In last week's bulletin, we explored stop bullying applications by employees who claim that performance management is bullying. We also explained how to prove the conduct in question is reasonable management action. This week we will show you these principles in practice...

In two recent stop-bullying applications, Craig v Family Service Ltd (2025) and Applicant v Australian Government Health Agency (2025), the Fair Work Commission (FWC) had to determine whether the actions alleged to be bullying actually amounted to bullying or were reasonable management action.

Craig v Family Service Ltd (2025)

An employee sought anti-bullying orders against her employer and a manager, alleging she was subject to unreasonable restrictions on remote work and outside employment, as well as differential treatment.

The FWC dismissed the application, finding:

• There was no repeated unreasonable behaviour. The employer’s requirement for attendance at the workplace and restrictions on outside employment were reasonable in the circumstances.
• No risk to health or safety was established, despite the employee’s claim of psychological distress supported by a medical certificate. The FWC emphasised that causation (linking the conduct to the distress) had not been established.
• Any differential treatment was not shown to be targeted “singling out” or based on unreasonable grounds.
• Even if the conduct was unreasonable (which it was not found to be), it did not reach the threshold of workplace bullying as outlined in the FW Act, and thus the stop bullying powers of the FWC were not enlivened.

The FWC further commented that the case was primarily a dispute about employment conditions, not a matter involving actual bullying, and would have declined to make the orders sought by the employee even if it had the power to do so.

Applicant v Australian Government Health Agency (2025)

An employee made bullying allegations against multiple managers and colleagues over a range of workplace interactions. The application stemmed from perceptions of micromanagement, exclusion from meetings and dissatisfaction with internal complaint-handling.

The FWC reviewed each allegation, ultimately finding:

• There was no repeated unreasonable conduct directed at the worker. Explicit feedback, regular check-ins, and exclusion from certain meetings were all found to be legitimate aspects of management and operational decisions.
• The employer and managers had acted professionally, and in accordance with policies at all stages, including during investigations of complaints.
• The employee’s feedback for one manager, provided before lodging the complaint, was described as “glowing”, undermining the employee’s bullying claim.
• Brief, polite electronic communications or investigations handled by human resources did not constitute bullying.

The FWC stressed the difference between legitimate management of worker performance or conduct and bullying. Mere dissatisfaction with the outcome of workplace complaints, performance discussions or managerial discretion is not enough to substantiate a bullying claim.

What can we learn from these cases?

A bullying claim made to the FWC will be rejected when the alleged bullying conduct is in fact reasonable management action. Reasonable management action (or reasonable administrative action) is an objective statutory test that requires management to make decisions reasonably and to undertake the following processes in a reasonable way:

• employment transfer;
• demotion;
• disciplinary action;
• redeployment; and
• dismissal.

For employers, an important safeguard lies in documenting performance management processes, and ensuring that managers are trained to carry out their responsibilities in a fair and consistent manner.

Find out more in the Employment Law Handbook chapter, Bullying.

latest Health & safety bulletin

Fall through a gap between a scaffold and building reveals gaps in safety systems
An NSW construction company was fined $135,000 after it failed to ensure the health and safety of workers by preventing or minimising the risk of workers, including an independent contractor and fourth-year apprentice, falling from a height ...

Read more