Stop Bullying Orders

Stop Bullying Orders: Lessons from Tran v East Metropolitan Health Service

In the Tran v East Metropolitan Health Service case (2024 WAIRC 00821), Mr. Matthew Tran sought Stop Bullying Orders, alleging that his employer’s decision to relocate him and restrict his duties constituted bullying. His application for a second amendment was denied, highlighting critical legal boundaries employers and employees should understand regarding workplace bullying, reasonable management action, and procedural fairness.

This case, adjudicated by the Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission (WAIRC), provides valuable lessons for both workers and employers in navigating stop-bullying applications and management rights.

Bullying vs. Reasonable Management Action

Workplace bullying is defined as repeated unreasonable behaviour that creates a risk to health and safety. In contrast, reasonable management action taken in a reasonable manner does not constitute bullying, even if it causes discomfort to the employee.

In this case, Mr Tran alleged that his employer’s actions—such as moving him from his original position and restricting his duties—were unreasonable and constituted bullying. However, the East Metropolitan Health Service (EMHS) maintained that these decisions were legitimate and based on management needs, thus falling under reasonable management action.

The key takeaway here is the distinction between how an employee might perceive management actions and what is legally deemed as bullying. Even if decisions negatively affect an employee, they may not be classified as bullying if justified through reasonable management action. This line of defence is vital for employers to maintain control over legitimate business decisions while ensuring they don’t cross into bullying territory.

The Importance of Procedural Fairness

The case also highlights the significance of procedural fairness in workplace disputes. Mr. Tran’s complaint centred on a lack of fairness in how he was treated—particularly, that the employer had strayed from established policies and procedures. One of Mr. Tran’s complaints was that EMHS failed to follow its own processes in managing allegations against him, which contributed to his belief that he was being bullied.

For employers, the lesson here is clear: when undertaking management actions—especially those involving performance management or disciplinary measures—employers must strictly adhere to their internal policies and procedures. Deviating from these can not only erode trust but also open the door to legal challenges like bullying claims.

Documenting decisions, providing clear justifications, and ensuring that employees are given an opportunity to respond are crucial elements in demonstrating that management action was reasonable.

The Denial of Mr. Tran’s Amendment Request

The case also dealt with Mr. Tran’s request to amend his application for a second time. The WAIRC refused the amendment, noting that allowing it would essentially introduce new allegations and additional respondents to the case. This decision reflects the court’s focus on procedural efficiency and fairness to all parties.

Employers facing similar claims should take note of how the court handles attempts to widen the scope of bullying claims through amendments. Ensuring that claims remain specific and relevant to the original application helps both parties stay focused on the key issues and avoid undue delays.

For employees, this ruling highlights the need to present a clear and well-supported case from the outset. Additional claims or amendments that introduce new elements may face rejection, particularly if they substantially alter the scope of the proceedings or would require joining new parties late in the process.

What Employers Can Learn

To avoid becoming embroiled in similar disputes, employers should prioritise transparency and fairness in all management actions. Steps include:

• Consistent communication: Provide clear explanations for management decisions, especially when they involve performance issues or role changes.
• Documentation: Keep detailed records of all management actions, especially where performance management or disciplinary measures are involved.
• Policy Adherence: Follow internal procedures consistently, ensuring that decisions align with company policy.
• Offer Support: In cases where an employee feels aggrieved, offering support in the form of mediation or feedback sessions can prevent situations from escalating into legal claims.

Conclusion

The Tran v East Metropolitan Health Service case is a reminder that the line between workplace bullying, and reasonable management action is often nuanced and context-specific. For both employers and employees, understanding the legal boundaries, following procedural fairness, and maintaining clear communication is essential in resolving conflicts without escalating to legal action.

By taking these steps, employers can better defend against bullying claims, and employees can feel assured that their concerns are being addressed in a fair and transparent manner.

If you need assistance dealing with employee performance concerns, then you are in the right place. Get in touch and we can assist.

Written by Emily Jaksch.