//
[2026] FWC 717
General information, not legal advice.
Fair Work Commission
2026-04-02
Original judgment source is linked above.
s.789FC - Application for an order to stop bullying
Applications by Ms Rose Banfield and Ms Katrina Stolz
Applications for FWC order(s) to stop bullying - Applicants not bullied at work - no future risk of bullying - applications dismissed
[1] This decision concerns applications made by Ms Rose Banfield and Ms Katrina Stolz (together, the Applicants) under s.789FC of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the FW Act) for stop bullying orders against Ms Bibe Best (the Person Named).
[2] TARHF 2 Pty Ltd (TARHF/the Employer) is the Employer of the Applicants and manages the Marina View Apartments (the Complex). Ms Stolz is the Portfolio Manager for TARHF, who oversees all properties in Queensland and the Northern Territory. Ms Stolz also provides support and guidance to the onsite caretakers of Marina View. Ms Banfield is employed by TARHF in the neighbouring unit block, but was formally the caretaker for the Complex. Ms Banfield also assisted the current caretakers for a period of time.
[3] Mr Ian King and Ms Supattra (Didee) Suwannarat, former onsite caretakers at the Complex, had also made applications seeking stop bullying orders against Ms Best in matters AB2025/748 and AB2025/751. Mr King and Ms Suwannarat filed materials and attended the Hearing in this matter, however, they have since advised that they have resigned from their employment. Accordingly, their applications cannot proceed on the basis of s.789FF(1)(b)(ii) of the FW Act. The materials that they filed and the evidence that was given will no longer form part of this decision.
[4] Ms Best is the Secretary of the Body Corporate and an owner of an apartment and an office at the Complex.
[5] The Commission has jurisdiction to make a stop bullying order if the three requirements specified in s.789FF(1) are made out:
(a) a worker has made an application under section 789FC; and
(b) the FWC is satisfied that:
(i) the worker has been bullied at work by an individual or a group of individuals; and
(ii) there is a risk that the worker will continue to be bullied at work by the individual or group;
then the FWC may make any order it considers appropriate (other than an order requiring payment of a pecuniary amount) to prevent the worker from being bullied at work by the individual or group."
[6] Section 789FD outlines when a person is considered to have been "bullied at work":
(a) while the worker is at work in a constitutionally‑covered business:
(i) an individual; or
(ii) a group of individuals;
repeatedly behaves unreasonably towards the worker, or a group of workers of which the worker is a member; and
(b) that behaviour creates a risk to health and safety.
(2) To avoid doubt, subsection (1) does not apply to reasonable management action carried out in a reasonable manner.
(3) If a person conducts a business or undertaking (within the meaning of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011) and either:
(a) the person is:
(i) a constitutional corporation; or
(ii) the Commonwealth; or
(iii) a Commonwealth authority; or
(iv) a body corporate incorporated in a Territory; or
(b) the business or undertaking is conducted principally in a Territory or Commonwealth place;
then the business or undertaking is a constitutionally‑covered business."
[7] Ms Banfield, Mr King and Ms Suwannarat lodged their applications with the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) on 8 September 2025. These parties requested that their applications be determined jointly.
[8] After Directions had issued and a Hearing date had been set in relation to these applications, Ms Stolz filed an application with the Commission on 18 November 2025, with a request that it be determined jointly with her colleagues' applications.
[9] I conducted a further Directions Conference on 3 December 2025 to seek all parties' views. I determined that it was appropriate to join Ms Stolz's application and to hear and determine all four matters jointly.
[10] Amended Directions and new Hearing dates were set on that same date.
[11] A joint Hearing was conducted by Video via Microsoft Teams on 3 February 2026.
[12] The Applicants were self-represented at the Hearing. Mr John Zeckendorf, the owner of TARHF, appeared as a support person for the Applicants. Mr Zeckendorf also filed a witness statement which formed part of the Hearing Book in this matter, but was withdrawn on the day of the Hearing on the basis that he did not want to be cross-examined.
[13] Ms Suwannarat was unwell and was unable to participate in the Hearing.
