mr Mawer and understands that Mr Mawer has a tough job, but that he will defend his reputation. Mr Mawer stated that Mr Moore also spoke about not mixing friendships and business, describing jobs he had done in the past for club members that had ended badly and damaged his reputation. Mr Moore further said that he [2025] FWC 3215 8 wanted Mr Mawer to have access to the Club bank accounts and not the accounting software, that he had unlocked the debit card when Mr Mawer had asked in the past, but that Mr Hollingsworth does not answer phone calls or messages. Mr Moore then said that he would be confiscating the Club debit card effective immediately. Mr Moore then left the Club without attempting to speak to Mr van Doorn, who was present at the Club at the time. [25] The following day, Mr Mawer learned that Mr Moore had told another committee member that he had covertly recorded their interaction. Mr Mawer stated that while he understood that this behaviour was not strictly unlawful, he considered it “highly unusual” for an employer to do so while making legal threats towards an employee. Mr Mawer said that he does not feel this behaviour fosters a supportive workplace. [26] Following their interaction, Mr Mawer has ceased direct contact with Mr Moore due to the threat of impending legal action and the fact that he would not know if Mr Moore would be recording any future conversations. Mr Mawer stated that Mr Moore’s behaviour makes it “extremely hard, if not impossible for me [to] trust and work with Mr Moore in the future”. [27] On 5 February 2025, Mr Mawer sent the following email to the Club’s committee members: “Dear Committee members, I am writing to make a formal complaint regarding the behaviour of Jon Moore. Firstly, opposing access to Xero and suggesting I open a personal bank account with the Commonwealth Bank in order to then pass security checks to access the club account directly is an absurd proposal. Jon told me on Sunday that his reasoning for this was because the payee details are incomplete when viewed on Xero, which would make it difficult to allocate payments to members in MiClub. This was new information to me, as up until Sunday Jon stated multiple times in emails that his reasoning was that I would make mistakes in Xero and cost the club time and money. I reject this premise as I would only be using Xero to read membership payment deposits and using that information to match payments to monies owing in MiClub. This has been explained to Jon numerous times but he refuses to accept this. Jon has insisted on keeping the club debit card locked. I sometimes need to use the card multiple times a day to make purchases for the club. Having to text or call Jon before using the card, for however small an amount, is onerous and adds time to complete tasks that I quite frankly do not have to spare. If Jon is driving, or otherwise unable to access his phone, I cannot use the card when needed which results in a both wasting my limited time and a failure to complete my duties for the club. I have also not been able to do things like setup a weekly supermarket delivery for BBQ supplies such as bread, serviettes, paper plates and general groceries such as milk, coffee, envelopes, pens and other stationery items. To do this a code is sent to Jon's phone which I must enter into the computer when making an order. I have tried on multiple occasions in the past to have this sent to Jon's phone but have not been able to coordinate this with Jon in time before the code expires. This means [2025] FWC 3215 9 that I make a weekly unnecessary trip to the supermarket on Saturday morning for BBQ supplies, using my free time so that I can still arrive at the club by 8am. On Sunday Jon confiscated the card, which means I no longer have the ability to make purchases using the card at all. In my view this is petulant, irresponsible and behaviour unbecoming of a committee member and means I cannot perform my required duties. On Sunday Jon threatened me with legal action for sending an email to members which was composed by and sent on the directions of the Club Secretary. Jon advised that if I did not issue a retraction that day, I would be liable to pay for my legal defence out of my pocket, as the club insurance to fund my defence would not be available to me as I had "acted in bad faith". He attempted to intimidate me saying that he thinks nothing of spending fifty thousand dollars on legal fees, that he goes to court more than anyone else on the committee and even takes on lawyers himself and wins. He stated that he will go to great lengths to protect his reputation. I see nothing defamatory towards Jon in the email, and do not think attempting to intimidate, bully and threaten an employee for carrying out a simple task that was requested of him is in any way reasonable behaviour by a director. In addition, apparently Jon recorded this interaction surreptitiously. Jon has neither served me with court documents nor rescinded this threat and as such going forward I will not be having any contact with Jon due to concerns that it will be used against me in court. I took on this role because I wished to serve the club, see it be successful and believed I could be a part of making this club a better place into the future. Due to the above issues and compounded by my still insufficient hours to fulfill my role as Club Administrator a strain is being placed on my mental health. The role is more than challenging enough without having additional obstacles placed in my way. I frequently find myself working extra hours - 8 hours in the past week alone - that I do not ask to be reimbursed for, just to make sure that the club keeps running as it should. In the past I made an enquiry to the FairWork Ombudsman for advice regarding my award, rate of pay etc. Inconsistencies and inaccuracies were found which were subsequently rectified by the committee. I will now be making an application to the FairWork Commission which I had hoped to avoid doing. Sincerely, Matthew Mawer” [28] On 28 March 2025, Mr Mawer filed a Form F52 application for the Commission to order production by Mr Moore of the recording made by Mr Moore of the conversation on 2 February 2025. On 7 April 2025, I made the Order sought by Mr Mawer. The recording was produced by Mr Moore on 8 April 2025, played at the hearing, and admitted into evidence. Mr Mawer’s recollection of the conversation at [23-24], without having earlier heard the covert recording is quite accurate. [2025] FWC 3215 10 [29] The recording commences while Mr Moore is in the car park. He then enters the club, greets a person and goes into the office. He did not greet Mr Mawer, simply commenced speaking. The transcript is as follows (my best effort): JM: Hey, I’m removing the club from the card, ah, the card from the club. OK? Um, I’m speaking to a solicitor about the email that went out this morning against action of who wrote it and who sent it out because it’s not true. I informed Ralph last night in writing that it is not true or correct and not to send it. He did not get the majority of the committee’s approval to send it. MM: Hmmm JM: Um, unless a full retraction is printed by tonight it’s going to go against everyone involved because I’m over this bullshit that keeps on going on all the time, mate. Lets…I understand you’re in a tough position. You’re between a rock and a hard place all of the time. Any action that comes for you to do must be approved by the committee like that, especially when it goes out to 1,800 members. It can’t come from one person because we went through all of this 12 months ago when Steve and Lisa were sending notices out to people without the committee’s approval and we were printing retractions for what they were sending. Ralph, Barry, Vicky and I were all agreeing with the retractions going out because they can’t act without the approval of the committee. Full circle, back to the same situation, different people. So, nothing against you OK, but just because he’s the Secretary, he’s one person… MM: Hmmmm JM: Out of eight on the committee So there was no motion put forward at the SGM for EOI’s to be called. It was discussed but there wasn’t a motion put forward. And I provided the information for the financial legal costs at the SGM when asked to by Matt Huxtable. The fact that Ralph or no one else wrote it down to send out to members in seven days is not my fault. It was provided then. He’s implied I only just provided it now with two weeks delay. So, you know, there’s untrue statements in there that I [inaudible] to Ralph last night when he sent it to the committee to send, and as far as I’m aware I’m the only person out of the eight, seven other committee members who responded to that email saying it can’t be sent. So, you can talk to Ralph’s who’s out there… MM: He is… JM: About putting a retraction, and unlike Barry who threatened to sue Steve, Lisa, myself, Jim, Johnathon, Dot and Ross over some alleged letter to the Secretary, that Steve, Lisa and me had never even seen, let alone been involved in, I do have the money to follow through what I say I’m going to do, and that was my reputation that went out to 1,500 – 1,800 odd members, not just an internal document that no one had ever seen. So please, Matt, be very, very careful moving forward, what you do send to members. If Ralph says to send it, confirm you have the committee’s approval to do that. MM: Hmmm… [2025] FWC 3215 11 JM: OK? MM: Yeah, this sounds like the committee need to….. JM: Well the retraction needs to go out today because it’s not right what happened and you can’t get caught in the middle. And I like you, Matt, despite what others might say, I don’t think you’re a bad guy. OK? And I’m going to be honest about that. If I don’t like someone, I’ll tell ‘em, you should know that. I tell people straight up to their face what I think of them. All right? I’m like that because on a building site I can’t piss around all of the time, OK? MM: No, definitely. JM: So, and I can’t let people walk over me on a building site either as the boss. All right, so, I like you. All right? I know it’s a struggle sometimes what you’re doing. I oppose you having access to Xero, I want you to have access to the bank account, and I’ll tell you why now, because the data from the bank account, everything [inaudible] data goes in the bank account, that