Anti Bullying Training Sydney NSW – Why does your organisations need Anti Bullying Training?

  1. The make sure that you employees understand what workplace bullying is and what it is not
  2. To support the health and well being of your employees by taking steps to eliminate bullying from your workplace
  3. To support your policies, polices alone cannot stop bullying
  4. To make sure that you employees know the consequences if they engage in bullying in the workplace
  5. To show your employees that you are serious about protecting their health and well being and taking steps to eliminate bullying from your workplace
  6. You could be ordered to by the FWC, see below

Recently the The Fair Work Commission by virtue of the scope of its powers under the anti-bullying laws ordered that an employer arrange for the conduct of anti-bullying and positive communication training by an external provider within two months.
Link to case –

In addition workplace bullying caused a great deal of stress not only to victims but others in the workplace.  If left unchecked it can create a toxic working environment and lead to the loss of good staff and the potential for legal action.

Smart employers ensure that their policies are backed up with regular training for all employees.  It is also important to conduct update and refresher training for staff new and old

Anti Bullying Training Sydney NSW – Training options;

Face to face. AWPTI can provide expert workplace investigators and trainer to conduct anti bullying training tailored to your business needs and we are able to work within your budget.
Details of our courses –

Advantages. The training is real, the scenarios and cases studies are real, you get to hear about real cases from actual investigators


For more articles about Anti Bullying training and anti bullying orders

For more articles about workplace bullying:


Anti Bullying Order – worker or volunteer

Anti Bullying Order – worker or volunteer – The question as to whether a person is an employee or volunteer and whether they can apply for an Anti Bullying order was exampled in the case of McDonald [2016] FWC 300 (FWC, Commissioner Hampton, 15 January 2016)

This case was considered under section 789FC of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act), that allows for an application to be made under the Act for an order to stop bullying. The applicant was a volunteer at the Cooktown School of Art Society Inc, and claimed that bullying behaviour had been directed at her over a period of five years, culminating in her exclusion from the society. The society raised jurisdictional issues in response, contending that it was not a constitutionally covered business under the Act, and that the applicant was not a worker under the Act.

The society operates a gallery which displays and sells original art works from local artists in the Cooktown area. It also assists individual artists to improve their artistic skills through learning, sharing, exhibiting and selling their art. The society is a small, community-based nonprofit association made up of individual members who join the society, and is run by a small committee. The applicant is a local artist, and helped out at the society until 15 August 2015. Her membership was cancelled on 4 September 2015.

Generally, volunteers are not considered to be workers under the Act where an incorporated association is working for community purposes and the association (and any volunteers) do not employ at least one person as an employee to work for the association. The society has no employees at its gallery. All helpers are volunteers. However, volunteers who exhibit artwork benefit from a decreased commission payable to the society.

Commissioner Hampton found that the applicant was not to be a worker. She was a volunteer within section 4 of the WHS Act

…in general terms, a volunteer is someone who enters into any service of their own free will, or who offers to perform a service or undertaking for no financial gain. The commitments shared between the parties are usually considered moral in nature, rather than legal. Payments or benefits unrelated to hours of work or the actual performance of work will not normally by themselves imply that a person is an employee. In these circumstances, any payment or benefit can more aptly be described as an ‘honorarium’ or gift…The reduced commission payments as apparently operated for Mrs McDonald would not turn what is otherwise accepted to be a volunteer relationship into that of an employment contract.

Commissioner Hampton also found that the society was not a person conducting a business or undertaking (PCBU)

“In order for Mrs McDonald to be a volunteer who is eligible to bring a s.789FC application, Mrs McDonald must be a volunteer for a PCBU, and not a volunteer in a voluntary association. In the circumstances of this matter, this requires consideration of the statutory parameters set out earlier in this decision and in particular, whether CSAS is a group of volunteers working together for one or more community purposes where none of the volunteers, whether alone or jointly with any other volunteers, employs any person to carry out work for the volunteer association. I am satisfied that the CSAS fundamentally involves a group of volunteers working together for a community purpose. That is, the operation of the gallery and the encouragement, education and promotion of the local artists, by the local artists, for the benefit of the local community as undertaken by the CSAS, means that the Society is established for one or more community purposes. This satisfies the requirements of the PCBU exclusion in s.5(8) of the WHS Act.”

