Skip to main content

Ribbon

  • About us
  • Contact us
  • Glossary
  • News & media
Fair Work Commission logo

Fair Work Commission

Australia's national workplace relations tribunal
Search is closed
Menu is closed

Search

Main menu

  • Awards & agreements
    • Minimum wages & conditions
    • Awards
    • Agreements
    • Legislation & regulations for awards & agreements
  • Cases, decisions & orders
    • Major cases
    • Summaries of significant decisions
    • Decisions by keywords
    • FWC Bulletin
    • Archived decisions & orders
    • Transcripts
    • Court reviews
    • Historical cases
  • Registered organisations
    • Fact sheets, templates & webinars
    • Find registered organisations
    • Find State-recognised associations
    • Registration
    • Running a registered organisation
    • Entry permits
    • Industrial action
    • Gazette notices
    • Lodgment
  • Resources
    • Online lodgment
    • Forms
    • Where to get legal help
    • Research
    • Workplace Relations Education Series
    • Benchbooks
    • Fact sheets, guides & videos
    • Practice notes
    • Resources in other languages
    • Case studies
    • Quarterly practitioner updates
    • Related sites
  • Termination of employment
    • Unfair dismissal
    • General protections dismissal
    • Unlawful termination
    • How the Commission works
  • Disputes at work
    • Fairness in the workplace
    • Resolving issues at the Commission
    • Cooperative Workplaces program
    • JobKeeper disputes
    • General protections (unlawful actions)
    • Anti-bullying
    • Industrial action
    • Awards & enterprise agreements disputes
    • Disputes about entry
    • How the Commission works
  • Home
  • Anti-bullying benchbook
  • Commission processes
Back to top

Anti-bullying benchbook

An overview of legal procedure & case law

Procedural issues

Print this page

 

Table of contents

On this page

  • Confidentiality orders – de-identification of parties
  • Case examples
  • Interim orders
  • Case examples
  • Consent orders
  • Case example
  • References

 

Confidentiality orders – de-identification of parties

See Fair Work Act ss.593–594

The Fair Work Commission is generally required to perform its functions and exercise its powers in a manner that is open and transparent.[1] However anti-bullying matters may involve disclosure of sensitive personal information (including medical information) and may have the potential for unwarranted damage to the reputation of individuals.

The Commission has the power to make orders

  • that all or part of an anti-bullying hearing be held in private,
  • restricting the persons who may be present at a hearing,
  • prohibiting or restricting the publication of the names and addresses of persons appearing at the hearing, and
  • prohibiting or restricting the publication or disclosure of evidence given at the hearing, documents referred to in the proceedings, and the Commission’s decision or reasons in relation to the matter.[2]

Considerations of open justice and the administration of justice are clearly relevant to the exercise of discretion to make an order under s.594(1) of the Fair Work Act. However, these considerations are not to be applied in a vacuum and need to be considered in the context of the express power to prohibit or restrict publication of certain material having regard to its confidential nature or for any other reason and the circumstances of a particular case.[3]

In relation to the anti-bullying jurisdiction established by Part 6-4B of the Fair Work Act, the purpose of the legislation, namely to ensure that workers can continue in their engagements at work free from the risk to health and safety caused by workplace bullying, would be defeated if the public disclosure of sensitive information during the course of anti-bullying proceedings would be likely to have the effect of rendering the relevant worker’s continuing engagement unviable. However, in accordance with the open justice principle, it is not sufficient to justify the making of a non-disclosure order merely because allegations have been made which are embarrassing, distressing or potentially damaging to reputations.[4]

In an anti-bullying matter, as with other types of proceedings before the Commission such as unfair dismissal remedy applications, the findings of the Commission concerning allegations which have been made will usually appropriately resolve concerns about embarrassment, distress or damage to reputation. If findings are made that an applicant’s allegations of bullying behaviour are unfounded, then the position of persons alleged to be the perpetrators of such bullying will be vindicated and such an outcome may reflect adversely upon the applicant. However if allegations of bullying are found to be substantiated, then public identification of the perpetrators of that bullying is normally appropriate. In either case, the public scrutiny involved will have a deterrent effect that is in the public interest - in the former case against the making of unfounded allegations and in the latter case against engagement in bullying behaviour.[5]

If a party applies for confidentiality orders on the basis that disclosure of sensitive information is likely to endanger the viability of a continuing working engagement, then that party will need to positively satisfy the Commission that this is the case. It is not sufficient for this simply to be asserted.[6]

Case examples

Application for de-identification of parties approved

Application by Worker A, Worker B, Worker C, Worker D and Worker E (interim orders dealing with behaviour at workplace)

PR584404 (Gostencnik DP, 18 August 2016).

PR584235 (Gostencnik DP, 15 August 2016).

[2016] FWC 6524 (Gostencnik DP, 7 October 2016).

Facts

An application for an interim confidentiality order was made by a group of workers at the Carlton and United Breweries (CUB) site in Abbotsford, Victoria. The workers were engaged by Programmed Skilled Workforce Ltd and alleged that they were experiencing unreasonable behaviour as a result of the industrial action taking place at CUB.

The applicants submitted that the publication of their names in dealing with their anti-bullying applications would likely result in an escalation of the behaviour they were experiencing at the workplace, prior to the substantive issues of the anti-bullying application being dealt with.

The applicants had previously sought, and been granted, an interim order which prohibited the persons named from engaging in certain behaviour towards them, including filming the applicants attending work and calling them various inappropriate names.