data gets exported to Xero and that’s what you’ve got access to. Not all of the data gets exported to Xero. Sarah’s told me she found two members one day whose membership went into the bank account but never went to Xero. And she didn’t find that out for a month when she was reconciling at end of the month. So you’re not getting the most accurate information. Also, on Xero, it only brings up part of the reference so if they put membership fees and then their membership number, you might not know what the membership number is. But you need to go to the bank account; you right click on the deposit and it shows you all the… MM: full…. JM: ..so you don’t have all of the information to do your job properly. Which is why I spoke to you about whether you’re a Commonwealth Bank member or not because I believe you should not have access to Xero, access to the bank account and the debit card in your name. ‘cause you’re here. MM: I don’t think I need to be a customer… JM: Yeah, you have to…. MM: ..in terms of having a bank account… JM: ..No, but you have to have an ID number, which is what I said you should do, you’ll recall, and why I was trying to get you to look at the bank statements over Xero, ‘cause the information you’re looking at Xero is not the most up to date, accurate information. So you’ll miss someone’s payment that someone says that they’ve paid and it hasn’t been brought across to Xero and you don’t know that until Sarah reconciles. So at the end of each month when she reconciles you need to go back and double-check all those deposits and then put that into MiClub in case we’ve missed some there. So [2025] FWC 3215 12 you’re not getting the right information to do your job. So people say I’m hindering you from doing your job, I’m not I’m trying to give you the right tools to do your job. MM: Hmmm, OK. I wasn’t aware of that. JM: So what was said to you about it, I don’t know but I know what was said to me on email about what I was doing, OK, so there’s the reason why. Now I’m trying to explain the reason to some people and I may as well just fucking run head first into a block wall. People get it in their mind that I’m wrong and that’s it. So I’ll put it to the committee that you have access to the bank accounts to get the right information to do your job, OK? So, sometimes I’m an asshole to people, I know that but it’s not intentionally to do that unless you piss me right off, you know, because I know you’ve got a job to do, I know it’s not an easy job, right, but unless Ralph agrees to a retraction today, there’ll be….and I don’t give a fuck [inaudible] on a solicitor, really, my reputation’s just gone out to 1,500 odd members [inaudible] , and I explained that to Ralph last night, in writing, which he ignored. And our insurance only cover you if you act in good faith. I’ve provided in writing that what you’re doing is incorrect and you still go ahead and do it, you fail to act in good faith, so under the corporations act you’re not protected. So he’ll have to pay for his own defence, not the club. OK, I’ll go down that path. So just be aware that people that you think are your friends may not always be helping you in the right way. They may think they are but they’re not in control of the full facts. MM: I will say friends and business are a tricky thing to mix and there’s got to be a line between who you’re working with and who are mates. JM: I don’t go out for dinner with anybody I do business with and anybody I know socially, I don’t do business with. MM: I don’t like doing it either because you can destroy friendships like that and you can destroy businesses. JM: I went nominee for Rudy’s house so his wife could build the house under her company. I didn’t want to do it because I knew Rudy and I got pushed and pushed by her to do it, his wife, and I did it. Rudy would come in every weekend and bag the crap out of what was being done. I wasn’t even there! I recommended tradies to do the job and it was under my licence as nominee for their company but they were liable for the work that was being done ‘cause they knew what they were doing. MM: It gets messy. JM: I got told by Rudy, Rudy told 20 people at this club I put a window in out of level in the bathroom, so I went there with him and I said, “Rudy, which window’s out of level?” He said that one there. Which one’s out of level, Rudy? Oh, it just looks out of level. He didn’t go tell those 20 people he made a mistake. So I don’t do business and friends together and anybody at this club asks me to do work for them, I say no because it’s just not worth anything to my reputation here at this club because we’re only as good as our reputation at that is attacking my reputation. [2025] FWC 3215 13 So you talk to Matt Hilton and he’ll just blah, but you need to decide as the administrator, did you do the right thing this morning and shall I do a retraction? Because I don’t want to sue people but I’ve been to court probably more times than anybody on that committee except for Steve who did criminal law but I never did any criminal stuff, but I don’t take prisoners, mate, I tell you, yeah, and I take on solicitors as well and I win against solicitors. All right so I’m not just a dumb-ass guy who hangs his nails up [inaudible], so please just be careful what you’re doing. Barry wants me to go through him to you but he won’t return my phone calls – very unprofessional, Barry. Won’t respond to my emails. So how do I go through him to you? I don’t know what happened on Friday with the debit card why you contacted him about the debit card MM: ‘cause I didn’t have my phone on me JM: You contacted me Thursday, unlocked straight away. You contacted me Saturday, unlocked straight away but an email went out how I gave the club 40 minutes [inaudible] not my fault, you know, so, just, be careful please. OK, have a good day, mate. [30] Mr Mawer rejected Mr Moore’s suggestion that their interactions were standard work- related conversations, stating that threats of legal action against an employee for complying with an innocuous request from a director fall short of a reasonable person’s definition of a standard work conversation. [31] Mr Mawer denied Mr Moore’s assertion that he is in breach of section 26(g) of the Club’s constitution by not obtaining approval from Mr Moore for purchases over $500. Mr Mawer stated that he is obtaining approval by using Mr van Doorn or Mr Hollingsworth as proxies to convey his requests, as he is avoiding direct interaction with Mr Moore. Mr Mawer stated that Mr Moore is aware of this arrangement. [32] In evidence given during the hearing on 11 April 2025, the following was stated: Commissioner: Well, having heard that recording - it's from two months ago now - do you consider that threats were made, legal threats were made against you? Mr Mawer: Yes, Commissioner. Some parts were slightly hard to hear, but I still maintain that it was a specific threat of legal action against myself and the secretary Ralph, the persons involved, if a retraction was not made by the end of the day through email, as stated by Mr Moore. Commissioner: On that day - you'd been asked, had you, by Ralph and Mr Hollingsworth to send that email, had you? Mr Mawer: That's correct, Commissioner, yes. [2025] FWC 3215 14 Commissioner: Is that who you'd typically take your instructions from? Mr Mawer: In regards to sending those emails out to the members, Commissioner, it could be any committee member, or committee members. I have in the past sent out those emails through verbal instructions to myself, or through written instructions. Commissioner: What do you need to do to check? You've got various committee members, factions, people not getting along. How do you, as the employee and the administrator, make sure that you're doing what you need to do? Mr Mawer: In the case of that communication, Commissioner, that was composed by Ralph, the secretary, and I recognise that that was in response to a motion passed at the general meeting that was not too long before that email. I was at the meeting and I remember that motion being passed. I had a read of the email and it seemed straightforward. I didn't see anything controversial or anything like that, and the fact that - - - Commissioner: That motion is in respect of providing members with information about the legal costs? Mr Mawer: Yes, that's right, Commissioner. Commissioner: You were at that meeting? Mr Mawer: I was at that meeting. It was a special general meeting. Commissioner: Yes? Mr Mawer: And that motion was voted on and passed by the members, and I saw that email as just an extension of that and just regular, nothing untoward or out of place about that, and if the secretary and the president had approached me and asked me to do that, I saw no reason not to. [33] Mr Mawer stated that he has been directed to take direction from Mr Hollingsworth. He said the following:1 Mr Moore: I'm asking you because you're saying, circumventing your supervisor, but the contract says you're to take instructions? Mr Mawer: The arrangement was, so as to avoid confusion, rather than having 10 people giving me instructions, the arrangement, which I believe you were aware of, was that Barry was my supervisor, I directly report to Barry, and anything that other committee [2025] FWC 3215 15 members would like to pass on to me, whether they are instructions, criticism, compliments, whatever they may be, would go through Barry. [34] As to what Mr Mawer sought in a safe workplace, the following was discussed: Commissioner: All right, thank you. Mr Mawer, what do you want out of your workplace? Do you want Mr Moore to stop recording you? Mr Mawer: Ideally I would like a positive support from the workplace, and I would absolutely consider Mr Moore not recording our interactions, or really anyone else's to be part of that, yes, an integral part of that, to try to restore some trust that was lost. Commissioner: You say in your application that you don't want to be there when he's there? Mr Mawer: There are times when, yes, that is true, yes. Commissioner: Do you ever want to meet with him alone, or would you require someone else to be present? Mr Mawer: I would – I would prefer someone, a third party, to be present. I frankly have lost a lot of unspoken or assumed trust to be honest, yes. I would prefer someone else to be present. Commissioner: How often does he