In dismissing the application Commissioner Hampton found that the reduced commission arrangements were not considered to be payments made to workers. There were no workers involved in the society. Therefore, everyone involved was a volunteer. The society was not a PCBU, so the applicant could not be a worker under the Act. The FWC had no jurisdiction to decide the matter or issue an anti bullying order

Full details of the case –

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

Anti-bullying laws disciplinary process

Anti-bullying laws disciplinary process – Anti-bullying laws might be used by employees facing a potentially adverse disciplinary process to delay or halt it.

Anti-bullying vs disciplinary process: Fair Work Commission asked to find the balance

A recent Fair Work Commission case demonstrated an inventive way in which the FWC’s anti-bullying jurisdiction can be used by employees facing disciplinary proceedings. It may have opened a can of worms for employers.

In Lynette Bayly [2017] FWC 1886, the FWC issued an interim order preventing her employer from taking any further actions to finalise an investigation into the conduct of an employee or to impose any disciplinary sanction on the employee arising from the investigation or to terminate the employment of the employee.

Ms Bayly had made a section 789FF “stop bullying” application to the Commission alleging she had been subject to bullying at work.  The alleged bullying included the investigation by the employer into her conduct.

Despite the application, the employer continued the investigation and, as part of that process, advised her that draft findings had been made. Ms Bayly was then stood down and directed to attend a meeting to give her response to the draft findings. The investigation would then be concluded and any disciplinary outcomes of the investigation determined.

Ms Bayly’s lawyers wrote to the employer indicating she was unfit for work for a period that extended beyond the date of the proposed meeting.  They sought agreement from the employer that it would not require her to provide a response, attend a meeting or impose any disciplinary sanction in relation of the allegations under investigation.  The employer declined, confirming its intention to proceed with the disciplinary process.

As a result Ms Bayly sought an interim order from the Commission preventing her employer from continuing with the investigation, or from taking any disciplinary action arising from it, pending the determination of the substantive bullying claim.  The interim order was sought under section 589(2) of the Fair Work Act which is in the following (simple) terms:

“The FWC may make an interim decision in relation to a matter before it.”

Can the interim order be made under these circumstances?

The employer opposed the interim order:

  • Ms Bayly had not provided a substantive response to the investigation;
  • the investigation was being conducted in a “reasonable manner”;
  • any interim order made by the Commission in the exercise of its anti-bullying jurisdiction must be directed towards preventing a worker from being bullied at work;
  • the draft findings of the investigation are adverse to Ms Bayly; and
  • if Ms Bayly were to be dismissed, she has other remedies available to her.

The employer claimed that the Commission was being asked to prospectively injunct the employer from dismissing the employee. As stated in the judgment,

 “That is, to essentially use the anti-bullying jurisdiction to step in and prevent a possible adverse action, without consideration as to whether that dismissal is justified.  The orders sought go beyond what would ordinarily be available in relation to an anti-bullying application and should not be made.”

It did not, however, say that the Commission had no power to make the order.

Commissioner Hampton started from the basis that he could only make an interim order if there is a serious issue to be tried and after determining where “the balance of convenience” lies. He then observed:

It also appears to me that the consideration of the prima facie case and the balance of convenience must be assessed having regard to the nature of the substantive application, the jurisdictional context in which the application is being considered, and the circumstances of the parties.

In a matter such as this, I also consider that the nature of the remedy provisions of s. 789FF of the Act [the anti-bullying provisions] should inform the consideration of the request for interim orders and the nature of any discretion to be exercised.  However, the purpose of the interim orders, including to preserve the capacity to advance the substantive application in appropriate circumstances, must also be considered.”