Outcome

The Deputy President issued the orders sought on the basis that the concerns were genuinely held and the risk that the behaviour would escalate was not merely theoretical. Further, he considered that the ‘interests of open justice must give way to the desirability to mitigate the risk of escalating inappropriate conduct directed towards the applicants’.

Relevance

The capacity of a person to effectively participate in a proceeding before the Commission may be affected, for example, by a well-founded or reasonable concern held by the person that the disclosure and publication of that person’s name or address might result in some form of retribution, harassment or intimidation. In this case the applicants were concerned that if they were identified as applicants there might be an escalation in the conduct about which they had complained directed towards them.

H v Centre and Others

[2014] FWC 6128 (Wilson C, 4 September 2014).

Facts

An application was made by ‘H’ to the Commission for an order to stop bullying which is alleged to have taken place in a workplace conducted by an employer, referred to as the ‘Centre’, which was a corporate entity providing services to the community. The allegations of bullying extended to two named individuals, ‘T’ (a co-worker) and ‘I’ (the Centre’s Director).

Each of the parties had a preference for the proceeding to be dealt with as confidentially as was possible.

Outcome

While there was no automatic entitlement to the hearing being conducted in that way, the Commission was satisfied that it was appropriate to do so on this occasion, taking into account the personal situation both of the applicant and the two individual respondents, ‘I’ and ‘T’.

The Commission did not consider that the preferences of the Centre itself were a sufficient reason to consider confidentiality; nothing special or private arose in that regard in relation to a corporate entity, albeit one that is a community service, so far as these proceedings were concerned.

Consistent with this, the Commission considered it would be appropriate to make an order for confidentiality pursuant to the provisions of s.593(3) of the Fair Work Act, with that order extending to all material and evidence provided in relation to this matter.

Relevance

When determining if a confidentiality order should be issued, the Commission will take into account the personal situation of the party (or parties), however the party (or parties) will need to be able to satisfy the Commission that there is a need for confidentiality orders, it is not enough to simply assert there is a need.

Re G.C.

[2014] FWC 6988 (Hampton C, 9 December 2014).

Facts

G.C. (the applicant) made an application to the Commission for an order to stop bullying. The application alleged bullying conduct by Mr E.S., who was the Managing Director of S.I. Pty Ltd (the employer).

The application was subject to a hearing, which was conducted in private as permitted by s.593(3)(a) of the Fair Work Act. All proceedings conducted to that point were also undertaken in private. At the conclusion of the hearing, all parties supported a position advanced by the employer that the names of all involved should be de-identified from any public decision issued by the Commission.

Outcome

Given the nature of some of the matters and circumstances discussed in this decision, the Commission accepted the joint request of the parties, noting that the genuine public interest in the operation of the Fair Work Act, and this jurisdiction in particular, was still satisfied by the publication of the de-identified decision.

Relevance

Anti-bullying matters may involve disclosure of sensitive personal information (including medical information) and may have the potential for unwarranted damage to the reputation of individuals. When determining if the names of the parties involved should be de-identified from this decision, the Commission considered the principles of open justice and the scheme of the Fair Work Act balanced against the facts of the matter as presented.

Application for de-identification of parties NOT approved

Re Justin Corfield

[2014] FWC 4887 (Bissett C, 21 July 2014).

Facts

The Commission received an application for anti-bullying orders from Mr Justin Corfield (the applicant).

The respondents (the named individual and the employer) made an application that the parties in the matter be de-identified pursuant to s.593(3)(c) of the Fair Work Act. The respondents submitted that the publication of the name of the applicant and respondents in what was essentially a private and confidential matter would not be conducive to good governance of the respondent employer. The respondents submitted that their performance management system (to which the application does, in part, relate) should not be subject to public scrutiny. They argued that the performance management system of the organisation is robust and should continue and if the application for orders was not successful, the integrity of the system may well be compromised and confidence in the organisation adversely affected.

The applicant opposed the application. He said that the names of the parties had already been identified in the daily hearing lists of the Commission on the two days when the matter was previously listed. The applicant said that an application involving allegations of one staff member against another is not unique or unusual in Commission proceedings and that, of itself, did not warrant de-identification. The applicant submitted that the matter was not ‘essentially a private matter’, and that the respondent had not shown that de-identification was necessary ‘in the interests of justice.’

Outcome

Whilst recognising that the Commission had the power to grant the application the Commission was not satisfied that there were sufficient grounds to warrant the application being granted at that time.

Relevance

It is likely that many parties in matters before the Commission would prefer that their details not be made public. The preference of the parties, or that there may be some unwanted scrutiny, is not a basis to conclude that the parties should be de-identified. Embarrassment, distress or damage by publicity is not a sufficient basis to grant an application for de-identification.

Bowker and Others v DP World Melbourne Limited T/A DP World and Others

[2014] FWC 7381 (Gostencnik DP, 21 October 2014).

Facts

Three applicants each applied to the Commission for an order to prevent each of them from being bullied at work. The applications were not joined but were dealt with by the Commission concurrently. The applicants were each employed by DP World Melbourne Limited (DP World) a respondent to each application. The Maritime Union of Australia (MUA) was also a respondent to each application.

The MUA applied for orders under sections 593 and 594 of the Fair Work Act which would have the effect of de-identifying the parties to these proceedings, the workplace and location of the workplace at which bullying conduct was alleged to have occurred, the industry in which the bullying conduct was said to have occurred, the persons against whom bullying allegations were made, and restricting the identification of these persons and places in any decision of the Commission.