attend your workplace? Mr Mawer: Since 2 February I think once or twice, I think. Before then it would be (indistinct) regularly, usually on at least a Saturday, most Saturdays, or – there's no particular set days or times, but I've only seen Mr Moore in once since I think 2 February that I can think of. Commissioner: But you have to liaise to some degree by email? Mr Mawer: By email at least, yes, if not phone or text as well. Commissioner: Other than the covert recording are the phone calls civil between you and him? Mr Mawer: Civil, yes. In the past, yeah, yeah. Yes. There hasn't been any that I can think of that were not so. Commissioner: You don't wish to be threatened with legal proceedings as an employee? [2025] FWC 3215 16 Mr Mawer: Certainly not for carrying out what I consider routine reasonable procedure. I question whether I've been recorded in the past, and I question whether phone calls have been recorded as well. Commissioner: Do you understand that there might be some argy-bargy between committee members and they might threaten each other? Mr Mawer: I do understand that. I've seen evidence of some individual arguments between committee members, yes. Commissioner: And you don't think that should spill over to you? Mr Mawer: That was a bit stressful from the very time I started. There's been times I've sat at my desk, you know, a week, two or three weeks in to starting the role, and there was two committee members standing directly behind me with quite raised voices. I'm trying to do my job, or learn to do my job, and I've mentioned, 'Look, if you guys are going to have a go at each other could you please do it somewhere else.' I understand there will be division and there may be disagreement. I'd just rather not have it played out directly, you know, one foot behind me. It certainly doesn't help the work environment at all. I would like to have as little to do with it as possible to be honest. I'm not on the committee, Commissioner. Commissioner: Are you a member of the club? Mr Mawer: I am a member of the club, yes, Commissioner. Commissioner: Do you shoot? Mr Mawer: I do shoot. Much less than before I started this role due to time constraints, but, yes, I do shoot, Commissioner. Commissioner: Right. So in your leisure time you do avail yourself of the facilities? Mr Mawer: Yes, I do, Commissioner. Commissioner: Whenever you wish? Mr Mawer: That's correct. Mr Moore’s evidence [35] Mr Moore became a member of the Club in late-2014. He was elected to the committee in October 2017 and elected as Treasurer in October 2023. Mr Moore stated that in late- February or early-March 2025, he was cut off from receiving emails from the Club’s email [2025] FWC 3215 17 system without warning. He also stated that on 23 March 2025, his access to the Club’s security camera system was revoked without notice. [36] The former Club Administrator ceased employment on 3 March 2024. From that date, until Mr Mawer’s commencement in the role on 19 June 2024, Mr Moore stated that the Club’s directors took on many of the administration tasks. When Mr Mawer commenced with the Club, Mr Moore stated that many of the directors explained the relevant tasks to Mr Mawer. Mr Moore stated that he is not aware of any complaints that have been made to Mr Mawer’s supervisor. [37] Following the departure of the former Club Administrator, Mr Moore agreed to temporarily obtain a debit card under his Commonwealth Bank of Australia account until a new Club Administrator commenced. Mr Moore stated that he was advised by the bank several times that a debit card should only be used by the person whose name appears on the card, as that person may be personally liable for any misuse. Mr Moore provided evidence of an email sent by Mr Hollingsworth to the Club directors stating that a card holder is considered liable and that, as advised by Mr Moore, card holders should not let others use their card. [38] Mr Moore stated that he attempted to implement many systems to manage the use of the card, but these were ignored, resulting in receiving inappropriate comments and emails from other directors. Mr Moore stated that he therefore removed the card to protect himself and put a stop to the bullying he was experiencing. He stated that he made several requests for other directors who are present at the Club more often to obtain their own debit cards, but this requested was ignored until he removed his card from the Club. Mr Moore stated that three other directors now have Club debit cards. [39] Mr Moore stated that as Treasurer, and considering his many years of experience in managing his own business, he believed he was the best person to research and advise on the correct tools to undertake the financial management aspect of Mr Mawer’s role. [40] Mr Moore stated that in February 2024, the Club committee agreed that notices were not to be sent to Club members without the consent of the majority of the committee, in order to prevent misinformation. [41] After receiving a copy of a complaint made by Mr Mawer to his supervisor, Mr Moore offered to discuss Mr Mawer’s concerns with Mr Mawer and Mr Hollingsworth. Mr Moore said that he has made this offer many times. Mr Moore was informed by Mr Hollingsworth that Mr Mawer would not attend any such discussion unless he complied with Mr Mawer’s “unreasonable demands”. [42] Mr Moore stated that some of the matters raised by Mr Mawer have been raised based on internal committee conversations, and not based on interactions directly between Mr Moore and Mr Mawer. He stated that he believes these issues are being raised by certain committee members who are attempting to have him removed as a director. [43] Mr Moore stated that Mr Mawer has not been requesting approval for purchases over $500 and is therefore breaching section 26(g) of the Club’s constitution. Mr Moore said that he informed Mr Hollingsworth of this, but no response has been received. [2025] FWC 3215 18 [44] Mr Moore suggested that a lack of supervision is responsible for the “misunderstandings” raised by Mr Mawer. [45] In response to Mr Mawer’s claims regarding post office box access, Mr Moore stated that any blame did not come from him, but was relayed to Mr Mawer by another committee member following an email he had sent on 27 October 2024. Mr Mawer had been on sick leave and on holidays for a total of approximately four weeks around this time. Mr Moore provided a copy of the 27 October 2024 email, which he stated does not accuse Mr Mawer of any wrongdoing, and instead simply states that someone should be checking the post office box while Mr Mawer is away. The email states as follows: “Hi All, For several weeks now both Sarah and Lisa have been chasing the GCCC for the excess water refund, so today I went to the club PO Box and found it - dated the 4th September, along with some 20 other bits of mail and invoices etc attached, dating back almost 2 months, also a "more mail to collect card" that I left there as I don't have a car at the moment and someone will need to go to the post office at Ashmore to collect it. This is part of Matt's role to check the PO box when he is at the post office, and someone will need to do this while he is away. Lucky we did not get the phones disconnected. Something we need to keep monitoring. Thanks Jon” [46] A short time after this email, Mr Hollingsworth wrote: “Matt checked the PO Box Friday before last and nothing in it. Matt checked club letter box Monday before last and brought whatever there was into the club. So not sure what has happened in the meantime. It is not checked every day perhaps we need to implement a more frequent check if time available.” [47] In response, Mr Moore wrote: “Hi Barry When Sam left I was checking it weekly which is all that is needed and there were 3 to 5 piece of mail each time. When I checked it today there were 20, some dating back to late August with some overdue notices on the phone bill?” [48] Mr Moore stated that all verbal and written interactions between himself and Mr Mawer have been “professional and directly related” to Mr Mawer’s duties. Mr Moore stated that he is [2025] FWC 3215 19 happy to continue working with Mr Mawer. He suggested that any outstanding concerns be resolved in writing and through in-person mediation. He also asked that his access to the Club’s camera system be restored, and that emails from the Club’s email system be sent to him. [49] In evidence given during the hearing on 11 April 2025, Mr Moore stated that he had, during a telephone conference before the Commission, stated to Mr Mawer that there was no ongoing threat of legal action. He stated that he was prepared to put that in writing.2 [50] In cross-examination the following evidence was given: Mr Mawer: So during the phone conference with the Commissioner when it was held, you said that you were in the habit of – when you arrived at the club in your car and you press record on your telephone before you come into the club and after you arrive in the car park, in your phone you do that. Are you saying that - what? Mr Moore: I've also said because I've been accosted in the car park by some members that the phone is turned off and record when I get to the club house because there are other witnesses around at the club house at the time he – it goes on. I've only been trying to get it if someone approaches me privately in the car park. Mr Mawer: So why did you fail to do that on 2 February? Mr Moore: As I've said on the day I just forgot that it was recording. Sorry. My mind was on other things given that notices had gone out to members and I was annoyed that my request to remove certain parts of that had not been done and it appeared to me that the president and – current president and current secretary were going against things they'd agreed to 12 months earlier. Mr Mawer: So you had the presence of mind to take out your phone, press 'record' but not the presence of mind one or two minutes later to then press 'stop' and turn that off. Is that what you're saying, Mr Moore? Mr Moore: That's correct. So I was expecting to speak to Ralph in the club house as you advised me, he was there on the phone. Mr Mawer: I put it to you that Ralph was still present when you arrived and you could easily have spoken to Ralph as you have just said. Did you do that on (indistinct) ? Mr Moore: No, I did not because Ralph was out on the range