Skip to main content

Stop-bullying application rejected

An employee who claimed his new team leader micromanaged and bullied him has had his stop-bullying application rejected, after the Fair Work Commission found her behaviour "abrupt" but not repeated or unreasonable.
The Bunnings Warehouse employee claimed that in May 2016 the new team leader asked him about his face – the left side of his face "droops" and he is unable to move his left arm – which he found "deeply disrespectful and hurtful".
A few weeks later, the team leader on two occasions confronted him and questioned why he was in different sections of the store, he told the Commission, noting he believed he was being singled out and treated differently from colleagues.
He contacted the store manager to discuss the issue but was told she was too busy to speak with him, and he subsequently took two days off because of work-related stress.
The employee claimed that when he returned to work, the employer suspended him but didn't tell him why it was doing so. He was then told it was investigating the team leader's complaint about his reaction to her enquiring of his whereabouts in the store.
He also made a complaint, and an investigation found one of his allegations about the team leader was substantiated, as were some of the team leader's allegations. The employee received a first and final warning, and the team leader received counselling.
Fair Work Commissioner Gregory found the team leader raising the issue of the employee's appearance was "at best, insensitive and inappropriate".
But he found it reasonable for her to understand where he was in the store and what he was doing.
"She is a strong personality who has an equally strong commitment to her role at work. Her manner and her actions in the circumstances might also have been somewhat abrupt, and she might well have handled the situation with more sensitivity," he said, finding this wasn't enough to conclude the employee was bullied.
Commissioner Gregory noted some "concerning aspects" of the employer's process in dealing with the employee: he was suspended from work without being told why, and only found out after contacting the HR manager.
Further, it was "regrettable that senior managers in the store were not prepared to make themselves available to speak to [the employee] about his concerns", he said.

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

AWPTI - workplace investigation Sydney and through-out NSW, QLD and Victoria. Workplace training national wide

 Misconduct investigations, bullying investigations, harassment investigations & sexual harassment investigations, complaint investigations, grievance investigations, discrimination investigations
www.awpti.com.au
http://awpti.com.au/investigations/
http://awpti.com.au/training/

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Unfair dismissal – harsh to dismiss, however reinstatement not appropriate

In the recent decision of  Paul Johnson v BHP Billiton Olympic Dam Corporation Pty Ltd  [2017] FWC 4097, Commissioner Hampton found that, although the employee had engaged in misconduct constituting a valid reason for dismissal, the dismissal was nevertheless harsh due to a number of mitigating factors. However, the Commissioner did not consider reinstatement appropriate because the employer had a rational basis for its loss of trust and confidence in the employee given the importance of the need for compliance with safety policy and the maintenance of appropriate discipline in connection with workplace health and safety matters. The employee was instead awarded compensation. The facts The employee was employed by BHPB from 24 May 2001 until his dismissal on 31 March 2017. At the time of his dismissal, the employee was a process specialist, responsible for a team of technicians looking after a flash furnace and other equipment in areas of a smelting facility at an und...
Post a Comment
Read more

Workplace Investigation biased process

The presence of bias be it actual or perceived during an investigation can derail the investigation and undermine any findings and recommendations. Complaint of bias are often raised relating to two areas, the investigation process itself or the investigation interviews. This article will examine the process, part two will examine bias during interviews. Workplace investigations are defined as  "an unbiased gathering of evidence"  and to ensure that that a complaint of bias is not raised or substantiated it is important to follow these rules; Approach the investigation with an open mind. Do no make any judgements on the parties Do not make any judgements on the truthfulness of any of the parties versions of events until all the evidence has been gathered. Gather all the evidence, not just the evidence that supports the complaint Do not form a theory and then seek evidence to support your theory only Do not make early determinations If you feel that you ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Violence Valid Ground for Dismissal

Violence Valid Ground for Dismissal The Fair Work Commission (in the case of  Sekirski v Scope (Vic) Ltd [2017] FWC 1200 ) has found that an employee who assaulted a co-worker by striking her in the face was validly dismissed.  Stif Sekirski commenced employment as a Disability Support Worker with Scope (Vic) Ltd in November 2014.  Mr Sekirski’s employment was terminated on 2 September 2016 on grounds of serious misconduct. It was alleged that Mr Sekirski punched a co-worker in the face, then called her a bit** and threw a chair in her direction.  The FWC was satisfied that this conduct had occurred, and held that this conduct provided Scope with a valid reason to terminate Mr Sekirski’s employment. It is important that when confronted with matters involving violence in the workplace employers ensure that they conduct a timely and thorough investigation.   We recommend that even if summary dismissal is a likely outcome you should s...
1 comment
Read more