Should the interim order be made?

The next issue was looking at the particular circumstances of this case. The Commission took into consideration:

  • claims made in the substantive anti-bullying application about the retrospectivity of the conduct allegations;
  • the fact preliminary adverse findings had been reached against Ms Bayly;
  • Ms Bayly’s medical condition;
  • concerns expressed about the employer’s process and stated intention to finalise the investigation and make a decision on disciplinary action which could include dismissal of employment.

Commissioner Hampton was satisfied

“… that the s. 789FC application [the anti-bullying provision] has prima facie merit and there is sufficient likelihood of success to justify the preservation of the status quo pending further consideration and determination of the substantive matter by the Commission.  The allegations made by [the employee], if ultimately supported by evidence, would be grounds to support a finding that there was reported unreasonable conduct whilst she was at work within the meaning of s. 789FD of the Act.  Adopting the same caveat, those circumstances would also suggest that a relevant risk to health and safety arose.” 

Interestingly, a key aspect of the anti-bullying jurisdiction ‒ that no orders can be made once the employment relationship is at an end (except in very limited circumstances) ‒ was identified as,

“…a significant factor directly relevant to the balance of convenience and the exercise of any discretion”.

Commissioner Hampton recognised that circumstances might change the balance of convenience, so the interim orders might need to be reviewed.

How does this affect future disciplinary proceedings?

This decision is an interesting and concerning development, one that should be watched carefully by employers. It may well be a warning of what is to come for employers undertaking investigations and disciplinary processes.

The interim order has effectively halted (for the time being) the employer’s disciplinary process. The likely next step is the resolution of the substantive bullying claim.

Does this mean employers and employees will be in a race to the court if there is a potentially adverse disciplinary process? Commissioner Hampton did have some general words of caution for employees (or their representatives):

“given the scheme of the Act, interim orders of the nature being considered here would not be issued lightly.  The direct intervention of the Commission at such an early stage of proceedings should be exercised with considerable caution.  Further, the mere indication that a disciplinary process was involved in the complaints of workplace bullying, without much more, is unlikely to trigger the balance of convenience for such action.  Of course, each application must be considered in its own right and circumstances. 

As [the employer] contended, the Commission should be alert as to the undesirability of permitting the anti-bullying jurisdiction to simply be used to circumvent reasonable disciplinary action and its consequences.  In this case, there are some particular circumstances that have justified the making of the interim order.”

Notwithstanding Commissioner Hampton’s words of caution, it would not be surprising to see many applications of this kind in the context of disciplinary proceedings.

To put themselves in the best position to defend such applications employers should;

  • ensure any investigation is conducted fairly and objectively and does not, in the way it is undertaken, of itself constitute bullying (ie. it is “reasonable management action carried out in a reasonable manner”);
  • Consider out-sourcing bullying investigations to suitably qualified and experienced investigators.
  • Be able to demonstrate adverse consequences if a disciplinary proceeding is delayed by the making of such an interim order (including impact on other staff in the organisation and the integrity and efficacy of disciplinary processes).

Australian Workplace Training and Investigation can assist with professional and timely investigations of workplace issues such a bullying, harassment, sexual harassment, discrimination and other areas of misconduct such as Code of Conduct breaches, IT and email misuse, theft and fraud, please contact us if you require assistance on 02 9674 4279 or

AWPTI – workplace investigations 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

Anti-bullying laws disciplinary process

The author Phil O’Brien is a highly experienced and skilled workplace investigator and trainer who can take the stress out of conducting workplace investigations into bullying, harassment, sexual harassment, discrimination and other forms of misconduct.

You can contact me on 02 9674 4279 or

This is general information only. It does not replace advice from a qualified workplace investigator in your state or territory.  It is recommended that should you encounter complaints in the workplace that you seek advice from suitability qualified and experienced workplace investigators.

Anti-bullying laws disciplinary process