Shift reductions after “burnt out” comment did not amount to bullying

The Fair Work Commission (FWC) has refused to grant a stop bullying order to a Care Nurse (CN) working in an aged care facility, rejecting her claims that her shifts were reduced as retaliation for her providing a witness statement in support of a coworker’s workplace injury.  

The NSW-based CN brought her application to the FWC in March 2025, alleging that the General Manager of the aged care facility began bullying her after she requested to drop two shifts because she felt burnt out in November 2024. Although her employer agreed to her request, the accompanying reduction in her total hours from December 2024 was “not exactly the outcome [the CN] wanted, because she wanted some different shifts assigned in lieu”. The CN believed the ongoing reduction in her shifts and the “ban” she perceived had been placed upon her picking up extra shifts constituted a campaign of retribution by the General Manager. The CN deduced her alleged mistreatment was initiated after the General Manager reminded her of an obligation to provide a witness statement regarding a previous incident in the workplace in which a colleague had been injured; the CN’s witness statement supported the coworker’s claim that a workplace injury had been sustained. The CN was also displeased with her employer’s handling of her complaints regarding the workload of the CN’s performing night shifts and her broader complaints about the General Manager’s conduct, which resulted in the employer launching a formal workplace investigation in March 2025. The workplace investigation found the CN’s complaints “either to be unsubstantiated or inconclusive” and the CN was notified of this outcome on or around 1 April 2025 (days after she had lodged her stop bullying application).

Deputy President Bell was unable to find any evidence of bullying, identifying that the reduction in the CN’s hours from December 2024 had resulted following the employee’s direct request to drop several shifts. The request arose after the CN had sought annual leave on short notice for three rostered shifts which she explained to the General Manager was necessary because she was feeling “burnt out”. After a subsequent discussion in which the CN articulated “her preference to avoid being given day shifts”, the General Manager “forwarded the [CN’s] request to drop shifts to the rostering administrative (sic) assistance for actioning”, which the rostering team did by way of email, asking the CN to accept or decline the “contract variation request” reducing her hours. The CN never accepted the variation email, but she also never declined it, or took any steps to “otherwise communicate her intentions”, so the change was actioned 10 December 2024. Some days later the CN met again with the General Manager to convey that she was not happy about the reduction, but Deputy President Bell accepted the General Manager’s evidence that the CN merely expressed that she wanted “to pick up more night shifts in the near future”. On this point, Deputy President Bell observed:

“In respect of the reduction of hours, the highest that might be said is that there was a dispute about whether [the CN’s] total hours should have been reduced. This is not bullying. [The CN] wanted to be given other shifts instead, presumably shifts whose relative spread would make her total hours easier to work. So much is understandable but it is unclear whether other such shifts were practically available on a sustained basis, noting that the employer is required to balance the interests of its other carers. What is clear is that whether or not such adjustments were feasible, [the CN] did not want to work the “dropped” shifts whether or not they were replaced. The resolution of these matters is a fairly standard workplace event. But even if it is not resolved to [the CN’s] satisfaction, it was not bullying.”

The Deputy President found no evidence of the CN having been “banned” from picking up additional shifts, noting that available extra shifts were offered via an automated system which the General Manager had no control over, and determined there was “no connection” between the CN providing the witness statement in support of a colleague and her perceived mistreatment “beyond temporal coincidence”. Turning to address the CN’s grievances about workload on night shift and the General Manager’s conduct in this respect, Deputy President Bell commented:

“[The CN] makes various wide-ranging complaints about workload on night shift, including her perception that the Registered Nurse on shift does not help out. The General Manager was not aware that any other employees have these wider issues. It is not necessary to resolve this workload complaint or what the Registered Nurse should or should not do when on duty, as it is not in any sense bullying. In relation to the specific issue about the Registered Nurse, [the CN] also says that the General Manager’s response about work of the Registered Nurse was itself bullying. I disagree. I prefer the General Manager’s account… But even if I accepted [the CN’s] account, which would indicate that the General Manager gave a terse or snippy or dismissive answer, it was in no way bullying.”

As to the employer’s investigation into the CN’s complaints against the General Manager, Deputy President Bell assessed it was conducted “in a timely way”, adding, “there was nothing inappropriate about [the] content or tone” of correspondence the employer issued the CN instructing her to refrain from discussing her complaints with colleagues whilst the investigation was underway.

Not being satisfied that there had been bullying exhibited by the General Manager or the employer more generally, the Deputy President dismissed the CN’s application.

Application for an order to stop bullying – Hawking [2026] FWC 2716 (20 July 2026)