When the FWC will stop your misconduct investigation


The Fair Work Commission’s recent decision to issue interim orders preventing an employer from continuing a misconduct investigation until a worker’s anti-bullying application is finalised, demonstrates the extent to which the commission is prepared to intervene in internal operations and processes.

The facts of the case are these: once the misconduct investigation commenced, the worker filed a stop bullying application, alleging it was initiated only after she had made a complaint against a senior executive. It was alleged the investigation itself was unreasonable behaviour and this (plus other behaviour) constituted bullying by some of the employer’s senior executives.

The employer asserted the investigation was reasonable management action carried out in an appropriate and objective way by an independent third party. They argued, by halting the investigation, the commission was allowing “the anti-bullying jurisdiction to simply be used to circumvent reasonable disciplinary action and its consequences”.

At the time of the hearing, the worker had been notified that the investigation was in its final stages and her attendance was required for her to respond. Shortly after receiving notification, the worker advised the employer she was medically unfit for work and would not be attending.

(Want to increase your knowledge on the mediation of workplace conflict? Sign up to one of AHRI’s short courses.)

The FWC decision

Commissioner Peter Hampton recognised the employer’s concerns but highlighted that for an interim order to be successful, the commission needs to be satisfied that:

  1. there is a sufficient likelihood of success; and
  2. the harm caused by not granting the order outweighs the harm if the order is granted.

The commissioner was satisfied that both factors had been achieved in this case. Central to Hampton’s decision was the eligibility requirements to access the anti-bullying jurisdiction. To be able to apply for a stop bullying order under s789FC a worker must be at risk of being bullied at work. The commissioner was satisfied that if the investigation were allowed to continue, it was likely that the worker would have been dismissed and would no longer have the ability to have their application heard.

Further, the commission found that the investigation was central to the worker’s application and there was sufficient evidence that if the worker was successful, the continuation of the investigation would be considered unreasonable behaviour. Accordingly, the FWC formed the view it needed to preserve the status quo until the worker’s application was objectively determined.

What does it mean?

The FWC was clear that this decision should not open the floodgates for anti-bullying jurisdiction to be relied upon for workers trying to avoid disciplinary proceedings. It was an interim decision, restricted to its own particular set of facts.

Nevertheless, it clearly demonstrates the extent of the commission’s powers to intervene in an employer’s affairs to “stop the bullying” and its willingness to intervene in misconduct investigations and disciplinary processes to scrutinise their reasonableness or otherwise.

8
Leave a reply

avatar
500
  Subscribe to receive comments  
Notify me of
Mark Shaw
Guest
Mark Shaw

This article continue to reinforce to me why as HR Professionals we need to rethink how we approach issues such as managing excessive absenteeism, bullying, deviant behaviour, drug and alcohol abuse, harassment as well as poor performance and other related matters. I have argued for many years that a more appropriate approach is to focus on the management problem caused by the specific behaviour. In this case if the initial bullying claim had been considered in this light of “what management problem is occurring?”, in my experience a very different outcome would have occurred. In fact I have had Fair… Read more »

Trent Dunn
Guest
Trent Dunn

Valid point indeed Mark and I concur. Having said this, in my experience there are circumstances when the Management practices are sound and on the evidence, it’s the actual employee’s state of mind that is causing the real issue which naturally can be addressed in an appropriate manner. Great article Fay. Based on the circumstances, particularly the allegation regarding the investigation occurring as a result of making a complaint against a Senior Executive, an alternate avenue could possibly be pursuant to part 3-1 of the Fair Work Act (General Protections/Adverse Action) by alleging harm or injury or altering the employee’s… Read more »

John
Guest
John

“The FWC was clear that this decision should not open the floodgates for anti-bullying jurisdiction to be relied upon for workers trying to avoid disciplinary proceedings.” They may be as ‘clear’ as they like but we all know that that statement is worthless. I will guarantee that we will see a jump in such actions now. It has been going on with workers comp for years and this just provides one more avenue for an errant employee to avoid the consequences.

Mark Shaw
Guest
Mark Shaw

Trent. Yes I agree the actual employee’s state of mind can be the cause or real issue. I have conducted cases where this is the case and that experience still shows the strength of staying on track with the management problem while carefully managing the medical issues. It has certainly been successful in avoiding negative outcomes such as witnessed here.

Hayley Priestley
Guest
Hayley Priestley

I should add, that I contacted the FWC and they informed me of the process and that it would take considerable time for them to make any orders. The advice was to resolve it internally Also, the agency I worked in does not have investigators although they are expected to comply with all federal government legislation, policy and procedures. I informed the Health & Welbeing consultant of this and was advised many other staff around me have complained about my director and the advice given is to leave and the executive will not do anything to support staff working for… Read more »

More on HRM

When the FWC will stop your misconduct investigation


The Fair Work Commission’s recent decision to issue interim orders preventing an employer from continuing a misconduct investigation until a worker’s anti-bullying application is finalised, demonstrates the extent to which the commission is prepared to intervene in internal operations and processes.

