The Fair Work Commission, after the first ruling under anti-bullying rules, has defined the concept of a “reasonable management action” regarding a manager’s claim of repeated unreasonable treatment by other employees. This definition came as the result of an official complaint made by a supervisor who claimed that two subordinates had repeatedly bullied her.
Bullying Case
According to court documents, the supervisor was appointed to manage a new team of delivery support officers (DSOs). One of the DSOs made a bullying complaint to the company HR Department, but it was found to be unsubstantiated, and that employee eventually left the company. A second DSO made a bullying complaint in January, and, without knowledge of the complaint, the supervisor sought a meeting with the Director of Human Resources about the DSOs conduct. When she was told of the bullying complaint, she chose not to lodge a complaint with her company, but filed an application with FWS.
Receipt and Investigation Not Unreasonable
Upon investigation, FWS found that the company’s receipt and investigation of the two complaints against the manager were not unreasonable, and that there was no indication the complaints were part of a coordinated campaign against the supervisor. The company hired AiG’s law firm, Ai Group Legal, to investigate the conflicting allegations, and they substantiated some of the allegations against the manager, but not the manager’s accusations against the subordinate.
Bullying Must Be Persistent
Commissioner Hampton said in the ruling that the concept of the bullying regulation was to address repeated behaviours over time, not necessarily repeated behaviours that are isolated. The ruling indicates that:
• Management actions do not need to be perfect to be considered reasonable.
• Even if particular steps are not reasonable, a course of action may be.
• The action must be not be irrational.
• Rather than the employee’s conception of the action, the actual action must be considered.
• If the action was a departure from established procedures, it must be determined whether the departure was necessary.
This definition of what a “reasonable management plan” could result in fewer applications filed by employees under the new jurisdiction as employees may find that it is difficulty to prevail when the conduct must be ongoing and not simply an isolated incident.