The MUA submitted it would be prejudiced if the orders sought were not made and applications were not dealt with in private. It said that the allegations made by the applicants against the MUA and its members were particularly damaging. Furthermore the allegations were particularly prejudicial to the reputation of the individuals named in the allegations, and this was amplified because the industry was a relatively close knit and small industry, and so the consequences for those individuals could be wide reaching and might prejudice future employment prospects.

The applicants opposed the making of an order and said the proceeding should be conducted in open hearing and in the normal way according to the fundamental principle of open justice. They said that the MUA provided no evidence in support of its various grounds.

Outcome

Whilst the Commission had some sympathy with the position in which the MUA found itself, on balance the Commission was not persuaded to make the orders sought for reasons including:

  • the risk of prejudice of the kind identified by the MUA was not unique to the circumstances of this case
  • the MUA took no steps to seek a de-identification order when the allegations that were threshold matters were determined by a Full Bench, and
  • under the rules of the MUA, the fact that the applicants have brought charges against particular members and officers of the MUA would be published.
Relevance

The risk of embarrassment or a risk of some future prejudice, which is common to many applications that proceed before the Commission, do not outweigh the desirability for open justice.

Amie Mac v Bank of Queensland Limited and Others

[2015] FWC 774 (Hatcher VP, 13 February 2015).

Facts

Amie Mac filed an application for orders to stop bullying at work. The application alleged that bullying occurred in the course of Ms Mac’s employment as a lawyer with the Bank of Queensland Limited (BOQ), and identified five persons employed by BOQ as the perpetrators of that bullying (jointly the respondents).

The respondents applied for an order prohibiting the publication of the names of the applicant and the five persons it was alleged had engaged in bullying behaviour.

The respondents submitted that de-identification was appropriate because it would:

  • minimise the negative impact that any open proceedings may have on Ms Mac, particularly in relation to her ability to return to work
  • minimise the negative impact that any open proceedings may have on the health of Ms Mac
  • minimise the adverse impact on the individual respondents of untested allegations, including allegations to the effect that they (being lawyers) have breached the Australian Solicitors’ Conduct Rules, and
  • minimise unnecessary knowledge of the proceedings amongst BOQ employees, thereby minimising the potential to adversely affect any return to work by Ms Mac.
Outcome

The Commission found nothing in the evidence, including the medical evidence, which could form a proper basis for the conclusion that the identification of the names of the relevant individuals would be likely to prevent Ms Mac from returning to work at an appropriate time. Ms Mac herself, who had access to competent legal and medical advice, expressed no concerns on this score and was opposed to the making of de-identification orders. There was also no issue of ‘untested’ allegations, because the allegations have been tested at the hearing and were the subject of findings in the decision.

The Commission did not consider there to be any proper basis for the making of the de-identification orders sought by the respondents and rejected their application.

Relevance

The principle of open justice will usually be the paramount consideration in determining whether a confidentiality order should be made. It is not sufficient to justify the making of a non-disclosure order merely that allegations have been made which are embarrassing, distressing or potentially damaging to reputations.

Interim orders

See Fair Work Act ss.589 and 789FF

In some circumstances, parties to anti-bullying matters may seek to have certain preliminary issues dealt with prior to the substantive matters of issuing an order to stop bullying being determined. The range of matters that these types of orders can address will vary, depending on the issues at hand in a particular case. Decisions in respect of interim orders have addressed issues such as:

  •  stopping recruitment processes which would otherwise render the applicant worker without ongoing employment and therefore an ongoing risk to their health and safety[7]
  • stopping performance management processes where the applicant is unable to participate due to ill health[8], and
  • stopping certain behaviours at a workplace.[9]

Case examples

Application for an interim order to suspend a disciplinary process – interim order granted

Application by Bayly

[2017] FWC 1886 (Hampton C, 5 April 2017).

Facts

In this matter the Commission considered whether to issue an interim order to halt a disciplinary process which may have resulted in the applicant’s employment being terminated. The applicant had evidence to show that on medical grounds she was unable to participate in or provide a response to the disciplinary process which had a real prospect of resulting in her dismissal.

Outcome

The Commissioner issued the interim order sought, noting:

‘I would also observe that given the scheme of the Act, interim orders of the nature being considered here would not be issued lightly. The direct intervention of the Commission at such an early stage of proceedings should be exercised with considerable caution. Further, the mere indication that a disciplinary process was involved in the complaints of workplace bullying, without much more, is unlikely to trigger the balance of convenience necessary for such action. Of course, each application must be considered in its own right and circumstances.’

Relevance

In this case the Commission was satisfied that the anti-bullying application had prima facie merit. There was a sufficient likelihood of success to justify the interim order to suspend a disciplinary process which may have resulted in the applicant’s dismissal. If the applicant was dismissed then her anti-bullying application would have to fail as there would be no risk of further workplace bullying.

Application for an interim order to delay recruitment process – interim order NOT granted

Application by Subramanian

[2017] FWC 3492 (Hunt C, 7 July 2017).