shooting and there's a lot of noise and a lot of other members around. [2025] FWC 3215 20 Mr Mawer: I put it to you that Ralph was not shooting at that time? Mr Moore: Ralph was not in the club house. Mr Mawer: That is correct. Ralph was not in the club house? Mr Moore: Ralph was not in the office. Mr Mawer: He was not. No? Mr Moore: No. So, you had told me he was out on the range. Mr Mawer: Correct. Yes. He was not shooting, though? Mr Moore: I didn't go on the range to have a look because it is extremely loud out there. Mr Mawer: Why did you feel it appropriate as to the first reaction to you believing that I had acted in bad faith, as you said, by sending an email that was a lawful direction by two committee members? Why did you feel that – your first reaction – the most appropriate thing was to threaten me with legal action? Mr Moore: I have been under constant attack at that club by four members on the committee – three or four members on the committee and I felt like the complaint from Maree who works closely with these members and in this email going out was just another attack on myself. Mr Mawer: I put it to you that you may or may not have been under attack by anyone, but it was certainly not me. Why did you direct that legal direct to me, (indistinct)? Mr Moore: The conversation – I believe I was saying 'you' as a general reference. I never said, 'I am suing you, Matt.' Mr Mawer: I agree you did not say the words, 'I am suing you, Matt', but we have all just heard the recording earlier. You said to those involved meaning myself and Ralph? Mr Moore: That was just a (indistinct) I was talking about. I was meaning more towards Barry and Ralph. Commissioner: You told him repeatedly to be careful? Mr Moore: Sorry? Commissioner: You told him repeatedly to be very careful? [2025] FWC 3215 21 Mr Moore: Very careful about who he follows on instructions. Commissioner: Yes? Mr Moore: But not about – because we have a very divided committee. Commissioner: I understand that? Mr Moore: Yes. And there is one side I - - - Commissioner: But you're talking to an employee here? Mr Moore: Yes, Commissioner. Commissioner: And you're giving him stern warnings? Mr Moore: To make sure he checks everything before he acts on (indistinct). Commissioner: Otherwise you've got solicitors and deep pockets? Mr Moore: Yes. [51] Regarding Mr Moore’s statement to Mr Mawer, “Matt, despite what others might say, I don’t think you’re a bad guy. OK?”, after significant questioning from me, Mr Moore finally agreed it was an offensive statement to make: Commissioner: And having had time to reflect on the recording which I've now heard for about six times. You might have heard it more times than me. You accept that you were acting unreasonably towards an employee? Mr Moore: Yes. Commissioner: And if I find that it was offensive and intimidating, do you think I'm being unreasonable making those findings? Mr Moore: Commissioner, I'll leave it up to you how you perceive it. I mean, was it a good look? No. Is it going to happen again? No. Has it happened before? Commissioner: Was it offensive? Mr Moore: Was it offensive? Probably. Was it intended to - - - Commissioner: You can't quite get there to say it was offensive? Mr Moore: Well, okay – I – it probably was offensive. [2025] FWC 3215 22 Commissioner: Probably. Was it offensive? Mr Moore: Okay. I don't believe it was, but it may be perceived as being offensive. Commissioner: Saying to an employee of six- or seven-months service at the time, 'People say bad things about you, but I think you're a good guy', essentially? Mr Moore: Well, I was trying to imply that rumours are going around that I'm saying bad things about Matt that I wasn't. Commissioner: You've just now said in the witness box that you did mean to say that to him? Mr Moore: What's that? Commissioner: That people say that others - - -? Mr Moore: No but I've said that other people have said that about him to me. Commissioner: Yes, but you think - - -? Mr Moore: But I think he's a good guy. But other people have been telling – but I believed other people were telling them I'm saying he's not a good guy. Just as he's (indistinct). Commissioner: And you don't accept that that's offensive? Mr Moore: Okay. I – yes. Commissioner: You do? Mr Moore: Yes, I accept that's offensive. Commissioner: Because it would lead somebody who might be stronger than him – because he sounded a bit vulnerable in all of that – he was being taught a lesson by you – the rich man. (Indistinct) might say, what are people saying about me. That leads to that conclusion, don't you think? What are people saying about me? People are saying horrible things about me, are they? That's what you've led him to believe – people are saying horrible things about him? Mr Moore: Okay. Commissioner: But you think he's doing a good job. Then there's the intimidation. Threatening to sue employees. I'm not sure I've [2025] FWC 3215 23 come across a matter where an employer has threatened to sue an employee because employees don't get sued other than in respect of, you know, criminal matters et cetera. So it's not looking good for you, Mr Moore, on that front? Mr Moore: Thank you. Mr Hollingsworth’s evidence [52] Mr Hollingsworth competed the Form F73 Employer Response on behalf of the Club. Referring to the interaction between Mr Mawer and Mr Moore on 2 February 2025, Mr Hollingsworth stated that Mr Mawer discussed the incident with him before sending the email on 5 February 2025 produced at [27]. Mr Hollingsworth stated that the Club was aware that Mr Moore threatened to sue Mr Mawer for his part in sending the email, as instructed by Mr van Doorn on 2 February 2025, and that as a result, Mr Mawer will not speak with Mr Moore. [53] Following the incident between Mr Mawer and Mr Moore, Mr Hollingsworth stated that he asked the board to stand Mr Moore down temporarily to avoid any further interaction or antagonism with Mr Mawer, as Mr Hollingsworth considered that a patten was emerging. Mr Hollingsworth acknowledged that he did not include Mr Moore in his request to the board. Mr Hollingsworth said that the board refused to do the right thing and immediately sent his request to Mr Moore. [54] In response to a suggestion by Mr Moore that Mr van Doorn had attempted to gain access to the Club’s bank accounts, Mr Hollingsworth stated that this issue is irrelevant and untrue. Where Mr Moore stated that he has had no contact with Mr Mawer since the filing of Mr Mawer’s application, other than to remind him that under the constitution he must seek approval from Mr Moore for purchases over $500, Mr Hollingsworth stated that the constitution allows for purchases up to $20,000, but in any event, Mr Mawer approaches Mr Hollingsworth for such requests, which, while the Commission proceedings have been on foot, Mr Hollingsworth has passed on to Mr Moore. [55] In his application, Mr Moore stated that he was being bullied by Mr Hollingsworth, as Mr Hollingsworth had been refusing to take his phone calls since late-January 2025, was selectively replying to emails, blocked his access to the Club’s camera system in mid-February 2025 and is refusing to reinstate access despite committee agreement to do so, has been spreading rumours around the Club since October 2024, and has been deliberately excluding him from emails addressed to directors. [56] In relation to Mr Mawer, Mr Moore recorded in his application that Mr Mawer had been failing to send Club notices and messages since 3 February 2025 and had failed to obtain his approval as Club Treasurer for purchases of $500 as required by the Club’s constitution. [57] Mr Moore stated that the behaviour of Mr Hollingsworth and Mr Mawer was intimidating to the extent that he has avoided attending the office when they are present. Mr Moore said that he has lost sleep and feels betrayed and excluded from the workplace because of their actions. Mr Moore further stated that in the past, he has used the Club camera system to detect a club member stealing, and has witnessed safety breaches on the ranges, a visitor [2025] FWC 3215 24 almost being shot by a club member, and unethical behaviour in relation to the collection of proxy votes that the 2024 AGM. [58] In a statement to the Commission, Mr Moore made the following specific allegations in respect of Mr Hollingsworth and Mr Mawer: 1. On 13 November 2024, Mr Hollingsworth sent an email stating he had commenced legal action in the Supreme Court of Queensland. Mr Moore stated that this was sent to bully, intimidate and threaten people in the workplace. The email stated as follows: “James, Whilst I have your email requesting responses to questions, please note I have engaged legal representation and the matters raised by you in your email and the associated conduct of Messrs. Flori, Moore, Clough, McNiven, and Mesdames James and Stubbs, which includes without limitation: 1. making unsupported allegations about the AGM and voting process, 2. seeks to disrupt the AGM and voting process to suit the interests of those parties in circumstances where they knew they had lost the election, 3. where they have sought to further their personal interests by circulation of a petition to members, and 4. where they have sought to further their personal interests by issuing knowingly false requisitions upon me, will shortly become the subject of litigation before the Supreme Court of Queensland. Whilst the parties will ventilate their contest before the Court, at which time you can also appropriately respond, I state for the record that the allegations made in your correspondence are entirely categorically false, biased, and a design by you to achieve the goals of those I have named above. They are denied. I will serve the foreshadowed process over the following 10-14 days. Yours faithfully, Barry Hollingsworth Vice President Gold Coast Pistol Club” [59] On 18 February 2025, Mr Hollingsworth sent an email to all committee members other than Mr Moore to gain support in calling for Mr Moore to step down. This email threatened to terminate the membership of committee members who shared the email. Mr Moore stated that this behaviour was bullying and intimidatory. The email stated as follows: [2025] FWC 3215 25 “Dear Fellow Directors This communication does not include Jon Moore. As you are aware, the club currently has two Fair Works complaints to