[14] Mr Lucio Matarazzo, Industrial Relations Consultant, Lucio Matarazzo Pty Ltd, was granted leave to appear as the representative for Ms Best.
[15] Ms Best gave evidence on her own behalf at the Hearing.
[16] This decision determines the applications made by Ms Banfield and Ms Stolz.
[17] Ms Banfield outlined alleged bullying behaviours against her by Ms Best, which are summarised as follows:
[18] At the Hearing, further to questions from myself, Ms Banfield testified that she is not at risk of any future alleged bullying from Ms Best:
"...So as we sit here today, what is the current relationship between you and I think the building is called MV in the - - -?‑‑‑With Marina View?
Yes?‑‑‑Yes. The relationship is that I am - Ian and Didee come and communicate with me for any issues in the building, but I am there to sort of be in the background to help them.
So do you have any ongoing contact with Ms Best?‑‑‑No, I don't.
All right. So there's no capacity for Ms Best to bully you in the future?‑‑‑Well, we have asked - yeah. We have asked for Ms Best not to have any communication with myself.
And Ms Best hasn't breached that, has she, by ignoring that request?‑‑‑No..."[1]
[19] Ms Stolz stated that, in light of bullying allegations having been raised by Mr King and Ms Suwannarat against Ms Best, she had been appointed as a liaison between the onsite caretakers and Ms Best. Ms Stolz stated that, as a result of her becoming the liaison between the caretakers and Ms Best, she has also been subjected to condescending, dismissive and belittling behaviour from Ms Best via written communications.
[20] Ms Stolz annexed and relied upon copies of written communications which contained comments from Ms Best as follows:
Email correspondence from Ms Best to Ms Stolz and others, dated 31 October 2024:
"_..._Although I really do not want to start dignifying ignorant comments - you should know better than to assert that I have any conflict of interest in holding TARHF2 accountable to do their job.
If you do not understand the term "conflict of interest" then please educate yourself before using it or attempting to assert doubt over my character or conduct. We are not playing that game any longer."
Email correspondence from Ms Best to Ms Stolz and others, dated 7 January 2025:
"...If a communication is sent to the caretakers & the committee is copied in then you should respond to it immediately as employees of the Body Corporate.
This is not a threat but if we need to keep issuing breaches for you guys to do your job, then I will continue to do so as it presently seems like the only method that gets action from you guys."
Email correspondence from Ms Best to Ms Stolz and others, dated 9 January 2025:
"I do not want to start the year off correcting you..."
Email correspondence from Ms Best to Ms Stolz and others, dated 11 February 2025:
"It's not my job to do your job (even though it feels like it sometimes) & clearly others don't notify you of stuff, maybe they, like me, wrongfully assume it will get noticed by someone in the caretaker team.
I shouldn't need to explain this because I should not be the one questioned on this...
Respectfully Rose, the fact that you need to ask why someone else didn't voluntarily do the job of the caretaker as if you are surprised or offended, is part of the attitudinal problem we deal with here at MVA. Just say thank you for the notification & let us know you've fixed it - not get defensive & make the rhetorical question come back to yourself...
I look forward to the day I don't need to send any emails regarding any issues, because they are proactively solved by our caretakers here at MVA or when you are notified because we are all in the same team, you just take responsibility."
Email correspondence from Ms Best to Ms Stolz and others, dated 25 June 2025:
"We are holding a Body Corporate Committee meeting at 12 tomorrow 26/6/25 at the SCA training room (unit 52) on the ground floor of MVA.
I apologise for the short notice but would be grateful if one or both of you could join our meeting at about 12:30pm for even 5-10mins to get an introduction to the committee and the Sunbuild team currently onsite & just give the committee a quick update of your induction, so it can also be minuted & sent to owners please..."
Email correspondence from Ms Best to Ms Stolz and others, dated 6 August 2025:
"...The committee instructs that the caretakers implement security measures including cameras be installed or at very minimum quoted on for the committee to approve by tomorrow..."
Email correspondence from Ms Best to Ms Stolz and others, dated 22 October 2025:
"...Hopefully I don't need to remind you that it is important to have all our equipment & operational parts functioning properly for the whole building."