Facts

In this matter, the Commission considered a request for an interim order to prevent the employer from finalising a recruitment process in which the applicant had participated. The process would have guaranteed that the applicant would have employment with the employer past 31 December 2017. The applicant contended that the process was:

  • flawed, as the recruitment panel had two participants who were aware of an inquiry being conducted about the applicant, which formed the substantive part of his anti-bullying application, and
  • the applicant’s anti-bullying application would be ‘extinguished’ after 31 December 2017 as he would not have ongoing employment with the employer and would, therefore, no longer be at risk of bullying behaviour continuing.
Outcome

The Commission did not issue the interim order sought, noting that the process for recruiting the new role that the applicant had applied for appeared sound, and that the status quo would not be preserved as the applicant would still be engaged at the workplace when the substantive matter was heard.

Relevance

An interim order preventing the employer from offering the disputed role to another person would result in a severe and unnecessary restriction on the employer without affecting the applicant’s rights relevant to the anti-bullying application.

Consent orders

Some parties, during the process of dealing with the anti-bullying application, may come to an agreement about how they will work together in a workplace. Providing the parties also agree that the circumstances required by the Fair Work Act for making such an order have been met, an order giving effect to this agreement may be made by the Commission, called a consent order

Case example

Consent order issued – setting out parameters for behaviour

Application by Kypuros

[2017] FWC 3082 (Wilson C, 6 June 2017).

Facts

The applicant in this matter had alleged workplace bullying directed towards him within his workplace. The alleged bullying, largely repeated verbal abuse, was said to be from his uncle who was a co-owner of the business with the applicant’s father.

CCTV footage submitted, untested in evidence, appeared to show at least two acts of violence by the applicant directed at his uncle. The applicant also provided video footage to the Commission, again untested in evidence, of another physical altercation.

An interim intervention order was sought by the uncle and the Magistrates’ Court issued the order against the applicant. The intervention order appeared to be ineffectual in keeping the two men apart and maintaining workplace civility, with altercations between the two men occurring after the intervention order was made.

Outcome

The Commission issued consent orders, which had been developed in a conciliation conference. The Commission detailed the events leading up to the applicant making an application for an order to stop bullying, which found that both the applicant and his uncle appeared to be engaging in verbal and physical abuse.

The Commission considered that the conduct engaged in by the uncle against the applicant could fall within the definition of workplace bullying. Likewise, the Commission also considered the same could be said of the conduct alleged by the uncle to have been directed toward him by the applicant.

Relevance

The decision to issue consent orders reflected the need to formalise a process so that the parties involved could work together in an appropriate manner and provide a professional working environment for all of the employees. The consent order set out parameters for interaction between the applicant, his uncle and his father within the workplace, whether directly or through other workers.

References

[1] Fair Work Act s.577(c).

[2] Fair Work Act ss.593–594.

[3] Bowker and Others v DP World Melbourne Limited T/A DP World and Others [2015] FWC 4542 (Gostencnik DP, 6 July 2015) at para. 15.

[4] Amie Mac v Bank of Queensland Limited and Others [2015] FWC 774 (Hatcher VP, 13 February 2015) at para. 9.

[5] ibid.

[6] ibid., at para. 10.

[7] Application by Subramanian [2017] FWC 3492 (Hampton C, 7 July 2017).

[8] Application by Bayly [2017] FWC 1886 (Hampton C, 5 April 2017).

[9] Application by Worker A, Worker B, Worker C, Worker D and Worker E (interim orders dealing with behaviour at workplace) PR584404, (Gostencnik DP, 18 August 2017). 

Updated time

Last updated

02 October 2019

 

 

Bookmark/Search this post

Facebook logo Google+ logo Twitter logo

 

Page feedback

Did you find what you were looking for?

Please note: If you would like a response to your question, please contact us or lodge a complaint. This feedback is only about content on this page and will be used to improve website usability. The comments are not monitored for personal information or workplace complaints. 