contend with. Firstly, one from Maree Mathieson [sic] in progress, and the complaint is against Jon Moore for bullying. This has been in progress since 2023/24. Secondly, a recent complaint from Matt Mawer (employee) against Jon Moore (employer) for threatening him with legal action for the act of facilitating the sending of an email to members, which was composed by and sent on the directions of the Club Secretary facilitating a response to a motion at the SGM. And in addition, the confiscation of the club debit card in Jon’s name causing significant issues in his daily work tasks affecting his performance in his role. I emphasise that no findings or decision have been made about these matters at this stage and the investigation by Fair Works is continuing. However, the Allegations made against Jon are serious and if proven, could constitute Serious Misconduct, which is fundamentally inconsistent with his duties as a committee member and Director, for which he could be subject to disciplinary action. In consultation with a HR expert at the club on Saturday 15th February I was advised that the committee should be seen to act (due to a second complaint) and ask Jon to temporarily step down from his role in the committee to prevent further conflict with the employees while the complaints are dealt with. This advice was predicated on the fact that any potential inadvertent interaction between Jon (employer) at Matt / Maree (employees) could inflame the situation further and add to the list of complaints by the employees thus increasing the chances of litigation. In addition, the fact that communication between Jon and the employees has deteriorated significantly due to a legal threat and alleged bullying, the operation of the club administration continues to be significantly impacted. And it would not be prudent to remove an employee at this stage given FWC handling of complaints in progress. At the very minimum perhaps Jon should have no further interaction with the employees until resolved. Clearly, it is a difficult situation. With regard to the club debit card, while I respect the fact that care is necessary, its withdrawal from use, has put club operations in jeopardy. We have instigated banking processes to issue additional debit/credit cards. However, due to changes in bank (Commonwealth) policies changing account administration (adding and subtracting signatories) is a lengthy task and we have been advised (because we are a company) that it requires all Directors to present themselves [2025] FWC 3215 26 to the Commonwealth Bank to get an ID due to new money laundering laws. Until this is completed the bank will not process our requirements causing lengthy delays. You can do this at any branch. As Directors (and employers) we are held responsible by the Club for dealing with the situation. We must show Fair Works that we are staking steps to mitigate further complaints, introduce basic HR policies and put in place procedures to prevent escalation. And we need to show we are taking action to support employees and protect them from harassment in the workplace. And club members (feedback already) are looking to us to act. In my capacity as employee supervisor, it is my opinion that due to the threat of legal action by Jon against Matt, he should probably stand down (temporarily) while the FWC investigation is underway and so I seek your support in agreement or alternative suggestions. We have some quotes for HR advice and management which will be presented at the next committee meeting to assist the club’s compliance with employer/employee laws. This communication and anything relating to this matter is strictly confidential. Hence the use of my personal email on this matter. The club treats these matters very seriously and if you are found to have breached confidentiality obligations, you may be subject to disciplinary action up to and including the termination of your membership. I look forward to your response. Barry Hollingsworth President Gold Coast Pistol Club” [60] On 19 April 2025, Mr Hollingsworth sent an email seeking committee consent to send a notice to members about the application made against Mr Moore in the Commission. Mr Moore stated that this email contained a misleading statement made by me during the hearing on 11 April 2025, in which I suggested that an option for resolution of applications may include that a committee member stands down from the committee. Mr Hollingsworth’s email of 19 April 2025 stated as follows: “Draft of email to be sent to Members after committee review In the interest of transparency … [2025] FWC 3215 27 On Friday 11th April the club President, two club employees, and the club Treasurer attended a hearing at Fair Works at 66 Eagle Street Brisbane. (Fair Works Courts) The hearing was called by Commissioner Hunt as a result of complaints made by two club employees against Mr Jon Moore. The two complaints to Fair Works, one from Ms Maree Mathison and one from Mr Matt Mawer were against Mr Jon Moore for bullying and in Mr Mawer's complaint, an additional threat of legal action from Mr Moore to Mr Mawer. Attempts to resolve the complaints before the hearing were unsuccessful. Commissioner Hunt combined the two complaints into one session rather than treating them in separation. The hearing was conducted from 10 am to 6 pm and, as Commissioner Hunt was about to take leave for a month, we were advised that the matter, will not be decided until May 2025. As the final decision will be made public, the Commissioner suggested an option that Mr Moore step down from the committee to resolve the complaints and also left open the opportunity for the club to resolve internally before her decision and any orders. Mr Mawer was granted leave to submit further information to the Commissioner, regarding discussions at the hearing. I understand this has been done. A transcript from the hearing will be made available in due course. The President Gold Coast Pistol Club” [61] In late April 2025, a petition was circulated in the club asking for Mr Moore to step down. Mr Moore stated his understanding that this petition received only three signatures. [62] On 14 May 2025, Mr Hollingsworth sent an email to the committee, excluding Mr Moore, about Mr Moore’s application to the Commission. The email stated as follows: “FYI Jon Moore has filed a Form 72 Application to Fair Works citing Matt, Maree and myself for bullying. This will involve the club in yet another FW event, and a significant cost to the club in legal representation should it be necessary. [2025] FWC 3215 28 At a time when we are all trying to pull together on several fronts, as Jim recently noted in an email, it is both alarming and ludicrous that such retaliatory action is being taken. I will keep you all up to date on the outcome. kind regards Barry” [63] Sometime in March 2025, Mr Moore lost access to the camera system, which was originally blamed on a system failure. At the committee meeting on 22 April 2025, the committee agreed to reinstate Mr Moore’s access, and Mr Moore sent an email to Mr Hollingsworth on 1 May 2025 about this. Mr Hollingsworth has refused to reinstate Mr Moore’s camera access. Mr Moore’s email of 1 May 2025 stated as follows: “Hi Barry, As I am a volunteer I have to work this around my full time job and I don't have much time to spare … I am still waiting on the camera log in times I requested 6 weeks ago and is noted in the March minutes, still wasting on you restoring my camera access after it was canceled without notice, still wasting time not getting club noticed, still wasting time chasing up phone numbers that Ralph refuses to give me that is delaying processing gun sales to members and I am spending more of my time putting out fires Ralph has caused with the accountant. So many things outstanding, wasting time chasing up I will take care of the bank documents when I have time. Jon” [64] Mr Hollingsworth replied to this email stating, inter alia, that no camera access will be reinstated until after the Commission’s decision in relation to Mr Mawer’s application is published. [65] The committee had agreed that all communication with the Club accountant would occur through Mr Moore, but Mr Hollingsworth and Mr van Doorn have refused to follow this process. [66] Since Mr Moore’s conversation with Mr Mawer on 2 February 2025, approximately 20 email notices have been sent from the Club to members, but none have been sent to Mr Moore. Despite Mr Mawer and Mr Hollingsworth both being aware of this, the issue has not been fixed in over five months. [67] Mr Mawer refuses to talk or send emails directly to Mr Moore. Mr Mawer has placed orders for dealership stock without approval as required under section 26(g) of the Club’s [2025] FWC 3215 29 constitution. Mr Moore stated that he only finds out about some orders when invoices are received. Mr Moore said that this prevents him from preparing budgets and costings. [68] Mr Moore has had calls from Club members asking about the allegations made in the Commission to find out his side of the story and the “smear campaign” against him. [69] Mr Hollingsworth and Mr Mawer have asked for Mr Moore to step down from the committee, and Mr Mawer has asked that Mr Moore quit the club. Mr Moore said this behaviour is ongoing, causes stress and sleepless nights and prevents him from attending the Club in fear of further allegations. [70] Mr Moore said that scrutiny of the systems he has implemented for monitoring of the Club’s debit card has led to him being singled out for following bank procedures that he has no control over. [71] Mr Mawer has used his own funds on occasion for Club purchases and has been reimbursed within seven days of providing the invoice for a refund. Mr Mawer also has access to the post office debit card. Mr Moore stated that issues around the Club card could have been avoided if Mr Mawer had agreed to obtain a card of his own when he asked to do so. Mr Mawer has now agreed to have a card in his name. [72] Following the first hearing on 11 April 2025, Mr Moore produced text messages between himself and Mr Mawer where he would unlock the credit card when requested by Mr Mawer. [73] Mr Moore asked the Commission to make the following orders: a) Mr Hollingsworth is to provide written confirmation to Mr Moore as to whether he is continuing with legal action against Mr Moore; b) Mr