Resources: Blog

FWC denies delivery driver anti-bullying orders


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

The onus and presumption in adverse action matters

It’s on you

Under the general protections provisions in the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act), it is unlawful for a person to take adverse action against another person for a proscribed reason. One of the features of the general protections provisions under the FW Act is the presumption that adverse action was taken for a proscribed reason unless it is proven that the adverse action was not taken for that reason.


Workplace Relations Review

Cases and Legislation September 2020

The Queensland Government recently passed legislation amending the Criminal Code Act 1899 (the Code) to criminalise wage theft by employers in Queensland.‍The Criminal Code and Other Legislation (Wage Theft) Amendment Bill 2020 (the Bill) was introduced to the Queensland Parliament in response to a Report released in 2018 by the Queensland Parliamentary Education, Employment and Small Business Committee following an inquiry into wage theft in Queensland. The Report identified critical issues in wage theft as well as deliberate action taken by employers to frustrate employees’ attempts to recover entitlements.


Webinar: It Doesn't Matter Where You Work - Managing bullying and harassment in today's workplaces

With many of us, some for the first time, in the midst of working remotely, it's important that employers are vigilant in ensuring their employees behave appropriately at all times regardless of the method of interaction or communication.


Commission orders employer to pay compensation as a result of its procedurally unfair disciplinary process

Procedurally disastrous

When investigating allegations of misconduct against an employee in the workplace, employers must ensure that any ensuing disciplinary process is kept distinct from and separate to from the investigation.


The importance of WHS refresher training

Not a “one and done” thing

It is an expected and necessary part of work health and safety (WHS) plans that all new workers receive relevant WHS training.


Casual Terms Award Review 2021


In March 2021, the casual employment amendments to the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act) introduced a new statutory definition of “casual employee” and an entitlement to casual conversion as one of the National Employment Standards (NES).


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.