"Bullying" versus "Reasonable Management" actions

Two recent bullying cases addressed by the Fair Work Commission highlight a need to understand the difference between bullying and “reasonable management actions.”

In these two cases the FWC had to determine whether the actions alleged to be bullying actually amounted to bullying or were appropriate reasonable management actions.

What is “bullying”?

“Bullying” is when a person or group of people repeatedly behave unreasonably towards another worker or group of workers, and the behaviour creates a risk to health and safety. “Unreasonably” means unfairly and inappropriately.

What are “reasonable management actions”?

“Reasonable management actions” are actions that a manager takes to manage a staff member who is not doing their job well, and intervention is required. “Reasonable” in this context means fair, relevant, and appropriate.

It is “reasonable management action” for a manager to:

• Start performance management processes (such as a Performance Improvement Plan).

• Take disciplinary action for misconduct.

• Advise a worker when their performance is not satisfactory.

• Address inappropriate behaviour in the workplace.

• Direct a worker to perform reasonable duties within their role.

• Take necessary steps to maintain reasonable workplace standards (e.g. providing and maintaining necessary equipment, tools, and facilities; meeting health standards, provide on-the-job training, etc.)

These actions, when undertaken fairly, transparently, and in accordance with well-defined policies and procedures, are essential for maintaining productivity, accountability, and workplace harmony.

An employee may raise a complaint if they believe that their employer’s actions are either unreasonable or not conducted in a reasonable manner.

CASE 1: Craig v Family Service Ltd (2025)

An employee alleged she was subject to unreasonable restrictions on remote work and outside employment, as well as differential treatment. She accused her manager and the company of bullying.

The FWC investigated the allegation and found:

• There was no repeated unreasonable behaviour. The employer’s requirement for attendance at the workplace and restrictions on outside employment were reasonable in the circumstances.

• No risk to health or safety was established, despite the employee’s claim of psychological distress supported by a medical certificate. The FWC emphasised that causation (linking the conduct to the distress) had not been established.

• Any differential treatment was not shown to be targeted “singling out” or based on unreasonable grounds.

The FWC further commented that the case was primarily a dispute about employment conditions, not a matter involving actual bullying. The case was dismissed.

CASE 2: Applicant v Australian Government Health Agency (2025)

An employee made bullying allegations against multiple managers and colleagues over a range of workplace interactions. The application stemmed from perceptions of micromanagement, exclusion from meetings and dissatisfaction with internal complaint-handling.

The FWC reviewed each allegation, ultimately finding:

• There was no repeated unreasonable conduct directed at the worker. Explicit feedback, regular check-ins, and exclusion from certain meetings were all found to be legitimate aspects of management and operational decisions.

• The employer and managers had acted professionally, and in accordance with policies at all stages, including during investigations of complaints.

• The employee’s feedback for one manager, provided before lodging the complaint, was described as “glowing”, undermining the employee’s bullying claim.

• Brief, polite electronic communications or investigations handled by human resources did not constitute bullying.

The FWC stressed the difference between legitimate management of worker performance or conduct and bullying. Mere dissatisfaction with the outcome of workplace complaints, performance discussions or managerial discretion is not enough to substantiate a bullying claim.

What can we learn from these cases?

Managers have the right to tell employees to do their jobs. Supervisors must supervise staff in line with their position descriptions and established performance expectations.

From a health and safety standpoint, the WHS Act requires supervisors to manage and supervise employees to do their work safely, without risk to themselves, their co-workers, and customers/visitors.

A bullying claim lodged with the Fair Work Commission (FWC) may be dismissed if the conduct in question constitutes reasonable management action carried out in a fair and appropriate manner.

The failure to review and update workplace policies can lead to inconsistencies, outdated practices, and potential breaches of employment or WHS laws. A structured audit process ensures that your organisation’s documents not only comply with current legislation but also support best practice management and a culture of continuous improvement.

For more information on WHS training or WHS compliance services, or if you would like help to make your WHS management system even more robust, please feel free to contact us by email at train@courtenell.com.au or phone us on 02 9552 2066