Moore’s security camera access is to be reinstated; c) Mr Moore is to resume receiving email notices from the Club regarding Club updates and work-related matters; d) Mr Mawer and Mr Hollingsworth are to send copies of all financial emails directly to Mr Moore; e) Mr Mawer is to communicate directly with Mr Moore in relation to purchases and Club financial matters; f) Mr Mawer and Mr Hollingsworth are to stop calling for Mr Moore to resign as a committee member; g) Mr Hollingsworth and Mr Mawer are to stop excluding Mr Moore from internal work emails; and [2025] FWC 3215 30 h) The general behaviour of Mr Mawer and Mr Hollingsworth and their attitude towards Mr Moore is to be positive. Mr Mawer’s evidence in response [74] In response to Mr Moore’s allegations that he has failed to send club notices and messages since 3 February 2025, Mr Mawer stated that he has included Mr Moore in every club notice sent to members up to that date. Mr Mawer provided a screenshot of the Club’s email software used to send emails to members. The screenshot shows Mr Moore’s email address in the list of ‘opt-outs’ where members have decided to unsubscribe from receiving emails. The screenshot shows that Mr Moore last opted out on 3 February 2025. Mr Mawer stated that the reason Mr Moore has not been receiving Club notice emails since 3 February 2025 is because he has chosen to opt out. [75] In respect of day-to-day administrative emails, Mr Mawer stated that Mr Moore is aware of the procedure in place whereby Mr Mawer reports to Mr Hollingsworth, his supervisor. [76] Mr Mawer denied that he has failed to get expenditure approval in accordance with the Club constitution. Mr Mawer said that Mr Moore was aware of the arrangement where Mr Mawer seeks approval by proxy through Mr Hollingsworth or Mr van Doorn. Mr Mawer described this allegation as vexatious. [77] Mr Mawer stated that he has never called for Mr Moore to step down from the committee nor asked him to quit the Club. Mr Mawer noted that in his application to the Commission, he sought an order that Mr Moore be stood down from the committee. [78] After having his access removed to the Club debit card, Mr Mawer stated that he and Ms Mathison had no option but to use their personal debit cards to purchase items for the Club due to time constraints. Mr Mawer said that this was inconvenient, inappropriate and not by choice. Mr Mawer also stated that use of the Club’s post office debit card ceased on Mr Hollingsworth’s direction and itself was only intended to be a temporary solution to the situation caused by Mr Moore’s confiscation of the Club debit card. Mr Mawer said that Mr Moore’s decision left him unable to complete simple but vital daily tasks. [79] Mr Mawer stated that Mr Moore’s suggestion that he obtain a Club debit card in his own name was not supported by the committee, and he was not asked by the committee to obtain a card. [80] Mr Mawer submitted that the Commission should make the following orders in relation to his application: 1. Mr Moore refrain from recording conversations in the workplace. 2. Mr Moore issue a written apology for his behaviour towards Mr Mawer. 3. Mr Moore issue a written retraction of his threat of legal action against Mr Mawer. [2025] FWC 3215 31 4. Mr Moore treat the employees, directors and members of the Club with dignity and respect at all times. Mr Hollingsworth’s evidence in response [81] In response to Mr Moore’s allegation about the threat of legal action, Mr Hollingsworth stated that after his speech at the AGM in 2024, some members of the Club circulated a petition against his presidency. Mr Hollingsworth said that he sought legal advice as a result, and sent an email to certain people stating that he would take legal action if the petition were tabled at a committee meeting. Mr Hollingsworth submitted that this was a normal response to the situation, and Mr Moore has exaggerated its impact. Mr Hollingsworth noted that he withdrew his intention to take legal action in writing in a letter to the Secretary in March 2025. [82] Mr Hollingsworth agreed that he sent the email to the committee on 18 February 2025 calling on Mr Moore to temporarily step down from his position. Mr Hollingsworth said that the email was confidential, so Mr Moore was excluded. Mr Hollingsworth said because information had been leaking from committee meetings for “quite some time”, he said that any confidentiality breaches would result in disciplinary action, including the termination of memberships. Mr Hollingsworth denied that this was a threat, describing it as “presidential management”. [83] Mr Hollingsworth rejected that his email of 19 April 2025 was misleading. He stated that, having been elected on a platform of transparency, he considered it appropriate to advise Club members of the Commission proceedings, and the potential option for resolution I had flagged during the hearing on 11 April 2025. [84] Mr Hollingsworth denied that he circulated or endorsed any petition against Mr Moore, though noted that Club members can take such action if they wish. Mr Hollingsworth stated that he suspects many Club members know about the Commission proceedings. [85] Mr Hollingsworth agreed that he sent an email to the committee on 14 May 2025 about Mr Moore’s application to the Commission and that Mr Moore was excluded from the email. Mr Hollingsworth denied that Mr Moore has been excluded from other work-related matters. [86] In relation to the Club’s camera access, Mr Hollingsworth stated that the Club’s camera system had experienced a malfunction, resulting in some users losing their access, including Mr Moore. Mr Hollingsworth stated that the CCTV system is managed by an external party. The purpose of the CCTV system is for security and for the Club Captain to be able to review footage in the event of a dangerous situation or misconduct. Mr Hollingsworth said that Mr Moore’s loss of access to the camera system in no way prevents him from completing his tasks, demonstrated by the fact that in the two months leading up to June 2025, Mr Moore completed his required tasks without access to the camera system without issue. Mr Hollingsworth further noted that Mr Moore has been accused internally of stalking staff and directors on the camera system. Mr Hollingsworth said that he does not personally reinstate anyone’s access to the camera system, as this is done by the Club’s security contractor. [87] Mr Hollingsworth acknowledged that the committee had agreed to a communication protocol for the accountant, however stated that there are times when direct communication [2025] FWC 3215 32 with the accountant is necessary, especially where there are issues with the Club’s membership software. Mr Hollingsworth stated that if Mr Moore was the only contact with the accountant, it would leave open the possibility of fraud and would be unrealistic. Mr Hollingsworth further noted that there are occasions where the accountant sends documentation directly to him that require his signature or authorisation as President. [88] Regarding the sending of Club emails, Mr Hollingsworth explained that the Club uses two methods on email communications with its members. One uses the Club’s membership software, and the other uses the Club’s email system to send emails to specific individuals. All general Club communication is sent using the membership software. Mr Hollingsworth stated that Mr Moore opted out of receiving emails from the membership software on 3 February 2025, the day after his interaction with Mr Mawer. Mr Hollingsworth stated that to opt out, a user must click on the ‘opt out’ link, and while this could have been done accidentally by Mr Moore, it was baseless of Mr Moore to blame Mr Hollingsworth or Mr Mawer. [89] Communication amongst Club committee members is undertaken using Microsoft Outlook. Mr Hollingsworth stated that there had been a recent change in Microsoft terms and conditions, which resulted in some email hosts, including that used by Mr Moore, randomly failing to receive emails or flagging emails as spam. Mr Hollingsworth stated that issues have been experienced by many Club members, and the Club is investigating a solution. Mr Hollingsworth also noted that the Club had suggested that Mr Moore obtain a free Gmail email account, as Gmail accounts appear to experience fewer problems. [90] In relation to communication between Mr Moore and Mr Mawer, Mr Hollingsworth stated that the current process is that Mr Mawer places orders through his supervisor or the Secretary, which are then forwarded to Mr Moore for acceptance. Mr Hollingsworth stated that this does not stop Mr Moore from completing his tasks. Mr Hollingsworth said that Mr Mawer has not breached the Club constitution; he receives approval for all purchases over $500 and has a dealership limit of $20,000. [91] Mr Hollingsworth stated that he was not responsible for any Club members calling Mr Moore. He said that he has not received names of any members engaging in this behaviour. [92] Mr Hollingsworth agreed that he has asked the committee to stand Mr Moore down temporarily pending the resolution of the Commission proceedings. He stated that he has not asked Mr Moore to quit the club. [93] Mr Hollingsworth stated that in restricting use of the debit card, Mr Moore jeopardised the day-to-day operations of the Club. Other directors of the Club have now acquired cards for the Club account, which have been made available to Mr Mawer and others. The Club has also applied for a card for Mr Mawer to use. [94] In relation to the orders sought by Mr Moore, Mr Hollingsworth stated: a) Mr Hollingsworth confirmed in March 2025 to the secretary that he is not pursuing legal action; [2025] FWC 3215 33 b) No reinstatement of security camera access is likely to occur until after the conclusion of the Commission proceedings; c) Mr Moore opted out of company emails himself; d) As far as Mr Hollingsworth is aware, subject to any technological issues, financial emails have always been sent to Mr Moore; e) No direct communication between Mr Mawer and Mr Moore will occur until Mr Moore provides written confirmation of his intention not to take legal action against Mr Mawer, apologises for his actions, and complies with any orders made by the Commission; f) No further calls for Mr Moore to stand down have been made; g) Mr Moore is not excluded from internal