Succinct dismissal of bullying claim “devoid of merit”

In September, an exasperated senior member of the Fair Work Commission dispensed with an employee’s application for an order to stop bullying by issuing one of the shortest decisions on record, noting not only that the application lacked merit but sought a remedy the Commission was not empowered to award.

Deputy President Colman’s two-paragraph decision dismissing the application, reads as follows:

[1] [The employee] made an application under s 789FC of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) for anti-bullying orders against [the employer] and three coworkers (respondents). [The employee] said that in June and July 2026 the respondents engaged in unreasonable behaviour towards him. Among other things, [the employee] said that he was required to undergo confusing training; he was told to adhere to the dress code; he was questioned about an illness; he was contacted while sick; he was subjected to ‘negative remarks’ about his work; he was told that his home internet was inadequate; and he was asked to consent to the company contacting his doctor. [The employee] said that he did not believe he could return to the workplace and that what he sought was the payment of compensation so that he could transition to new employment. 

[2] Earlier this morning, I dismissed the application ex tempore. I was not satisfied that [the employee] had been bullied at work, because I did not regard any of the matters complained of to be unreasonable, and there was no basis to conclude that there was any risk to his health and safety. As the requirements of s 789FF(1)(b) were not met, the Commission had no power to make an order. Further, the Commission is precluded from making orders requiring payment of a pecuniary amount. The application was in any event devoid of merit.

Application for an order to stop bullying – Whitham [2026] FWC 3322 (1 September 2026)

Deputy President Colman’s recent decision follows on the heels of his similarly succinct three-paragraph decision of May, in which he lambasted an unmeritorious applicant who attempted to pursue a general protections dismissal claim, which only arose because he was offended by his co-workers commenting that he was displaying his ‘plumber’s crack’ in his work uniform.