Mini sites

  • Annual Report 2013–14
    • Reader's guide
    • 1. Overview
      • President's introduction
      • General Manager's overview
      • Performance summary
      • Major achievements 2013–14
    • 2. About the Commission
      • Who we are and what we do
      • Our structure
      • Outcome and program structure
      • Our clients and stakeholders
        • In focus—Small Business Outreach
      • Our future direction
        • In focus–New website
        • In focus–Virtual tour
        • In focus–Mock hearings
      • Our history
    • 3. Performance reporting
      • Overview
      • Legislative amendments
      • Workload
      • Timeliness benchmarks
      • Resolving disputes
      • Determining unfair dismissal applications
      • Setting the minimum wage
        • In focus–Pay Equity Unit
      • Orders relating to industrial action
        • Case study–Emergency Services Telecommunications Authority
        • Case study–Sydney Water
      • Processes relating to modern awards
        • In focus–4 yearly review of awards
      • Approving agreements
        • Case study–Catholic Education Victoria
        • Case study–Orora Fibre Packaging
      • Regulating registered organisations
      • Determining anti-bullying applications
        • In focus–Setting up the anti-bullying jurisdiction
        • Case study–Anti-bullying
      • Key performance indicators
    • 4. Management and accountability
      • Corporate governance
      • Planning and development
      • Ethical standards
      • Accountability
      • Our workforce
      • Employee pay and entitlements
      • Service Charter, complaints and Code of Conduct
      • Financial management
    • 5. Appendices
      • A | Member activities
      • B | List of Members
      • C | Panel assignments
      • D | Methodology for Chart 2–Matters dealt with by the Commission and its predecessors 1998–99 to 2013–14
      • E | Promoting fairness and improving access
      • F | Efficiency and innovation
      • G | Increasing accountability
      • H | Productivity and engaging with industry
      • I | Documents relating to the work of the Commission
      • J | Fair Work Commission addresses
      • K | Lodgment and case load statistics
      • L | Methodology for Chart 6–Number of Commission sittings, various
      • M | Subscription services
      • N | Information on specific statutory requirements
      • O | Fraud Control Certificate
      • P | Fair Work Commission Service Charter
      • Q | Financial statements
        • Independent Audit Report
        • Statement by the General Manager and Chief Financial Officer
        • Statement of Comprehensive Income
        • Statement of Financial Position
        • Statement of Changes in Equity
        • Cash Flow Statement
        • Schedule of Commitments
        • Schedule of Administered Items
        • Notes to the financial statements
          • Note 1: Summary of Significant Accounting Policies
          • Note 2: Events after the Reporting Period
          • Note 3: Expenses
          • Note 4: Income
          • Note 5: Fair Value Measurements
          • Note 6: Financial Assets
          • Note 7: Non-financial Assets
          • Note 8: Payables
          • Note 9: Provisions
          • Note 10: Cash Flow Reconciliation
          • Note 11: Contingent Liabilities and Assets
          • Note 12: Senior Executive Remuneration
          • Note 13: Remuneration of Auditors
          • Note 14: Financial Instruments
          • Note 15: Financial Assets Reconciliation
          • Note 16: Administered Income
          • Note 17: Administered Payables
          • Note 18: Administered Cash Flow Reconciliation
          • Note 19: Administered Contingent Liabilities and Assets
          • Note 20: Appropriations
          • Note 21: Compliance with Statutory Conditions for Payments from the Consolidated Revenue Fund
          • Note 22: Compensation and Debt Relief
          • Note 23: Reporting of Outcomes
          • Note 24: Net Cash Appropriation Arrangements
      • R | Agency resource statement
      • S | Expenses and resources for outcome
      • T | Glossary
      • U | Acronyms and abbreviations
      • V | List of requirements
    • Letter of transmittal
    • Inquiries and copyright
    • Videos
    • Downloads
  • Annual Report 2014–15
    • Introduction
    • Preliminary information
      • Contents
      • Letter of transmittal
      • Readers guide
    • Part 1 Overview
      • President's introduction
      • General Manager's overview
      • Performance summary
      • Major achievements
    • Part 2 About the Commission
      • Outcome and programme structure
      • Who we are and what we do
      • Our structure
      • Our history
      • Our clients and stakeholders
      • Our future direction
      • Future directions - Continuing the change program
    • Part 3 Performance reporting
      • Overview
      • Legislative amendments
      • Workload
      • Timeliness benchmarks
      • Resolving disputes
      • Unlawful termination disputes
      • Determining unfair dismissal applications
      • Setting the minimum wage
      • Orders relating to industrial action
      • Processes relating to modern awards
      • Enterprise agreements
      • Determining anti-bullying applications
      • Regulating registered organisations
      • Key performance indicators
    • Part 4 Management and accountability
      • Corporate governance
      • Planning and development
      • Workplace health and safety
      • Business continuity
      • Ethical standards
      • Fair Work Commission values
      • Freedom of information
      • Accountability
      • The Commission's workforce
      • Employee pay and entitlements
      • Service Charter, complaints and code of conduct
      • Financial management
      • Agency resource statement
      • Expenses and resources for outcome
    • Acronyms and abbreviations
    • Part 5 Appendices
      • Appendix A
      • Appendix B
      • Appendix C
      • Appendix D
      • Appendix E
      • Appendix F
      • Appendix G
      • Appendix H
      • Appendix I
      • Appendix J
      • Appendix K
      • Appendix L
      • Appendix M
      • Appendix N
      • Glossary
  • Annual Report 2015–16
    • Preliminary information
      • Letter of transmittal
      • Readers' guide
    • Part 1: Overview
      • President's report
      • General Manager's report
    • Part 2: About the Commission
    • Part 3: Performance
      • Performance summary
      • Annual performance statements 2015–16
      • Operational performance
        • Applications lodged
        • Hearings & conferences
        • Information & assistance
        • Major application types