Email correspondence from Ms Best to Ms Stolz and others, dated 17 November 2025:
"Katrina, As [sic] my assistant clearly states she is communicating on my behalf - I wonder why you think it would be a reasonable response to handball her back to me?
This has now effected [sic] my business operations for weeks & the revolving roundabout of emails has unnecessarily consumed the body corporate unproductively.
We request that you respond with the required professionalism to answer the questions of tenants/owners any outstanding queries created by the caretakers in relation to these leaks.
If this is done appropriately [sic] & the committee (even if its [sic] just cc'd to me as the appointed communicator) are copied in then we are all on the same page. To date this is not what has occured [sic] ..."
[21] Ms Stolz submitted that the above correspondence excerpts are examples of Ms Best using hostile, condescending, defensive and intimidatory communication styles. Further, the communications contain examples of unrealistic, tight timeframes set by Ms Best.
[22] Ms Stolz stated that Ms Best's conduct towards her has become "increasingly hostile, targeted and personally demeaning", involving "direct and unjustified attack[s] on [her] professionalism and integrity".
[23] Ms Stolz stated that, as contained in the above excerpts, Ms Best has repeatedly questioned her competence, experience and knowledge.
[24] In response to the various allegations raised by the Applicant's, Ms Best submitted that there has also been "reverse bullying retaliation by the Applicants...to divert attention from their underperformance of their duties and obligations... [and] their insubordinate conduct".
[25] Ms Best submitted that the Applicants' applications have no merit and should be dismissed.
[26] Ms Best relied on a number of case authorities in support of her contention that the applications lack merit, including the decision in Application by Stephen Hanson [2021] FWC 2200, in which it was stated:
"[24] Firstly, the test imposed is an objective one, with the measure of "reasonability" being a question of fact. In other words, the impugned behaviour will be caught by s.789FD if a reasonable person (having regard to all the facts and circumstances) may consider it to be unreasonable.
[25] Secondly, the word "repeatedly" must be applied, meaning that a single incidence of unreasonable behaviour will fall outside the scope of the section. Beyond a single incidence, however, there is no specific number of incidences required to meet the requirement for "repeated" (unreasonable) behaviour.
[26] Thirdly, the impugned behaviour must also "create a risk to the health and safety"...
[29] Sixthly, even if a worker is able to establish the impugned behaviour satisfies the criteria in sub-s.789FD(1) of the Act, sub-s.789(2) of the Act operates to qualify the impugned behaviour if that behaviour is "reasonable management action carried out in a reasonable manner"..."
[27] Ms Best submitted that she has not engaged in 'unreasonable' management action with the Applicants. Ms Best relied here on the decision of Deputy President Hampton in Application by Ms SB [2014] FWC 2104, in which the Deputy President stated:
"[51] The test is whether the management action was reasonable, not whether it could have been undertaken in a manner that was 'more reasonable' or 'more acceptable'. In general terms this is likely to mean that:
[29] Ms Best submitted that in her communications and dealings with the Applicants, she was directing the workers to perform their duties in "no less than a satisfactory manner". Ms Best submitted that these communications and dealings with the Applicants do not constitute bullying. Ms Best also submitted that the Applicant have the "wrong perception as to the degree of autonomy they are entitled to".
"management prerogative to instruct and direct employees of TARHF 2 Pty Ltd to perform their work and or conduct themselves at the workplace in a diligent, productive, efficient cooperative and non-lazy and non-malingering manner".
[31] Ms Best submitted that there has been no particularisation of any alleged health hazards provided by the Applicants in their materials before the Commission. Ms Best submitted that her actions do not amount to bullying and pose no risk to the health and safety of the Applicants, therefore, the applications should be dismissed.
"Ms Stoltz, I will refer you to page 152 and 153 of the court book?‑‑‑All right.
I put to you that this is an example of a strident, combative style of communications you have with the body corporate. What do you say to that?‑‑‑What specific area are you referring to on page 152?
And 153. That's an email you sent to Mr Bell in regards to alleged breaches of the legislation?‑‑‑Yes. So sorry, can you ask your question again. I'm sorry.
I'm saying isn't that an example of the combative type of communications that TARHF are having with the body corporate?"
