HRMS News logo

Hello Fresh bullying case dismissed by Fair Work Commission

Hello Fresh bullying case dismissed by Fair Work Commission

A Fair Work Commission finding has highlighted the narrow line between unreasonable workplace behaviour and lawful management action, after a Hello Fresh worker’s stop-bullying application was dismissed despite three of eight alleged actions being found unreasonable.

The worker, who was not named in the published decision, claimed she was bullied over phone use and other matters. The Commission examined eight actions in total. Three were found to be unreasonable, but a demotion was found to be reasonable. No stop-bullying order was made, according to onnotice.com.au.

The decision references a phone warning and dance videos among the matters considered, though the published extract does not detail the circumstances of either. The absence of an order means the worker remains without the formal protections a stop-bullying order can provide.

What a stop-bullying application actually requires

A stop-bullying application under the Fair Work Act 2009 is not a general grievance mechanism. The Commission can only make orders if it finds a worker has been bullied at work and there is a risk the bullying will continue.

The legal definition of bullying is repeated unreasonable behaviour that creates a risk to health and safety. A single incident, however serious, generally does not meet the threshold unless it forms part of a pattern.

The Hello Fresh decision shows that even where some conduct is found unreasonable, the Commission may still decline to make an order. That can happen when the unreasonable conduct is not serious enough to create a health and safety risk, when it has stopped, or when the worker and the alleged bully no longer work together.

Why reasonable management action is excluded

The Fair Work Act expressly excludes reasonable management action carried out in a reasonable manner from the definition of bullying. This is the provision that appears to have been decisive in the Hello Fresh matter, where the demotion was found reasonable.

For HR teams, this exclusion is both a shield and a warning. Performance management, disciplinary action, restructures and demotions can all be lawful even when they cause distress. What matters is whether the action itself is reasonable and whether the process used to carry it out is reasonable.

A demotion may be reasonable if it follows documented performance concerns, clear communication and procedural fairness. The same demotion could be unreasonable if it is sudden, unexplained or disproportionate to the conduct involved.

Hello Fresh bullying case dismissed by Fair Work Commission (illustration)
Photo: Gen. John A. Dix and group, Sanitary Fair Commission – NARA – 524575 by Mathew Benjamin Brady, Public domain

Practical steps for Australian employers

The decision is a reminder that everyday management decisions about phone use, conduct and performance can become the subject of Commission proceedings. Employers should document the reasons for any disciplinary or performance action at the time it is taken.

Written policies on phone use, social media and workplace conduct should be specific enough to enforce but flexible enough to allow reasonable personal use. A blanket ban that is inconsistently enforced can create the impression of targeted treatment.

When a worker raises a bullying complaint, employers should assess it against the statutory definition rather than dismissing it as a personality clash. The question is not whether the worker feels bullied, but whether repeated unreasonable behaviour has occurred and whether it creates a health and safety risk.

What the decision does not decide

The published extract does not identify the worker, the date of the decision, or the full factual background. It is not clear which three actions were found unreasonable or why the Commission concluded no order was necessary.

That limits the precedential value of the decision. It does not establish that phone-related warnings are always reasonable, nor that dance videos are always irrelevant to bullying claims. Each case turns on its own facts.

Employers should treat the decision as illustrative rather than prescriptive. The key takeaway is that a stop-bullying application can fail even when some conduct is found unreasonable, because the statutory test requires both repeated unreasonable behaviour and a risk to health and safety.

Sources: onnotice.com.au

Photo: Workplace Bullying Workshop (10313688265) by Oregon Department of Transportation, CC BY 2.0

administrator

Related Articles