Applications for orders to stop bullying by Banfield and Stolz [2026] FWC 717
KEY TAKEAWAYS:
- Confrontational or condescending communication will not always constitute workplace bullying within the meaning of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).
- In this Fair Work Commission case, conduct directed toward the alleged bully by an applicant’s employer, which was similar in nature to the conduct complained of by the applicant, was one factor that undermined the bullying application.
The case
In late 2025, two employees of a property management company filed stop bullying applications with the Fair Work Commission against the Body Corporate Secretary of an apartment complex they were engaged to manage. The Secretary was also an owner within the complex.
The allegations
The first applicant, a former caretaker for the complex, alleged she was repeatedly interrupted by the Secretary and spoken over during meetings, excluded from a discussion about her own performance, and subjected to abrupt, demanding, belittling, aggressive and pressuring language.
The second applicant, the company’s Portfolio Manager, who also acted as a liaison between the onsite caretakers and the Secretary, alleged a sustained pattern of condescending and belittling written communications that questioned her competence and professionalism (such as ‘please educate yourself’, ‘it’s not my job to do your job’ and referencing  an ‘attitudinal problem’).
The Secretary denied the allegations arguing that the applicants’ ‘hurt feelings’ did not constitute bullying. She characterised her conduct as legitimate management action taken to seek accountability for underperformance and submitted that the applicants had the ‘wrong perception’ as to the degree of autonomy to which they were entitled.
FWC findings and decision
The Commission dismissed both applications.
In the first case, the application was dismissed due to there being no ongoing risk of bullying. The former complex caretaker conceded that she had no ongoing contact with the Secretary.
In the second case, the Commission acknowledged that the Portfolio Manager was an experienced and competent employee whose professionalism had been unfairly questioned, and that some of the timeframe demands made of her were ‘simply ridiculous’. However, the Commission was not satisfied that the Secretary’s conduct had created a risk to health and safety.
Two factors undermined the Portfolio Manager’s case:
- First, the property management company’s owner had engaged in similarly combative and demeaning correspondence toward the Secretary to which the Portfolio Manager had been privy.
- Second, the Commission was critical of the matter being filed prior to attempts at an informal resolution, stating it, ‘beggars belief that a person could be accused of bullying without having had the opportunity to correct their behaviour, or even have their behaviour raised with them by the offended party’.
The Commission also acknowledged that the Secretary had made a commitment to the Commission to improve her communication style and issued a clear warning that a repeat of the same conduct could produce a different outcome in any future proceeding.
Key learnings for employers and investigators
- Confronting communication and unreasonable work demands will not always amount to bullying. Blunt, demanding or condescending communication in the workplace may be unpleasant, but it will not meet the legal threshold for bullying unless it is repeated, unreasonable and creates a risk to health and safety – and the risk of bullying must be ongoing for the Commission to have jurisdiction.
- Raise it before you escalate it. Where appropriate, workplace policies should encourage early, direct resolution before formal complaints or interventions are taken. Investigators may wish to explore the background of a complaint, including any attempts at informal resolution.
- The employer’s conduct matters. Where an employer or its representatives engage in the same or similar conduct being complained about, this may undermine the credibility of a bullying complaint. The culture and accepted practices of an organisation may provide relevant context to a complaint.
- Commitments to change can carry weight. A genuine commitment by an alleged bully to modify their behaviour may assist in resolving an application for stop bullying orders. HR professionals and investigators should consider whether facilitated discussions, behavioural agreements or coaching could appropriately resolve a complaint without more formal intervention.
More information
Q Workplace Solutions’ team of experienced and legally qualified investigators is trusted by public and private organisations, including ASX-listed companies and government agencies, to investigate complex and often highly sensitive allegations of employee wrongdoing. The team also undertakes reviews of organisations, divisions, or units, and provides training, coaching and external advisory support to internal investigators and teams.
Upcoming trainingÂ
14 July | Online | 3 hours: Navigating Workplace Investigations Under Queensland’s Reportable Conduct Scheme
21 July | In-person | Brisbane | Full day: Internal Workplace Investigations: The Fundamentals