[33] For completeness, the correspondence contained at pages 152 and 153 of the Hearing Book is an email from Ms Stolz to Mr Roger Bell of Bell Strata, dated 31 October 2025:
During the Fair Work Commission hearing held on 13 October, the issue of smoking in common areas was raised.
We wish to formally advise that staff and guests of Star College continue to smoke and vape within the common area of the building, specifically on the Ground Floor. This includes the public corridor, stairwell, and main thoroughfare.
This area also serves as our workplace, and at present, painters and other contractors are undertaking works there. We are therefore concerned for the health and safety of all occupants and workers exposed to second-hand smoke and vapour in these shared spaces.
As noted in the building's Articles attached, item 26 - Smoking: "Smoking is prohibited in all common areas, including the lift, BBQ and pool areas. Smokers are to use the designated smoking area, as signed." The ongoing smoking within these areas is in clear breach of this Article.
Additionally, under the Tobacco Control Act 2002 (NT) and Tobacco Control Regulations 2002 (NT), smoking is prohibited in enclosed public areas, enclosed workplaces, and areas of common access such as toilets, lobbies, staff rooms, corridors, thoroughfares, or stairways. This legislation, as outlined on the Northern Territory Government website, reinforces that domestic premises used as workplaces where employees or members of the public have access must also remain smoke-free.
In light of both the building's Articles and Northern Territory legislation, we respectfully request that the body corporate take the appropriate steps to issue a breach notice to the relevant lot for non-compliance with these obligations.
[34] At the Hearing, I asked Ms Best whether she was willing to provide a commitment that she would modify her communication style. In response, Ms Best stated:
"So Ms Best, are you prepared to accept that your approach to sending emails and the language that you use is confronting?‑‑‑I'm prepared to accept that sometimes holding people accountable is confronting. Yes.
No, that wasn't quite the question I asked. Are you prepared to accept that the language that you use in the emails is sometimes confronting?‑‑‑I'm prepared to accept that some people can perceive my communication in that way. Yes, in the circumstance with that intention, but yes, I can understand they could perceive that.
Okay. So on the basis that every individual is different, every individual views situations and takes notice of every situation differently, are you prepared to give the Fair Work Commission the commitment that you will modify your communication style to make it less confronting for people?‑‑‑Well, 100 per cent. I'm prepared to always make a commitment to evolve and to become better at what, you know, what I do and the tasks that I have to - have to, you know, undertake. Yes, 100 per cent. I would never deny that I'm not beyond being corrected. 100 per cent.
Are you prepared to accept or give a commitment? I will rephrase this. You are an experienced businesswoman and a successful one in a wide variety of life's endeavours. Are you prepared to accept that questioning an individual's competence in relation to their role could be deemed by that person to be offensive?‑‑‑I don't believe I have directly questioned someone's competence. It's just - it's not, generally, conversations that I have telling somebody that they're incompetent...
...So again, I know that I can only try, and say, 'Yes, I am making that commitment. I will try', but I do have to put a caveat on it that when I'm on a receiving end of quite relentless - relentless taunting, quite relentless character assassinations, that it will be challenging for me. Again, this whole process has evolved me to becoming quite unbothered, especially when the lies come, so yes, I can safely make that commitment that when those things happen now I actually have less desire to want to respond to them..."[4]
[35] It is first necessary to consider whether the Applicants have been bullied at work by the Person Named, Ms Best.
[36] I note that, as outlined at paragraph [18] of this decision, Ms Banfield has testified that she is not at risk of any future alleged bullying from Ms Best.
[37] On this basis, due to s.789FF(1)(b)(ii), the Commission has no jurisdiction to issue an order to stop bullying.
[38] Therefore, I am satisfied and find that Ms Banfield's application should be dismissed.
[39] Ms Stolz is an experienced and very competent employee. Her professionalism should not have been questioned by Ms Best. However, I am not satisfied that Ms Stolz's health and safety has been put at risk by Ms Best's behaviour, which is a requirement of s.789FD(1)(b). Relevantly, that does not mean that Ms Best's behaviour will not create a health risk for Ms Stolz in the future if her tone of communication does not modify. This finding may not have been repeated in relation to some of the original applicants. I have taken this into account.