          • Unfair dismissals
          • General protections & unlawful termination disputes
          • Anti-bullying
          • Enterprise agreements
          • Resolving disputes
          • Industrial action
        • New Approaches
        • Setting the minimum wage
        • Modern awards
        • Regulating registered organisations
        • Appeals
      • Significant decisions
      • Case studies
        • Case study: Enterprise agreements pilot
        • Case study: Patrick & the MUA
        • Case study: Encouraging regulatory compliance
    • Part 4: Management & accountability
      • Corporate governance
      • Financial management
      • Other mandatory information
    • Appendices
      • Appendix A: List of Members
      • Appendix B: Panel assignments
      • Appendix C: Member activities
      • Appendix D: Lodgment & case load statistics
      • Appendix E: Registered organisations data
      • Appendix F: Performance reporting for the RSRT
      • Appendix G: Financial statements
      • Appendix H: Subscription services
      • Appendix I: Service charter
      • Appendix J: List of requirements
      • Appendix K: Expense & resources outcome, agency resource statement & financial performance analysis
    • Glossary
    • Acronyms & abbreviations
    • Contact us
  • Annual Wage Review 2013–14
  • Anti-bullying benchbook
    • Glossary & naming conventions
    • Overview of benchbook
    • What is workplace bullying?
    • Who is covered by workplace bullying laws?
      • Definition of ‘worker’
      • Definition of ‘constitutionally-covered business’
        • What is a person conducting a business or undertaking?
        • What is a Territory or a Commonwealth place?
        • What is a constitutional corporation?
        • What is the Commonwealth?
    • When is a worker bullied at work?
      • What does ‘at work’ mean?
      • Risk of continued bullying
      • Reasonable management action
    • Making an application
    • Responding to an application
    • If the worker has been dismissed
    • Commission processes
      • Procedural issues
      • Representation by lawyers and paid agents
    • Evidence
    • Outcomes
      • Dismissing an application
      • Contravening an order of the Commission
    • Associated applications
      • Costs
      • Appeals
      • Role of the Court
  • Corporate Plan 2018–19
    • 1. Message from the General Manager
    • 2. Purpose
    • 3. Operating environment
    • 4. Culture
    • 5. Capability
    • 6. Performance
  • Corporate Plan 2019–20
    • 1. Message from the General Manager
    • 2. Purpose
    • 3. Operating environment
    • 4. Our focus
    • 5. Culture
    • 6. Capability
    • 7. Performance
  • Corporate Plan 2020-21
    • 1. Message from the General Manager
    • 2. Purpose
    • 3. Operating environment
    • 4. Key activities
    • 5. Capability
    • 6. Risk
    • 7. Performance
  • Enterprise agreements benchbook
    • Glossary & naming conventions
    • Overview of benchbook
    • What is an enterprise agreement?
      • Single-enterprise agreement
      • Multi-enterprise agreement
      • Differences between single and multi-enterprise agreements
      • Greenfields agreement
    • Content of an enterprise agreement
      • Permitted matters
      • Coverage
      • Scope – who will be covered?
      • Terms & conditions of employment
      • Base rate of pay
      • Nominal expiry date
      • Mandatory terms
      • Flexibility term
      • Consultation term
      • Dispute settlement term
      • Optional terms
      • Terms that cannot be included
        • Terms that exclude the NES
        • Unlawful terms
        • Designated outworker terms
    • Agreement making process
      • Representation
      • Employee right to be represented
      • Bargaining representatives
    • Bargaining
      • Good faith bargaining
      • How long does bargaining take?
    • Voting
      • Voting process
      • Who can vote?
      • Timeframe for vote
      • Voting methods
      • When is an agreement made?
      • If parties cannot agree
    • Making an application
      • Common defects & issues
        • National Employment Standards
        • Better off overall test
        • Mandatory terms
        • Other terms
        • Pre-approval requirements
        • Forms & lodgment
      • Who must apply
      • Timeframe to apply
      • Material to accompany application
      • Signing an agreement
      • Employer must notify employees
    • Commission approval process
      • Genuine agreement
        • Minor procedural or technical errors
      • Where a scope order is in operation
      • Particular kinds of employees
      • Better off overall test (BOOT)
        • When an agreement passes
        • Classes of employees
        • Which award applies
        • Advice about coverage
        • Loaded rates of pay
      • Public interest test
      • Undertakings
      • Powers of the Commission
    • Associated applications
      • Majority support determinations
      • Authorisations to commence bargaining
        • Single interest employer authorisations
        • Ministerial declaration
        • Low-paid authorisations
      • Scope orders
      • Bargaining orders
      • Serious breach declarations
      • Disputes
      • Workplace determinations
        • Low-paid
        • Industrial action related
        • Bargaining related
      • Role of the Court
      • Appeals
      • Varying enterprise agreements
        • Varying by agreement
        • Ambiguity or uncertainty
        • Discrimination
      • Terminating enterprise agreements
        • Terminating by agreement
        • After its nominal expiry date
      • Terminating individual agreements
  • General Manager reporting requirements
  • General protections benchbook
    • Glossary & naming conventions
    • Overview of benchbook
      • When is a person covered by the general protections?
    • What are the general protections?
    • How do the general protections work?
      • Rebuttable presumption as to reason or intent
    • Coverage for general protections
      • What is a constitutionally-covered entity?
      • What is a Territory or a Commonwealth place?
      • What is a trade and commerce employer?
      • What is a Territory employer?
      • What is a national system employer?
    • What if I am not covered?
    • What is adverse action?
      • What is dismissal?
      • Injuring employee in their employment
      • Altering the position of the employee
      • Discriminating
      • Threatened action and organisation of action
      • Exclusions
    • Workplace rights protections
      • Meaning of workplace right
      • Coercion
      • Undue influence or pressure
