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

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

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

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 wh...
Post a Comment
Read more