Skip to main content

Employer allowed to continue recruitment process despite bullying claim

The FWC has refused to take the "extraordinary step" of temporarily halting an employer's recruitment process while it determines whether an unsuccessful candidate was "bullied".

The employee, a senior research fellow at the University of Queensland, alleged the institution bullied him when it overlooked him for a new role and didn't extend his existing employment contract. He blamed his failure to secure the position on an anonymous complaint about his research, which led to a misconduct investigation.
The employee made a stop-bullying application, arguing that at least two of the four people on the interview panel knew about the inquiry into his alleged research misconduct, and that his interview was unfair because he was not given the opportunity to discuss his research.
While his claim proceeds, the employee sought an interim order restraining the employer from appointing a new candidate to the role he wanted.
The employer argued the employee wouldn't be able to prove bullying occurred, and that its decision was reasonable management action taken in a reasonable manner – the employee was one of two shortlisted candidates, and the other candidate out-performed him.
Commissioner Jennifer Hunt found prohibiting the employer from offering employment to another candidate until the bullying application was determined would be an "extraordinary step" and result in more than just a "mere inconvenience".
She rejected the employee's claim that his candidature for the role was prejudiced because members of the selection committee were privy to the misconduct investigation and this might have swayed their views.
As disappointing as it was for the employee to learn he was unsuccessful, an interim order preventing the employer from filling the role "would result in a severe and unnecessary restriction on the University without affecting [the employee's] rights relevant to the substantive application", she said.
Subramanian [2017] FWC 3492 (7 July 2017)

Originally published at HR Daily
https://www.hrdaily.com.au/nl06_news_selected.php?act=2&nav=13&selkey=4679
Labels:
Location: Sydney NSW, Australia

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Lorna Jane vindicated after two-year, $570,000 bullying case

Legal experts are urging businesses to train their staff in up-to-date social media policies this year, after activewear brand Lorna Jane won a two-year legal battle in November against a former employee who claimed the company was responsible for the psychiatric impacts of bullying at work. Former Brisbane store manager Amy Robinson filed a legal claim against Lorna Jane in 2015, seeking $570,000 in damages. The former manager claimed Lorna Jane was negligent and should be held responsible for her being bullied by a learning and development manager at the company, which led to psychiatric illness and a loss of employment and future employability. The company came out swinging against the claims early on,   posting a later-deleted Facebook post in 2015 defending itself against the claims  and saying it had been “very disappointed” by what had been reported in the media about the case. The claims included that Robinson was bullied and called a variety of names while...
Post a Comment
Read more

Recent decisions at the Fair Work Commission

Knowledge is power when it comes to managing claims risk Unfair dismissal applications are all too common and employers regularly find themselves in hot water when they are on the receiving end of one. Whilst the outcome of every unfair dismissal case tends to turn on its own individual merits, opportunities to learn and refresh one’s knowledge consistently arise – and knowledge is power when it comes to managing claims risk. To assist you in managing your unfair dismissal claims risk, this article set out some important lessons and reminders compiled from a number of recent unfair dismissal decisions made by the Fair Work Commission. If an employee has “gotten away” with certain conduct in the past, it can be difficult to later justify their dismissal for such conduct. In West v Holcim (Australia) Pty Ltd [2017] FWC 2346, the applicant employee allowed a casual labour hire worker to operate a crane without adequate supervision. This was despite the fact that the labour hire wo...
Post a Comment
Read more
The serious threat SMEs are ignoring: One in two small businesses don’t have a policy for bullying claims One in two small businesses do not know how they would respond if bullying allegations were raised by their staff, according to new research, leaving them open to significant costs and productivity issues. But workplace experts say these concerns can be prevented with forward planning A survey of 400 businesses from employment relations advisory Employsure found one in two Australian small businesses don’t have a “defined action plan” for when bullying is raised at work, with many unaware that they could face costs related to dispute resolution or even penalties relating to bullying cases in some states. The research, which surveyed businesses with up to 15 employees, found those businesses with between two and four employees were the most likely to be unaware of best practice processes for dealing with bullying claims, with only 40% of businesses saying they know the st...
Post a Comment
Read more