      • Misrepresentations
      • Requiring the use of COVIDSafe
    • Industrial activities protections
      • What are industrial activities?
      • Coercion
      • Misrepresentations
      • Inducements – membership action
    • Other protections
      • Discrimination
        • Race
        • Colour
        • Gender identity & sexual orientation
        • Age
        • Physical or mental disability
        • Marital status
        • Family or carer’s responsibilities
        • Pregnancy
        • Religion
        • Political opinion
        • National extraction
        • Social origin
      • Exceptions
      • Temporary absence – illness or injury
      • Bargaining services fees
      • Coverage by particular instruments
      • Coercion – allocation of duties to particular person
    • Sham arrangements
      • Misrepresenting employment
      • Dismissing to engage as independent contractor
      • Misrepresentation to engage as independent contractor
    • Making an application
      • Dismissal applications
        • Timeframe for lodgment
        • Extension of time for lodging an application
      • Non-dismissal applications
      • Other types of applications
        • Multiple actions relating to dismissal
        • Unfair dismissal
        • Unlawful termination
        • Court application
        • Discrimination
    • Power to dismiss applications
    • Evidence
    • Commission process
      • Conferences & hearings
      • Dealing with different types of general protections disputes
      • Rescheduling or adjourning matters
      • Representation by lawyers and paid agents
      • Bias
    • Outcomes
    • Costs
      • When are costs ordered by the Commission?
      • Costs against representatives
    • Appeals
    • Role of the Court
      • Enforcement of Commission orders
      • Types of order made by the Court
  • Industrial action benchbook
    • Glossary & naming conventions
    • What is industrial action?
      • Unprotected industrial action
        • Orders to stop or prevent unprotected industrial action
      • Protected industrial action
        • Immunity
        • Common requirements
        • Employee claim action
        • Employer response action
        • Employee response action
        • Pattern bargaining
    • Taking protected industrial action
      • Protected action ballots
        • Who may apply?
        • Making an application
        • Commission process
        • Varying a protected action ballot order
        • Revoking a protected action ballot order
      • Voting
        • Ballot agents
        • Who may vote – roll of voters
        • Ballot papers
        • Voting procedure
        • Scrutiny of the ballot
        • Results of the ballot
        • When is industrial action authorised?
      • Notice requirements
      • Commencing protected industrial action
    • Payments relating to industrial action
      • Partial work bans
      • Unprotected industrial action – payments
      • Standing down employees
    • Suspension or termination of protected industrial action
      • Powers of the Commission
        • When the Commission may suspend or terminate
        • When the Commission must suspend or terminate
          • Threats to persons or the economy
          • Suspending industrial action
        • Requirements relating to a period of suspension
      • Powers of the Minister
    • Enforcement
    • Appeals
  • JobKeeper benchbook
    • Glossary
    • Introduction
      • Provisions of the Fair Work Act
    • JobKeeper enabling directions – general
      • Service & entitlement accrual
      • When a JobKeeper enabling direction will have no effect
      • Stand downs that are not jobkeeper enabling stand downs
      • Employee requests
    • Jobkeeper enabling stand down directions – entitled employers
      • Directions about duties & location of work
    • Jobkeeper enabling directions – legacy employers
      • Jobkeeper enabling stand down directions – legacy employers
      • Directions about duties & location of work – legacy employers
      • Termination of a jobkeeper enabling direction – legacy employers
    • Agreements about days or times of work
      • Agreements about days or times of work – entitled employers
      • Agreements about days or times of work – legacy employers
      • Termination of an agreement about days or times of work
    • Employer payment obligations
      • Wage condition
      • Minimum payment guarantee
      • Hourly rate of pay guarantee
    • Agreements about annual leave
    • Protections
    • Disputes we cannot assist with
    • Applications to deal with a dispute
      • Who can make an application
      • Responding to an application
      • Objecting to an application
      • Discontinuing an application
    • Commission process
      • General information
      • Conferences & hearings
      • Procedural issues
    • Evidence
    • Outcomes
      • Contravening an order
      • Appeals
      • Role of the Court
    • Attachments
  • Modern Awards Review 2012
    • Introduction
      • Modern Awards Review 2012
  • Sir Richard Kirby Archives
    • Home
    • Sir Richard Kirby
    • About the Archives
    • Cases
      • Case
      • The Honourable Justice Henry Bournes Higgins (1851–1929)
    • Centenary
    • Exhibitions
      • Exhibition launch: The history of the Australian minimum wage
      • Guide – Opening Exhibition
      • International Industrial Dispute Resolution Conference
        • Speaker – Justice Alan Boulton AO
        • Speaker – Mr Arthur F Rosenfeld
        • Speaker – Mr Craig Smith
        • Speaker – Mr James Wilson
        • Speaker – Mr Kieran Mulvey
        • Speaker – Mr Peter Anderson
        • Speaker – Ms Ginette Brazeau
        • Speaker – Ms Nerine Kahn
        • Speaker – Ms Rita Donaghy CBE
        • Speaker – Ms Sharan Burrow
        • Speaker – Senator Guy Barnett
        • Speaker – The Hon. Julia Gillard
      • The Journey
        • Court
          • Early years
          • New court
            • Profile of Justice O'Connor
            • First registration of an industrial organisation
          • Judges & conciliators
          • The Boilermakers' Case
            • The dispute & appeals
        • Commission
          • Post Boilermakers 1956-1973
          • Hawke & Keating governments
            • Industrial Relations Court
          • Howard Government
        • Fair Work Australia
          • The Fair Work system
          • About Fair Work Australia
          • Transition
          • Fair Work timeline
      • The history of the Australian minimum wage
        • The Great Strikes
        • The first minimum wage: The Victorian minimum wage
        • The Harvester Decision
