| Summary |
UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – Applicant claimed bullied in workplace and respondent failed to provide healthy and safe work environment – Respondent’s investigation into applicant’s complaints dealt with following bullying allegations: manager (“O”) harsh, angry, distant, hostile, thuggish; O’s behaviour witnessed by other staff and encouraged co-workers to do same; O breached privacy in email sent to applicant and co-worker (“S”); problem with glare not managed by O; late response on O’s instructions to applicant’s request to take special leave; issues with screen at workstation to prevent draft; O told applicant would be fired on grounds that office could not accommodate applicant’s disability - Investigators found allegations lacked substance – Applicant raised disadvantage grievance and remained on special sick leave – Applicant suffered repetitive strain injury which became long term disability fibromyalgia – Applicant suffered chronic pain, fatigue and over sensitivity to light and noise – Changes made to workplace to accommodate applicant’s medical needs caused resentment among co-workers – Applicant’s relationship with S deteriorated following issues relating to office blinds – In one incident, S and applicant raised voices – O emailed applicant and S to advise behaviour breached code of conduct and would be treated formally in future – Applicant complained email breached privacy and example of O’s bullying – Authority found O did not attribute blame to either party in email and email not a warning – Found not breach of privacy for employer to send email to two employees setting out expected standards of behaviour after incident both employees involved in – Applicant claimed O said if respondent unable to accommodate applicant’s lengthy surgery recovery period, would have to fire applicant – Authority found O’s alleged statement was actually a question asked after frustrating discussion where O said would accommodate time off – Found ill conceived but did not amount to saying would dismiss applicant – Respondent did accommodate needs with paid special leave and graduated return to work – When workplace moved, applicant had first choice for workstation - Applicant complained moving of screen to prevent drafts was bullying tactic by O – Authority found was unanticipated mistake and screen replaced same day - Applicant’s work hours put pressure on respondent and co-workers, but applicant upset when prospect of changing hours raised – Applicant claimed O stood over desk in intimidating, overbearing manner – Applicant claimed yelled at by managers at subsequent meeting - Authority found managers frustrated by applicant’s lack of compromise but did not yell – Another co-worker (“T”) formally complained applicant yelled at her in front of clients – Following disciplinary investigation, applicant issued with verbal warning – Applicant did not challenge verbal warning but claimed warning was example of bullying – Applicant complained leave issues dealt with poorly on last working day before Christmas break – Claimed O’s handling of issue constituted bullying - Another team moved to applicant’s workplace, causing conflict between applicant’s medical needs and member of other team’s medical needs – Applicant claimed bullied by management because management asked neighbouring team if would acquiesce to applicant’s needs or move offices – Another co-worker formally complained applicant rude – When respondent attempted to discuss matter, applicant became distressed and took two days off work - Applicant requested move to different workplace – Applicant laid formal complaint that bullied by managers and went on leave - Applicant not returned to work since – Authority found when applicant laid complaint, respondent on notice that was victim of workplace bullying – Respondent also aware applicant attending EAP for bullying – Authority found O did everything reasonably could to ensure applicant safe while at work – Found applicant lacked insight into relationships between self and managers and construed events and conversations to show was victim – Found applicant’s perception of O’s behaviour overstated and exaggerated - Found inappropriate that applicant took photo of O on cell-phone, and applicant denied taking photo despite CCTV footage – Found applicant failed to mention important facts in letter to Minister seeking assistance – Found no disadvantage grievance in bullying complaint – Authority found respondent took all steps which were reasonably practicable to ensure applicant’s safety at work – Found steps included: preventing noise; special car park; ergonomic furniture and workstation assessments; tinting windows to prevent glare; moving staff whose needs clashed with applicant’s; first choice of workstation; adjusted screens and air-conditioning; reduced work hours and duties; two OOS breaks per day in addition to usual breaks – Found managers went extra distance to assist applicant – No failures to provide safe working environment – No unjustified disadvantage - DISCRIMINATION – Applicant claimed discriminated against as result of disability – Found no evidence of discrimination – Claim dismissed - GOOD FAITH – Applicant claimed respondent breached obligations to act in good faith in failure to provide information and/or opportunity to comment on information relevant to decision not to transfer applicant to alternative workplace – Respondent had concluded move not feasible - Authority found respondent failed in obligation to discuss reasons why transfer not seen as practicable – Found failure insufficient to found breach of duty of good faith, as not serious or sustained – No breach of good faith – Authority noted applicant medically ready to return to graduated work - Parties referred to mediation to discuss potential workplace transfer |