work emails; and h) The Club is open to achieving a positive resolution. Consideration [95] In order to make orders in an anti-bullying application, there are two requirements under s.789FF(1)(b) of the Act. The Commission must first find that Mr Mawer or Mr Moore have been bullied at work by an individual or a group of individuals, and secondly, that there is a risk that Mr Mawer or Mr Moore will continue to be bullied at work by the individual or group concerned. [96] Once these two requirements have been satisfied, s.789FF confers on the Commission a broad, discretionary power to make any order it considers appropriate (other than an order requiring payment of a pecuniary amount) to prevent an employee from being bullied at work. [97] There is no dispute that the employer is a constitutionally-covered business, and it is also accepted by the parties in this case that the matters between the parties, it took place at work. [98] The application of s.789FD has been discussed in various decisions of the Commission where it has been held that the terms of s.789FD are to be applied objectively and that s.789FD(2) ‘reasonable management action carried out in a reasonable manner’ is not so much an ‘exclusion’ but a qualification which reinforces that bullying conduct must of itself be unreasonable.3 It also emphasises the right of management to take reasonable management action in the workplace.4 [99] In Mac v Bank of Queensland Ltd,5 Hatcher VP (as he was then) provided the following examples of conduct “which one might expect to find in a course of repeated unreasonable behaviour that constituted bullying at work” as including: “… intimidation, coercion, threats, humiliation, shouting, sarcasm, victimisation, terrorising, singling-out, malicious pranks, physical abuse, verbal abuse, emotional [2025] FWC 3215 34 abuse, belittling, bad faith, harassment, conspiracy to harm, ganging-up, isolation, freezing-out, ostracism, innuendo, rumour-mongering, disrespect, mobbing, mocking, victim-blaming and discrimination.”6 [100] In Edwards v E S Trading Co (Discounts) Pty Ltd (t/as E & S Kitchen, Bathroom Laundry),7 an employee’s genuinely held belief that she was being bullied at work was insufficient to enliven the Commission’s jurisdiction. The conduct must not only be perceived as being bullying, but that belief “must be reasonable in the sense that it is able to be supported or justified on an objective basis.” [101] In Ms SB, Hampton C (as he was then) observed that: “whether management action is reasonable requires an objective assessment of the action in the context of the circumstances and knowledge of those involved at the time”.8 [102] The Commissioner also relevantly stated: “The test is whether the management action was reasonable, not whether it could have been undertaken in a manner that was “more reasonable” or “more acceptable”. In general terms this is likely to mean that: • management actions do not need to be perfect or ideal to be considered reasonable; • a course of action may still be “reasonable action” even if particular steps are not; • to be considered reasonable, the action must also be lawful and not be “irrational, absurd or ridiculous”; • any “unreasonableness” must arise from the actual management action in question, rather than the applicant’s perception of it; and • consideration may be given as to whether the management action involved a significant departure from established policies or procedures, and if so, whether the departure was reasonable in the circumstances.”9 [103] Commissioner Williams said the following in an anti-bullying decision involving Ms Jennifer Watts [2018] FWC 1455: “[140] It is to be remembered that the legislative scheme is not directed at punishing those who may have behaved unreasonably in the past nor is it to compensate someone who has endured such bullying instead it is directed at preventing [the person] from being bullied at work in the future.” Has Mr Mawer been bullied at work by Mr Moore? [104] The first limb of s.789FF(1)(b) requires the Commission to be satisfied that “the worker has been bullied at work by an individual or a group of individuals”. [2025] FWC 3215 35 [105] Whether a worker has been bullied at work by an individual or a group of individuals is state of affairs that is defined in s.789FD of the Act. Therefore, for the first limb of s.789FF(1)(b) to met, I must be satisfied that s.789FD is met. [106] Section 789FD(1) provides that a worker is bullied at work if an individual or group of individuals repeatedly behaves unreasonably towards the worker (or a group of workers), while the worker is at work, and that behaviour creates a risk to health and safety. Section 789FD(2) provides that s.789FD(1) does not apply to reasonable management action carried out in a reasonable manner. [107] For s.789FD(1) to be met in this case, I must be satisfied of the following: • That Mr Moore has repeatedly behaved unreasonably towards Mr Mawer while at work; • That this unreasonable behaviour of Mr Moore creates a risk to Mr Mawer’s health and safety; and • That such unreasonable behaviour of Mr Moore is not reasonable management action carried out in a reasonable manner. [108] My observation of Mr Mawer is that he is a calm, measured and honourable man. It is evident he has been affected by Mr Moore’s conduct, including the implied threat to sue him, the act of covertly recording him, and Mr Moore’s ongoing desire to manage Mr Mawer despite Mr Hollingsworth being Mr Mawer’s supervisor. Mr Mawer presented at the hearing as being largely unable to make eye contact with Mr Moore while Mr Mawer was giving evidence. I understand this to be a coping mechanism; Mr Mawer appeared to be somewhat intimidated by Mr Moore. Not in stature, as Mr Mawer is a much taller man than Mr Moore; but by way of position and affluence, connected to the fear that Mr Moore may sue him while Mr Mawer considers he is performing his duties in an orthodox manner, which I accept he is. [109] Having accepted into evidence the covert recording made by Mr Moore and listened to how he spoke with Mr Mawer, I am satisfied that on 2 February 2025, Mr Moore behaved unreasonably towards Mr Mawer while he was at work. I am of the view that Mr Moore’s evidence that he forgot to turn his recording off after coming in from the car park was fabricated for the purposes of these proceedings. Mr Moore knew that he was covertly recording Mr Mawer and that he was at a significant advantage in the conversation. Mr Moore contemporaneously told others about the recording and Mr Mawer had to learn second-hand that the recording had been made. If Mr Moore had inadvertently recorded the conversation, the right and just thing would have been to inform Mr Mawer of the fact as soon as it became known. Mr Moore’s evidence is not accepted and, in my view, demonstrates a deficiency in integrity. [110] Mr Moore’s hysteria over the email sent by Mr Mawer on instruction is unbecoming. Mr Moore took offence to the email containing the following: [2025] FWC 3215 36 “The Treasurer has today provided the total figure, we apologise for not providing it to the whole of the membership as required within the requirement time line of the motion.” [111] If Mr Moore is prepared to covertly record a member of staff over the above statement being made to members, imply that he may sue him and inform him three times in that meeting that he ought to be careful and he is prepared to sue, it shows that he has a significant insecurity and an offensive approach to a member of staff. If Mr Moore was upset with the accuracy of the statement, with it appearing to reflect that he provided figures to the committee later than he did, then his appropriate course of action was through the committee, not to intimidate and threaten Mr Mawer. Mr Moore knew that Mr van Doorn was present at the club; he said so to Mr Mawer who confirmed he was. If Mr Moore had an issue with Mr van Doorn’s instruction to Mr Mawer to send the email, he ought to have taken it up with Mr van Doorn, not Mr Mawer. [112] Mr Moore’s statement to Mr Mawer that despite what others might say, he doesn’t think Mr Mawer is a bad guy is incredibly offensive. Demonstrating Mr Moore’s intimidation of Mr Mawer, it was said to shock Mr Mawer into believing that others are talking poorly about Mr Mawer; that he’s a “bad guy”. It is an appalling thing for Mr Moore to say about Mr Mawer, especially in a club of so many members. It was offensive, intimidatory, and, I accept caused Mr Mawer embarrassment and humiliation. It weighed on Mr Mawer, wondering who might be saying this about him? [113] It took a significant amount of my questioning of Mr Moore for him to even accept that it was offensive when said to an employee. Mr Moore might have his own battles to face with opposing factions of the committee; he had no right to denigrate an employee of the Club. To the best of my knowledge, Mr Mawer is not part of any factions of committee members; he is simply an employee attempting to regularly go about his work. [114] Mr Moore considers that he withdrew any threat of legal action against Mr Mawer at a telephone conference in these proceedings, and in evidence stated that he was prepared to put it in writing. The fact that he would have to put in writing a withdrawal of threatened legal proceedings against an employee is demonstrative that Mr Moore went beyond what is reasonable on 2 February 2025. [115] For Mr Mawer to learn that the conversation had been recorded by Mr Moore because he had told others about it demonstrates that Mr Moore was intent on further humiliating Mr Mawer. It constitutes a further action of acting unreasonably towards Mr Mawer. [116] In relation to the Xero program and Mr Moore’s decision not to allow Mr Mawer to use Xero, I find this to constitute unreasonable behaviour towards Mr Mawer, and it is not reasonable management action carried out in a reasonable manner. Mr Mawer is not inexperienced, and if he has been informed not to solely rely on data from Xero, and instead reconcile it against bank accounts, he can be trusted to do so. Mr Moore appears to me to treat Mr Mawer as though he is an experienced junior; he is not. I consider he was condescending and patronising to him when he told him he could not use the Xero program for the reasons relied upon by Mr Moore. [2025] FWC 3215 37 [117] In relation to the use of debit cards, this now appears to have been resolved by further committee members having obtained debit cards. If it hadn’t been resolved, I consider that Mr Moore’s pedantic approach when the Club’s daily exposure to any inappropriate spending was only $2,000 would have constituted unreasonable behaviour towards Mr Mawer by requiring Mr Mawer to always have to obtain a code from Mr Moore for any expenditure whatsoever. [118] I also consider that Mr Moore has not accepted the Club’s decision that Mr Mawer is to be supervised by Mr Hollingsworth. Mr Moore attempts to give instruction to Mr Mawer when this is not welcome. I accept that Mr Mawer is prepared to accept some general instructions from other committee members, but he does so because, as I understand it, they do so respectfully and the instructions are not substantive. Mr Mawer does not wish to accept instructions from Mr Moore and wishes to receive instructions from Mr Hollingsworth. I consider that without an order of the Commission being made, Mr Moore will repeatedly attempt to provide substantive instruction to Mr Mawer against his and the Club’s wishes. [119] I am satisfied that Mr Moore has repeatedly behaved unreasonably towards Mr Mawer while at work. I am satisfied that Mr Moore’s unreasonable behaviour is not reasonable management action carried out in a reasonable manner. I am satisfied that this creates a risk to Mr Mawer’s health and safety. Mr Mawer appeared to me to be visibly unwell and affected when in Mr Moore’s presence during the proceedings. [120] The second limb required to be considered is can the Commission be satisfied that there is a risk that the worker will continue to be bullied at work by the individual or group. I am satisfied that if an order is not made, Mr Mawer will be at risk of continuing to be being bullied at work by Mr Moore. This is so because despite being marginalised between factions of committee members and the often bitterness of committee members not being aligned, I consider that Mr Moore will continue to take out his frustrations on Mr Mawer, and will attempt to give him directions when he is not open to them. I consider that Mr Moore has form, and where he could have attempted to address his concerns with Mr van Doorn, he sought out Mr Mawer to intimidate. I consider that Mr Moore made the threats and stated the offensive remark to Mr Mawer on 2 February 2025 because he considered him a softer target than Mr van Doorn. [121] Having regard to all of the evidence and submissions before me, and despite any position taken to by Mr Moore in the proceedings, whose undertakings I do not accept as I consider they are self-serving and not genuine, I consider it appropriate to make the following orders: A. Mr Jonathan Philip Moore (Mr Moore) is prohibited from making any covert recordings while on the premises of the Gold Coast Pistol Club Ltd, including the car park. If he wishes to seek permission of any person to record any conversation he must obtain their prior written permission. This will not affect Mr Moore’s ability to make overt video recordings on the premises such as recording social events/celebrations or damage to the premises. B. Mr Moore is prohibited from making any covert recordings of Mr Mawer, whether on the premises of the Gold Coast Pistol Club Ltd, including the car park or elsewhere, including in public. C. Mr Moore is not to restrict Mr Mawer’s access to the Xero software system. [2025] FWC 3215 38 D. Within 14 days of the date of this Order, Mr Moore is to issue a written retraction of any implied threat to take legal action against Mr Mawer. E. For the period of 12 months from the date the Order is made, Mr Moore is not permitted to give management direction to Mr Mawer unless through Mr Hollingsworth, or at the Gold Coast Pistol Club Ltd committee’s direction, some other person. Has Mr Moore been bullied at work by Mr Mawer? [122] Mr Moore sought to cast blame on Mr Mawer for Mr Moore not receiving emails from the Club. The evidence before the Commission is very clear; Mr Moore opted-out of receiving emails from the Club. Whether he did so inadvertently only he can answer. I am satisfied it was at his initiative and came to light in these proceedings after being investigated by Mr Mawer. [123] As a member of the Club, it is within Mr Mawer’s rights, if he wishes, to call upon Mr Moore to resign as a member of the committee. The Commission will not restrict Mr Mawer’s rights available to him as a member. Mr Mawer has not engaged in unreasonable behaviour to Mr Moore while at work such as standing over him, screaming at him or any other hostile behaviour. I consider that Mr Mawer has at all times been professional towards Mr Moore. [124] Arrangements have been made for Mr Hollingsworth to supervise Mr Mawer in the performance of his duties. There is no sound reason for the Commission to interfere with that arrangement, despite Mr Moore’s wishes for Mr Mawer to be directed to send copies of all financial emails directly to Mr Moore. Mr Mawer will send financial emails to Mr Hollingsworth which, I understand, will be forwarded to Mr Moore. If the committee wishes to give to Mr Mawer a direction to directly forward financial emails to Mr Moore, that is a matter for the committee. [125] Mr Mawer’s decision not to accept direction from Mr Moore is understandable and reasonable in the circumstances where I have determined that Mr Moore is bullying Mr Mawer. [126] On the evidence before me, I am not satisfied that Mr Moore has been bullied at work by Mr Mawer. In fact, I consider that Mr Moore has vexatiously brought the application against Mr Mawer, pursuant to s.587(1)(b) of the Act. Has Mr Moore been bullied at work by Mr Hollingsworth? [127] Mr Moore and Mr Hollingsworth are both volunteer committee members. Their rights and responsibilities are governed by the Club’s constitution and other responsibilities they have as Directors. [128] There is no love lost between Mr Moore and Mr Hollingsworth. Their spats appear to me to be ridiculous, but that is, regrettably, often the way between elected officials in many sporting and other volunteer-led associations. [2025] FWC 3215 39 [129] As I consider it to be Mr Mawer’s right to call upon Mr Moore to resign as a member of the committee, the Commission will not restrict Mr Hollingsworth’s rights available to him as a member to call for Mr Moore to resign. If one is to put themselves up for election and hold a position, they are not entitled to immunity or protection from the Commission where a right exists pursuant to the Club’s constitution to call for their removal or resignation. It’s Mr Moore’s right to resist any calls for his resignation but put frankly, nobody is forcing him to maintain a committee position. If he wants to stand for office, be elected and maintain office, he ought to expect that it can come with some rough and tumble. Equally, if Mr Moore wished to call for Mr Hollingsworth to resign, I would not find that Mr Moore was acting unreasonably towards Mr Hollingsworth. [130] If Mr Hollingsworth or Mr Moore wish to converse or email other committee members without including the other, the Commission is not going to interfere with that conduct. They simply need to ask themselves, are they meeting their obligations in accordance with the Club constitution and other director responsibilities? I do not consider it constitutes unreasonable behaviour pursuant to the Act, albeit the volunteers are ‘at work’. Any elected volunteer at the Club ought to ask themselves if they consider they are getting out of the arrangement what they want, and if they are not, why hold a position, especially if there is dysfunction? [131] If Mr Moore considers that he is losing sleep and feels excluded when at the Club, it would appear to me that it is not only because of his strained relationship with Mr Hollingsworth and Mr Mawer. Mr Hollingsworth is not engaging in hostile behaviour towards Mr Moore. [132] Mr Hollingsworth has stated that he made it clear earlier this year that he is not pursuing legal action against Mr Moore. I accept that. Mr Hollingsworth may have been entitled to pursue legal action Mr Moore relevant to whether the Club’s constitution had been upheld, or in respect of potential defamation. The Commission is not going to prevent opposing committee members threatening action against each other; however I consider that the line is drawn when action is threatened against an employee in the performance of their duties. [133] I am not satisfied that Mr Moore has been bullied at work by Mr Hollingsworth. I do, however consider that the committee should provide security camera access to Mr Moore as the committee sees fit in accordance with the Club’s constitution and deliberations. If there are concerns in respect of Mr Moore’s use of the security cameras, that is a matter for the committee. Mr Hollingsworth is advised to adhere to the decisions of the committee. Conclusion [134] Commissioner Williams said the following in an anti-bullying decision involving Ms Jennifer Watts [2018] FWC 1455: “[140] It is to be remembered that the legislative scheme is not directed at punishing those who may have behaved unreasonably in the past nor is it to compensate someone who has endured such bullying instead it is directed at preventing Ms Watts from being bullied at work in the future.” [135] The first order I have issued, PR793032, in conjunction with this decision is necessary to ensure Mr Moore does not continue to bully Mr Mawer at work. [2025] FWC 3215 40 [136] The second order I have issued, PR793033, in conjunction with this decision is to dismiss Mr Moore’s application pursuant to s.587(3)(a) of the Act. COMMISSIONER Appearances: M Mawer & J Moore, the Applicants. B Hollingsworth, Person Named. R van Doorn, for the Gold Coast Pistol Club Ltd. M Mathison, on her own behalf. Hearing details: 2025. Brisbane. 11 April & 25 June. Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer <PR793031> 1 Transcript 11 April 2025, PN 149. 2 Transcript 11 April 2025, PN 1284. 3 Mac v Bank of Queensland Ltd [2015] FWC 774 at [95]. 4 GC [2015] FWC 6988 at [47], [52]; and Amie Mac v Bank of Queensland Limited and others [2015] FWC 744 at [48], [88]. 5 [2015] FWC 744. 6 Ibid at [99]. 7 [2016] FWC 8223 at [61]. 8 [2014] FWC 2104 at [49]. 9 Ibid at [51].