        • The impact of the Great Depression
        • Working it out: Cost of living versus capacity to pay
        • The removal of award rate discrimination
        • The wage explosion & economic crisis
        • The modern era: The development of a modern minimum wage
      • Treasures of the archives
        • Launch speech?Treasures of the Archives
        • 1. Professor Isaac
        • 2. Register of organisations
        • 3. Perlman letters
        • 4. Sir Richard Kirby photograph
        • 5. Oral history program
        • 6. AIRC sign
        • 7. Folder of wage decisions
        • 8. Centenary exhibition
        • 9. Women's exhibition poster
        • 10. Isaac letters
    • The modern era
    • Past Presidents
    • Past Members
      • Past Members 1956 to present
      • Past Members to 1956
  • Unfair dismissals benchbook
    • Overview of unfair dismissal
    • Glossary & naming conventions
    • Coverage for unfair dismissal
      • Who is protected from unfair dismissal?
      • People excluded from national unfair dismissal laws
        • Independent contractors
        • Labour hire workers
        • Vocational placements & volunteers
        • Public sector employment
      • Constitutional corporations
      • High income threshold
      • Modern award coverage
      • Application of an enterprise agreement
      • What is the minimum period of employment?
        • How do you calculate the minimum period of employment?
        • What is continuous service?
        • What is an excluded period?
      • Bankruptcy
      • Insolvency
    • What is dismissal?
      • When does a dismissal take effect?
      • Terminated at the employer's initiative
      • Forced resignation
      • Demotion
      • Contract for a specified period of time
      • Contract for a specified task
      • Contract for a specified season
      • Training arrangement
      • What is a transfer of employment?
      • Periods of service as a casual employee
      • What is a genuine redundancy?
        • Job no longer required due to changes in operational requirements
        • Consultation obligations
        • Redeployment
      • What is the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code?
    • What makes a dismissal unfair?
      • Valid reason relating to capacity or conduct
        • Capacity
        • Conduct
      • Notification of reason for dismissal
      • Opportunity to respond
      • Unreasonable refusal of a support person
      • Warnings – unsatisfactory performance
      • Size of employer's enterprise and human resources specialists
      • Other relevant matters
    • Making an application
      • Application fee
      • Timeframe for lodgment
      • Extension of time for lodging an application
      • Who is the employer?
      • Multiple actions
      • Discontinuing an application
    • Objecting to an application
    • Commission process
      • Conciliation
      • Hearings and conferences
      • Preparing for hearings and conferences
      • Representation by lawyers and paid agents
      • Rescheduling or adjourning matters
      • Bias
    • Remedies
      • Reinstatement
        • Order for reinstatement cannot be subject to conditions
        • Order to maintain continuity
        • Order to restore lost pay
      • Compensation
        • Calculating compensation
        • Mitigation
        • Remuneration
        • Other relevant matters
        • Compensation cap
        • Instalments
    • Dismissing an application
    • Evidence
    • Costs
      • Costs against representatives
      • Security for costs
    • Appeals
      • Staying decisions
    • Role of the Court
  • Waltzing Matilda and the Sunshine Harvester Factory
    • Introduction
    • The book
      • Book launch
    • The film
      • Film launch
    • Historical material
      • 38 Hour Week Wage Principle [1983]
      • 40 Hour Week Case [1947]
      • 44 Hour Week Case [1927]
      • Apprenticeship indentures
      • Australian Minimum Wage and fitter (trades) rate since 1906
      • Boot Trades Case
      • Careers in Bootmaking and Boot Repairing
      • Cattle Industry Case 1966
      • Commercial Printing Case [1936]
      • Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904
      • Cost of living newspaper articles from the early 1900s
      • Debates
      • Equal Pay Case 1969
      • Equal Pay Case 1972
      • Fruit Pickers Case
      • Gas Employees Case
      • Graph of Australian Minimum Wage since 1906
      • Harvester Case
      • Historic case judgments on the Fair Work Commission's website
      • Kingston's evidence
      • Linesmen's Case
      • Maternity Leave Case [1979]
      • Metal trades base level minimum wages [1967–2015]
      • Methods of wage adjustment
        • Establishing an Australian Minimum Wage 1907?1922
          • The origins of the Australian minimum wage
          • The 'needs' principle and 'capacity to pay'
          • Women's wages
          • First indexation decision
        • Quarterly indexation 1922–1953
        • The Great Depression 1931
        • Prosperity loadings 1937
        • World War II 1939–1945
        • The post-war period: 1953–1965 basic wage inquiries
        • The total wage 1966–1967
        • Removal of discrimination in award rates
        • Reintroduction of quarterly wage indexation 1975–1978
        • Six monthly wage indexation 1978–1981
        • Wage explosion 1981–1982
        • Reforming awards and work and management practices 1987–1991
        • Six monthly wage indexation 1983–1987
        • Enterprise bargaining and a minimum wage safety net 1991–1996
        • Statutory adjustments
        • The minimum wage in real terms
      • Mrs Beeton's cookbook
      • Paternity Leave Case [1990]
      • Personal/Carer's Leave Test Case [1995]
      • Piddington report
      • Re Bagshaw [1907]
      • Significant cases on the Fair Work Commission's website
      • Statistics for the purpose of comparison with the Australian minimum wage
      • The Amalgamated Society of Engineers v. The Adelaide Steam-ship Company Limited and Others
      • The Australian minimum wage from 1906
      • The Federated Marine Stewards and Pantrymen's Association v. The Commonwealth Steamship Owners' Association and Others
      • The Victorian minimum wage 1896
        • Legislative Council Second Reading Speech to the Factories and Shops Bill 1896
      • The first Award: 1906 Steam-ship Crew
      • 100 years of the minimum wage—Statistical comparison
    • Mrs Beeton's cookbook
    • Glossary
    • Related sites
    • Educational materials
  • AWRS First Findings report

Footer

  • Site map
  • Legal
  • Copyright
  • Accessibility

Coronavirus (COVID-19) information