The facts of the case are these: once the misconduct investigation commenced, the worker filed a stop bullying application, alleging it was initiated only after she had made a complaint against a senior executive. It was alleged the investigation itself was unreasonable behaviour and this (plus other behaviour) constituted bullying by some of the employer’s senior executives.

The employer asserted the investigation was reasonable management action carried out in an appropriate and objective way by an independent third party. They argued, by halting the investigation, the commission was allowing “the anti-bullying jurisdiction to simply be used to circumvent reasonable disciplinary action and its consequences”.

At the time of the hearing, the worker had been notified that the investigation was in its final stages and her attendance was required for her to respond. Shortly after receiving notification, the worker advised the employer she was medically unfit for work and would not be attending.

(Want to increase your knowledge on the mediation of workplace conflict? Sign up to one of AHRI’s short courses.)

The FWC decision

Commissioner Peter Hampton recognised the employer’s concerns but highlighted that for an interim order to be successful, the commission needs to be satisfied that:

  1. there is a sufficient likelihood of success; and
  2. the harm caused by not granting the order outweighs the harm if the order is granted.

The commissioner was satisfied that both factors had been achieved in this case. Central to Hampton’s decision was the eligibility requirements to access the anti-bullying jurisdiction. To be able to apply for a stop bullying order under s789FC a worker must be at risk of being bullied at work. The commissioner was satisfied that if the investigation were allowed to continue, it was likely that the worker would have been dismissed and would no longer have the ability to have their application heard.

Further, the commission found that the investigation was central to the worker’s application and there was sufficient evidence that if the worker was successful, the continuation of the investigation would be considered unreasonable behaviour. Accordingly, the FWC formed the view it needed to preserve the status quo until the worker’s application was objectively determined.

What does it mean?

The FWC was clear that this decision should not open the floodgates for anti-bullying jurisdiction to be relied upon for workers trying to avoid disciplinary proceedings. It was an interim decision, restricted to its own particular set of facts.

Nevertheless, it clearly demonstrates the extent of the commission’s powers to intervene in an employer’s affairs to “stop the bullying” and its willingness to intervene in misconduct investigations and disciplinary processes to scrutinise their reasonableness or otherwise.

8
Leave a reply

avatar
500
  Subscribe to receive comments  
Notify me of
Mark Shaw
Guest
Mark Shaw

This article continue to reinforce to me why as HR Professionals we need to rethink how we approach issues such as managing excessive absenteeism, bullying, deviant behaviour, drug and alcohol abuse, harassment as well as poor performance and other related matters. I have argued for many years that a more appropriate approach is to focus on the management problem caused by the specific behaviour. In this case if the initial bullying claim had been considered in this light of “what management problem is occurring?”, in my experience a very different outcome would have occurred. In fact I have had Fair… Read more »

Trent Dunn
Guest
Trent Dunn

Valid point indeed Mark and I concur. Having said this, in my experience there are circumstances when the Management practices are sound and on the evidence, it’s the actual employee’s state of mind that is causing the real issue which naturally can be addressed in an appropriate manner. Great article Fay. Based on the circumstances, particularly the allegation regarding the investigation occurring as a result of making a complaint against a Senior Executive, an alternate avenue could possibly be pursuant to part 3-1 of the Fair Work Act (General Protections/Adverse Action) by alleging harm or injury or altering the employee’s… Read more »

John
Guest
John

“The FWC was clear that this decision should not open the floodgates for anti-bullying jurisdiction to be relied upon for workers trying to avoid disciplinary proceedings.” They may be as ‘clear’ as they like but we all know that that statement is worthless. I will guarantee that we will see a jump in such actions now. It has been going on with workers comp for years and this just provides one more avenue for an errant employee to avoid the consequences.

Mark Shaw
Guest
Mark Shaw

Trent. Yes I agree the actual employee’s state of mind can be the cause or real issue. I have conducted cases where this is the case and that experience still shows the strength of staying on track with the management problem while carefully managing the medical issues. It has certainly been successful in avoiding negative outcomes such as witnessed here.

Hayley Priestley
Guest
Hayley Priestley

I should add, that I contacted the FWC and they informed me of the process and that it would take considerable time for them to make any orders. The advice was to resolve it internally Also, the agency I worked in does not have investigators although they are expected to comply with all federal government legislation, policy and procedures. I informed the Health & Welbeing consultant of this and was advised many other staff around me have complained about my director and the advice given is to leave and the executive will not do anything to support staff working for… Read more »

More on HRM