Resources: Blog

FWC denies delivery driver anti-bullying orders

Blog
|

Message delivered

Where possible, employers should be upfront with their workers about changes to usual business processes and procedures and the reasons for those changes.

In applications for orders to stop bullying, the conduct of an employer will not constitute bullying under section 789FD of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act) if it can be shown that the particular conduct is “reasonable management action carried out in a reasonable manner”.

In some cases, the alleged bullying behaviour will relate to changes that an employer has made to the usual processes and procedures of the business – which can have adverse consequences for some workers.

For example, in a recent application for stop bullying orders, a logistics co-ordinator company was required to prove to the Fair Work Commission (FWC) that changes to its ordinary practice for delivery and distribution were “reasonable management action” and not bullying behaviour toward a particular subcontractor.

In Fox v Bollore Logistics Australia Pty Ltd T/A Bollore Logistics Australia Pty Ltd; Davie [2018] FWC 1111, the FWC heard allegations that the company and a Warehouse Team Leader of the company bullied the subcontractor by making deliberate decisions to change its usual practices in an effort to victimise him and frustrate his capacity to perform his work.

In or about May 2017, the subcontractor had made an inappropriate and offensive comment to the Team Leader. Shortly after this comment was made, the Team Leader was advised by the company to keep the relationship with the subcontractor “purely professional”, and decisions were then made to:

  1. offer deliveries that the subcontractor normally ran to another courier company; and
  2. change its distribution practices to prevent delivery drivers from entering the delivery dock to assist with packing products (something that the subcontractor often assisted with).

The subcontractor alleged that he was the preferred delivery driver for those particular deliveries and that the Team Leader was going out of her way to ensure that the goods were not ready for delivery by him.

The subcontractor also submitted that the company had no real basis to change its distribution practices as both he and the company economically benefitted from his assistance.

The company argued that these changes were at all times reasonable management action intended to ensure that they complied with their contract to meet the needs of their client.

It was submitted that there was no obligation on them to use only the subcontractor as the driver for those particular deliveries and further, they often received only very short notice for those particular deliveries, which required them to arrange a courier instead of the subcontractor.

The company also pointed out that the subcontractor had not suffered any loss of income – in fact, the invoices showed he had an ongoing and consistent stream of work and income from the company.

The FWC accepted the company’s arguments and noted that the subcontractor had failed to produce any evidence that he was the exclusive delivery driver. Whilst he may have been preferred to do the deliveries and he provided exceptional service, this did not create a guarantee of exclusive delivery.

It also accepted that it would be “highly unusual” for a company to allow contractors to simply walk into their warehouse or delivery dock and handle stored goods without proper authorisation or paperwork.

As a result, the subcontractor had failed to establish that the company and the Team Leader had “repeatedly behaved unreasonably” for the purposes of section 789FD of the FW Act.

The FWC commented that whilst the subcontractor’s comments were inappropriate and offensive, it was “extremely unfortunate” that it had resulted in the deterioration of an otherwise good working relationship. It was suggested that, whilst the Team Leader’s alleged conduct did not amount to bullying, it was indicative of an employee who was not necessarily working with the best interests of the company and its clients in mind.

Lessons for employers

Where possible, employers should be upfront with their workers about changes to usual business processes and procedures and the reasons for those changes – especially if they might have adverse consequences for workers.

Taking these steps early on in the process will minimise the risk of a worker thinking that the changes are intended to “bully” them and may assist employers if they are later required to prove that such action was “reasonable management action” and not bullying behaviour.

 

Information provided in this blog is not legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. Workplace Law does not accept liability for any loss or damage arising from reliance on the content of this blog, or from links on this website to any external website. Where applicable, liability is limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.

Similar articles

Bullying allegations used as a tactic to direct attention away from an employee’s misconduct

Bullying tactics

It is not uncommon for employees to raise allegations against Employers in order to divert attention away from, or attempt to excuse their own misconduct.

Read more...

FWC warns against employer’s “concerning” performance management in stop-bullying application

Canteen Crasher

The stop-bullying provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) provide a mechanism for the Fair Work Commission to impose orders upon employers (as well as individual employees) which are aimed at stopping bullying behaviour in the workplace.

Read more...

Commission finds employee’s conduct of upward bullying towards manager warranted disciplinary action

Up, up and away

Workplace bullying occurs when a person (or a group of people) repeatedly behaves unreasonably towards another worker (or group of workers) and that behaviour creates a risk to the worker’s (or group of workers’) health and safety.

Read more...

Employer dismisses long standing employee for breaching drug policy

Organic panic

Although circumstances may be unique to each case, generally, workplace policies will provide employers with grounds for termination when a significant breach has occurred.

Read more...

Managing returns to the workplace in the post-COVID-19 environment

The HomeWork Debate

In the post COVID-19 environment, one of the most common issues faced by employers is facilitating the return of employees to the office or normal workplace. In particular, many employers have been required to deal with increased reluctance by employees to return to the workplace following lengthy periods of working from home.

Read more...

Court confirms small claim proceedings extends to matters involving accessorial liability

The deregistered accessory

Under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) is able to determine certain underpayment disputes as “small claims proceedings”.

Read more...

Let's talk

please contact our directors to discuss how ouR expertise can help your business.

We're here to help

Contact Us
Let Workplace Law become your partner in Workplace Relations.

Signup to receive the latest industry updates with commentary from the Workplace Law team direct to you inbox.