[40] There is no doubt that Ms Best displays some of the characteristics of a narcissist. That is not a criticism of Ms Best, but simply a description of her personality. She is a successful businesswoman in a variety of fields. It is plainly obvious though, that she is very assertive and demanding. With a keen interest in politics, it is not surprising that she can be argumentative and unwilling to backdown or accept an alternate point of view. I have taken this into account.
[41] I agree that some of the timeframes for the performance of work were totally unrealistic. To suggest that the caretaker could have installed or even obtained a competitive quote for the installation of security cameras within 24 hours is simply ridiculous. In reality, you could hopefully get an inspection undertaken by one contractor in that period, but a quote could take days. Whilst this request was bordering on delusional, it is not bullying. I have taken this into account.
[42] Further, the relationship between Ms Best and Mr Zeckendorf also sets the standard for the relationship between the parties. Whilst Ms Best's communication is seen as combative and demeaning, the same could be said for Mr Zeckendorf's emails. Examples of correspondence sent by Mr Zeckendorf are as follows:
I have not included your earlier CC list to avoid any embarrassment to you.
It is clear from your emails that you do not understand how any of the agreements work. This is especially disturbing given you are the main BC person with oversight."
Thanks Bibe. Alas, I suspect you need to take some legal advice on how these agreements actually work not how you would like to think that they work ...........
I suspect we are going to head in circles here based on your lack of understanding on how the documents and roles work. We do understand both the roles and documents and have taken advice and having reviewed the situation, done our best to explain why what happened. That you still don't understand or continue to persist in your own idea of how the law works, leaves me with little more I can do for you in this regard."
Nope. Just you and me as representatives of our organisations. Unless you would like me to lawyer up also and put everything on the record, but we won't get much done in half an hour.
I note that Ms Stolz was copied into each of these emails from Mr Zeckendorf and, therefore, experienced the tone of the communication between Mr Zeckendorf and Ms Best.
[43] As provided above, those emails are full of legal threats, innuendo and demeaning commentary. Whilst the principles of equity do not exist in industrial relations ('the parties must come to court with clean hands') it is hardly appropriate for an employee of a contractor to complain about the behaviour of a client, if the principal of the contractor is engaged in similar 'complained about' behaviour towards a client. I have taken this into account.
[44] Treating people with courtesy and respect is an essential element for good workplace relations. In a scenario such as this, where there is a degree of frustration on both sides of the relationship, courtesy and respect is even more important to establish an appropriate working relationship. I am satisfied that the written communications between the parties, including those of Mr Zeckendorf, do not meet an appropriate standard of courtesy and respect.
[45] Whilst the emails of Ms Best could be described as being confronting, I do not believe that they satisfy the standard required to be identified as bullying. Ms Best's correspondence, which had the support of the Body Corporate, identifies an obvious frustration by the Body Corporate with TARHF.
[46] Ms Best was unaware that her communication style had caused such concern and grief amongst the Applicants. None of the Applicants raised with Ms Best their concerns about her communications. It beggars belief that a person could be accused of bullying without having had the opportunity to correct their behaviour, or even have their behaviour raised with them by the offended party.
[47] Ms Best has accepted that she needs to do better in relation to her communication style when sending emails on behalf of the Body Corporate. She is not dealing with university professors, politicians or people involved in the provision of education, but with employees of a contractor engaged to manage the maintenance of an apartment complex. I expect Ms Best to adhere to this commitment. If she fails to do so and repeats the behaviour that she has displayed in the past, then any future complaints of bullying against Ms Best may result in a different outcome.
[48] On the basis that Ms Banfield will not have any dealings with Ms Best in the future, and that any order that I make is in relation to prospective behaviour of Ms Best, I dismiss Ms Banfield's application.
[49] In relation to Ms Stolz, for the reasons identified above and the commitments given by Ms Best to improve her communication style, I dismiss Ms Stolz's bullying application.
[2] Application by Mrs Miranda Jane Gore [2016] FWC 2559; Application by Luis Perez [2016] FWC 4097.
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer