Anthe Goutos [2026] FWC 263 (30 January 2026)

s.789FC - Application for an order to stop bullying

Application for an order to stop bullying - application dismissed

[1] This decision concerns an application made by Anthe Goutos under s 789FC of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) for an anti-bullying order against High Street Dental Clinic and its principal, Peter Douros. In brief summary, Ms Goutos contended that she was bullied by Mr Douros because on three occasions between 21 May 2019 and 26 August 2025 he verbally abused her, and because during this 6-year period, Mr Douros had established an 'increasingly oppressive workplace', including because lunch breaks were shortened, sick leave was not tolerated, injuries were not managed properly, temporary staff were not engaged to cover absences, and hard work was not acknowledged. Ms Goutos said that she was stressed because she feared losing her job, and that she had been required to take extended sick leave and was presently absent from work and was not able to return to the workplace. She sought orders that Mr Douros not contact her while her anti-bullying application was underway and that he cease 'all forms of employee engagement that are not in accordance with employment law.'

[2] The respondents denied that Ms Goutos had been bullied or that they had acted unreasonably. They denied that Mr Douros had verbally abused Ms Goutos and denied the general allegations relating to the alleged oppressive workplace. They said that on 3 September 2025, Ms Goutos was issued a written warning for falsifying her timesheets and defrauding the business.

[3] At the conclusion of a determinative conference earlier today, I dismissed the application for the following reasons. Section 789FF(1) provides that the Commission can make an anti-bullying order only if it is satisfied that: (i) a worker has been 'bullied at work' (that is, the worker has been subjected to repeated unreasonable behaviour that creates a risk to health and safety - see s 789FD(1)); and (ii) there is a risk that the worker will continue to be bullied at work. Having considered the materials filed by the parties and their oral submissions, I concluded that these elements were not made out.

[4] First, I was not satisfied that Ms Goutos had been bullied at work. The complaint referred to 3 instances of alleged verbal abuse over a 6-year period, the last of which was said to have occurred in August 2025. It is doubtful that three incidents over such a long period could have a sufficient connection to one another to amount to repeated conduct in the relevant sense. Further, the concerns about an oppressive workplace were general and unaccompanied by detail sufficient to establish that conduct of a bullying nature had occurred. I was not persuaded that Ms Goutos had been subjected to repeated unreasonable behaviour at work, such that she had been bullied. Secondly, I was not satisfied that the respondents' alleged conduct had created a risk to Ms Goutos's health and safety, because there was insufficient material to demonstrate any risk of this kind, or a link between such a risk and the alleged conduct. But even if the other elements in s 789FF were to be regarded as having been met, I did not consider that there was any basis to think that Ms Goutos would be subjected to bullying in the future. Ms Goutos did not refer to any specific instances of alleged bullying since August 2025. Further, Ms Goutos is not currently at work and there is no indication of any imminent return.

[5] I was not satisfied that the preconditions in s 789FF for the making of an antibullying order were met. I therefore had no power to make an order. In any event, I would not have exercised my discretion to make the order sought by Ms Goutos because it was too general, and it is not the role of the Commission to refashion the relief sought on its own motion.

[6] For these reasons, the application was dismissed.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer