Maree Pivetta [2026] FWC 357 (6 February 2026)

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

Application for stop bullying order - applicant not bullied at work - no future risk of bullying - application dismissed

[1] This decision concerns an application made by Ms Maree Pivetta (applicant) under s 789FC of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act) for a stop bullying order against Peninsula Health (respondent) and twelve Persons Named who are current employees of the respondent. The applicant seeks a stop bullying order directed to the respondent and the twelve Persons Named.

[2] The Commission has jurisdiction to make a stop bullying order if the three requirements specified in s 789FF(1) are made out. Firstly, a worker has made an application under s 789FC. Secondly, a worker has been "bullied at work" by an individual or a group of individuals (s 789FF(1)(b)(i)). Thirdly, there is a risk that the worker will continue to be "bullied at work" by the individual or group of individuals (s 789FF(1)(b)(ii).

[3] A worker is "bullied at work" if an individual or a group of individuals repeatedly behaves unreasonably towards the worker, or a group of workers of which the worker is a member, and that behaviour creates a risk to health and safety (s 789FD).

[4] The applicant is a part-time ward clerk employed by the respondent. The applicant has for about 15 years worked a Saturday shift in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) of the respondent.

[5] The applicant has made various allegations against the twelve Persons Named.

[6] The matter was heard by way of Determinative Conference on 2 February 2026. The applicant represented herself and gave evidence on her own behalf. The applicant also called another employee, IM (ward clerk - ICU) to give evidence.

[7] Mr Alexander Thomas of counsel was granted permission to represent the respondent and the twelve Persons Named. Mr Thomas was instructed by the Victorian Government Solicitor's Office. The respondent called four of the Persons Named to give evidence being RP (ward clerk - ICU), CB (cleaner and occasional ward clerk - ICU), SKS (Nurse Unit Manager - ICU) and TO (Operations Director - ICU and Emergency Services).

Allegations & Findings relating to Persons Named

[8] It is first necessary to consider whether the applicant has been bullied at work by an individual or group of individuals as she alleges.

[9] RP is a ward clerk employed by the respondent and usually works Monday to Friday. The applicant's allegations against RP are set out in Attachment A of her Form F72 and the applicant gave evidence that these allegations were true. RP gave evidence in response to these allegations.

[10] The applicant alleges RP said that she would "do whatever it takes" to remove the applicant and replace the applicant with another employee being CB. The applicant further alleges RP repeatedly stated to colleagues "I will do whatever it takes to get Maree Pivetta out". RP denies that she said this to the applicant or anyone else.

[11] IM was called to give evidence by the applicant. IM is the ward clerk at ICU on Sunday. At the Determinative Conference, IM provided the Commission an email and attached document dated 28 May 2024 he had sent the Nurse Unit Manager SKS. The 28 May email and document was a response from IM to SKS relating to issues raised with SKS by another employee concerning some administrative matters relating to weekend ward clerk administration. In his evidence, IM said that he had referred to RP's alleged "whatever it takes" comment in his 28 May 2024 document sent to SKS. However, IM's 28 May 2024 email contained no reference to the alleged "whatever it takes" comment, but raises issues about another employee, whilst making only passing reference to RP. When this was pointed out to IM, he maintained that he had heard RP make the alleged "whatever it takes". Having regard to the inconsistency in IM's evidence, I am not satisfied that RP made the alleged "whatever it takes" comment to IM concerning the applicant.

[12] I am not satisfied that the RP engaged in the alleged conduct being saying that she would "do whatever it takes" to remove the applicant or saying to colleagues "I will do whatever it takes to get Maree Pivetta out".

[13] The applicant alleges RP locked cupboards in the shared ICU office, leaving only one available to the applicant and her colleague. RP says that she locked a stationary cabinet at the request of the Nurse Unit Manager to prevent loss of stationary and locked two other drawers which contained her personal effects. I accept RP's evidence regarding the cabinet and drawers. I am not satisfied that RP engaged in unreasonable behaviour towards the applicant by locking a cabinet or two drawers. In any event, this allegation is of a trivial character and even if true, does not amount to bullying behaviour.

[14] The applicant alleges that RP removed applicant's personal photos from the office without permission and falsely claimed that she was requested to do so by the respondent's infection control section. RP says that she was asked by the respondent's infection control personnel to do so in accordance with this request and put those photos aside. I accept RP's account that she removed the applicant's personal photos because of the request of the respondent's infection control personnel. RP's conduct in removing the applicant's personal photos does not constitute unreasonable behaviour by RP to the applicant.

[15] The applicant alleges that RP targeted the applicant in the applicant's first year of employment after other staff complimented the applicant for being helpful and kind. The applicant alleges that the RP reacted to the compliments by commenting "What am I, chopped liver?" What about what I do for you?" RP denies targeting the applicant as alleged or making comments to the effect alleged by the applicant. I am not satisfied that RP targeted the applicant in the manner alleged after hearing compliments of the applicant's work from other staff. In any event, the applicant's first year of employment was in 2011.

[16] The applicant alleges that RP contacted the applicant and sought personal health information about a family member who was a patient. RP says that she rang and inquired about a family member who had been admitted for treatment by the respondent. The respondent submits that RP did not request medical information about a relative. Even if the applicant's allegation were true, I am not satisfied that the allegation constitutes unreasonable behaviour (of the type contemplated by s 789FD) by RP to the applicant.

[17] The applicant alleges that RP controlled administrative stock ordering to prevent the applicant and a colleague from managing or accessing supplies. RP says that she was allocated the function of managing administrative stock by the Nurse Unit Manager, who is her manager. The respondent also submits that RP's manager allocated RP this function as RP is a full-time ward clerk. I accept RP's account and the respondent's submission. Therefore, RP's control of the ordering of administrative stock cannot be considered to be unreasonable behaviour by RP to the applicant. In any event, this allegation is of a trivial character and even if true, does not amount to bullying behaviour.

[18] The applicant also alleges that RP monitored the applicant's work locations and contacted her manager to interfere with her shift allocations, spread false and damaging allegations across multiple wards thereby harming the applicant's personal reputation and took credit for workplace improvements that the applicant implemented thereby disregarding the applicant's contributions. RP denies each of these generalised allegations. There is no probative evidence before me that substantiates these generalised allegations which are nothing more than bare assertions and, as I have noted RP denies them. I am not satisfied that any of this alleged conduct by RP occurred as alleged by the applicant. Therefore, I am not satisfied that any of these matters give rise to a finding RP has behaved unreasonably to the applicant.

[19] CB is a cleaner employed by the respondent and works in the ICU. CB also occasionally performs relief duties as a ward clerk. The applicant's allegations against CB are set out in Attachment A of her Form F72 and the applicant gave evidence that these allegations are true. CB gave evidence in response to these allegations.

[20] The applicant alleges that CB sprayed her confined space work area with undiluted Antilchlor (a cleaning chemical) and that this was done by the CB while CB was wearing a mask and without CB notifying the applicant or ensuring proper safety, putting the applicant at risk. In her oral evidence, the applicant said that she identified that the work area and items in the area had been sprayed by CB when she returned to her work area and noticed that it was wet with the cleaning chemical.

[21] It was evident from the applicant's account that she did not see CB spray any substance but inferred that CB sprayed the solution as she was the cleaner on duty that day. CB says that she did not spray any undiluted Antichlor solution and as Antichlor is a tablet product which can only applied after it is dissolved in water and its application is by way of wiping and rather than spraying. CB says that in the ordinary course of her cleaning duties she wipes down work areas in the ICU with a diluted Antichlor solution. CB says that on the day in question, she wiped down the work area in which the applicant worked, and this was part of her ordinary duties to clean in the ICU. I accept CB's account, noting particularly that the applicant did not see CB spraying her area as alleged. Having regard to my findings, I do not consider that CB's conduct relating to the application of Antichlor constituted unreasonable behaviour by CB to the applicant.

[22] The applicant alleges that CB made false allegations of assault and property damages which were unsupported by CCTV, witness statements and never formally reported. In her oral evidence the applicant alleges that CB falsely alleged the applicant threw a vacuum cleaner and pushed CB in the shoulder. The applicant denies that she threw the vacuum cleaner and says that she merely unplugged the vacuum cleaner and lifted it out of her work area as CB was commencing to clean. The applicant denies that she pushed CB. The 'vacuum cleaner incident' occurred on the same day and subsequent to the alleged 'Antichlor incident'.

[23] It is not necessary for me to resolve the factual dispute in relation to the 'vacuum cleaner incident' ie whether or not the applicant threw the vacuum cleaner or pushed CB. However, I accept that CB bona fide believed that the applicant forcefully removed the vacuum cleaner and pushed her shoulder. The respondent submits that it conducted an investigation into CB's allegations and found that on the balance of probabilities, CB's complaint about the applicant was partially substantiated. In that regard, I note that the internal investigation found that applicant obstructed CB in the performance of her duties. However, due to a lack of evidence, the investigation did not substantiate CB's allegation that the applicant pushed CB. Consequently, in light of my finding regarding CB's bona fide belief and the investigation finding that the CB's allegations were partially substantiated, I am not satisfied that CB made a false allegation against the applicant. Therefore, I am not satisfied that CB engaged in unreasonable behaviour to the applicant by making allegations against the applicant as the applicant alleges.

[24] SKS is a Nurse Unit Manager employed by the respondent and works in the ICU. SKS supervises nursing and administrative staff in the ICU including the applicant and RP. The applicant's allegations against SKS are set out in Attachment A of her Form F72 and the applicant gave evidence that these allegations are true. SKS gave evidence in response to these allegations.

[25] The applicant alleges that SKS removed the applicant from her Saturday shift after pressure from RP. The applicant also alleges that SKS said to her "if you don't like it leave".

[26] I consider it inherently unlikely that SKS, in his capacity as Nurse Unit Manager, would have changed the applicant's shift as a result of "pressure" from RP. This seems a wholly unlikely scenario given SKS' relative seniority as Nurse Unit Manager compared to RP, who is a ward clerk, and the fact that SKS has acted in consultation with the respondent's HR in making the decision, as set out in paragraph [29] below.

[27] Furthermore, the applicant's allegation regarding her movement from the Saturday shift referred to in paragraph [25] above, is not consistent with the contemporaneous written record. This record indicates that SKS decided to change to the applicant's shifts to provide more support and supervision of the applicant in light of concerns held by the respondent regarding her conduct and performance. By letter dated 15 November 2024, SKS wrote to the applicant raising a number of issues regarding her performance or conduct. On 31 January 2025, SKS sent a covering email to the respondent to which was attached a letter entitled "Confirmation of Expectations" (the outcome letter). The outcome letter included the following matters:

I am providing you this letter as a record of our communication and expectations moving forward. As discussed, the meeting was an opportunity to raise some concerns with you and to assist you to ensure that you are provided with the necessary tools and support to meet the expectations of your role. This meeting is considered informal and the outcome is focused on action planning and support.

As discussed, effective immediately, you are required to meet the following expectations in relation to your conduct and behavior in the workplace:

• That you conduct yourself in a professional manner at all times, in accordance with Peninsula Health policies, guidelines and Code of Conduct.

• That all interactions will uphold the Peninsula Health values of: Be the Best, Be a Role Model, Be Open & Honest, Be Compassionate & Respectful and Be Collaborative and consider the impact to other employees at Peninsula Health.

• That you directly contribute to enabling a positive team culture with all team members and in the development of a psychologically safe workplace.

• That, pursuant to the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 (Vic), you take reasonable care for the health and safety of persons who may be affected by your acts or omissions at work.

• Notify me, in a timely manner, of any workplace issues that may be impacting on your capacity to perform your role ffectively [sic].

Please let me know if there is anything I can do to further support you in your role as a Ward Clerk. If similar issues arise in the future, a more formal disciplinary process may be undertaken.

[28] SKS' covering email accompanying the outcome letter stated as follows:

"As a form of support, I will be rostering you on Mondays (So the leadership team is available for you) ..."

[29] In his oral evidence SKS confirmed that he moved the applicant from her Saturday shift and allocated her to a weekday shift because he wanted to provide leadership support to the applicant. SKS, in consultation with the respondent's HR, made this decision after concerns regarding the applicant's conduct. SKS works on weekdays and would be present at the ICU if the applicant worked on a Monday. SKS gave evidence that he only intended this shift change to be temporary and intended to put her back on her Saturday shift if he was satisfied about the applicant's performance and conduct. I accept SKS's evidence regarding the change to the applicant's shift to a Monday, the reason for that change and that the change was intended to be temporary. I do not consider his decision to change the applicant's shift to be unreasonable behaviour on his part. SKS's decision was certainly not because of "pressure" from RP as alleged by the applicant. I am not satisfied that SKS's decision to change the applicant's shift constituted unreasonable behaviour by SKS towards the applicant.

[30] In her oral evidence, the applicant alleges that SKS placed her on a Monday shift despite knowing of the applicant's longstanding family commitment on a Monday which made her unable to work on that day. SKS gave oral evidence that when he sent the covering email and the outcome letter of, he was not aware of the applicant's family commitment on a Monday. SKS says that in subsequent phone call from the applicant, she indicated that she could not work on a Monday. SKS says that in this phone call he told the applicant that instead of Monday, she could work any other weekday. The applicant in substance acknowledges that in a phone call with SKS, she informed him that she could not work on Mondays and that suggested that she could work another day in the week. In her oral evidence, the applicant said that SKS's alleged comment "if you don't like it leave" was made during a phone call. SKS denies that he said to the applicant "if you don't like it leave". I accept SKS' denial. I assessed him as a candid witness and prefer his evidence to that of the applicant. I am not satisfied that SKS's conduct in allocating the applicant to a Monday shift constituted unreasonable behaviour by him, especially in circumstances where he offered the applicant alternative weekdays upon learning of her family commitment. I also find that SKS did not say to the applicant "if you don't like it leave" or any words to this effect. In light of my findings in respect of the allegations referred to in this paragraph, I am not satisfied that SKS engaged in unreasonable behaviour to the applicant as alleged.

[31] The applicant makes a generalised allegation that SKS "failed to provide any support or intervention while she was targeted and mistreated in the workplace and appeared to align with those seeking to push her out". I reject this allegation in its entirety. SKS described his approach and that of the respondent to resolving issues of workplace conflict as being to first ascertain whether the issues could be resolved informally and, if not, then to investigate allegations if appropriate. Furthermore, the applicant's allegation against SKS is somewhat inconsistent with an email the applicant sent SKS on 8 February 2025 responding to the outcome letter and covering email. In that 8 February email, the applicant formally indicated that she could not work on Monday and conveyed to SKS the following sentiments "I want to express my gratitude for your encouragement and support during this period ..." and "Thank you once again for everything. I appreciate your understanding ...". I reject the applicant's allegation that SKS failed to provide her with support and intervention. On the material before me, the steps taken by SKS in relation to the applicant were about dealing with bona fide concerns he held regarding her performance or conduct. In light of my finding in respect of the allegation referred to in this paragraph, I am not satisfied that SKS engaged in unreasonable behaviour to the applicant as alleged.

[32] TO is the respondent's Operations Director - ICU and Emergency Services. The headcount of the ICU and Emergency services department is 425 EFT.

[33] The applicant alleges that TO supported a former Nurse Unit Manager of the respondent (JW) in suspending the applicant without factual evidence or an HR representative present. This vague allegation and the applicant's evidence regarding these matters do not form a basis for me to conclude that TO has behaved unreasonably towards the applicant. In any event, a decision to suspend pending a disciplinary investigation does not require conclusive or complete evidence regarding the allegation. Furthermore, the absence of an HR representative at a time when TO and JW met the applicant to communicate her suspension pending the disciplinary process, does not constitute TO behaving unreasonably to the applicant.

[34] The applicant further alleged in her Form F72 that when TO and JW met with the applicant TO said "just suck it up". This was an evident reference to an initial meeting attended by TO, JW and the applicant during which the applicant was informed of disciplinary allegations and her suspension. TO categorically denied that she ever said "just suck it up" to the applicant in this meeting. During the Determinative Conference, in response to questions from the Commission, the applicant withdrew this allegation, acknowledged that TO never said "just suck it up" and indicated that this allegation had been included in her application by error. I am not satisfied that anything TO said to the applicant at the time of the suspension constituted TO behaving unreasonably to the applicant.

[35] The applicant further alleges that TO permitted SKS "to continue the bullying after I complained to HR" and that she "has not taken effective action to address the ongoing bullying from management and staff in the ICU." TO is the Operations Director of two significant departments of the respondent. TO's evidence is that she had not been informed by any person of an allegation by the applicant of bullying. I accept TO's evidence. Further, I note that TO at the time of the applicant's suspension provided the applicant her phone number in recognition that it would be a difficult period with the applicant. As noted above, I have rejected the applicant's bullying allegations against SKS. On this basis alone, I cannot be satisfied that TO behaved unreasonably to the applicant by permitting SKS to continue bullying. Furthermore, in circumstances where TO was not aware of allegations by the applicant of bullying, there is no basis for me to conclude that TO permitted SKS to continue "the bullying" or that TO "has not taken effective action to address the ongoing bullying from management and staff in the ICU." Consequently, I am not satisfied that TO engaged in unreasonable behaviour towards the applicant as alleged.

Allegations against CT, JH, ER, EF, LD, VM, MH, N (surname unknown)

[36] The applicant makes various allegations against CT, JH, ER, EF, LD, VM, MH and N (surname unknown) all of whom are other employees of the respondent. Many of these allegations are to the effect that these persons were part of a wider campaign against the applicant in the ICU or the respondent's Workforce Bureau. I accept the respondent's submission that the allegations made against each of those persons are vague and imprecise assertions. The applicant's allegations and evidence regarding those allegations does not satisfy me that CT, JH, ER, EF, LD, VM, MH and N have behaved unreasonably to the applicant.

[37] I note that two of the employees referred to above, namely ER and EF are members of the respondent's Workforce Bureau. The Workforce Bureau is involved in offering existing staff additional work in other wards (ie wards other than their primary ward) of the respondent where the need arises. The applicant asserts that ER, who is a Workforce Manager, has engaged in conduct which has prevented the applicant from working across other wards. The applicant asserts that EF has participated in decisions that her restricted her ability to work. These assertions fall within the category of the vague and imprecise allegations referred to in the paragraph immediately above. But furthermore, I note that the applicant has no entitlement to be offered additional shifts by the respondent. In any event, the applicant's evidence indicates that she has been offered and worked additional shifts in other wards (ie wards other than ICU) but says that this is only where the respondent cannot obtain other staff to do so. None of the allegations or the applicant's evidence concerning ER and EF in respect of the offering of work to the applicant in other wards, founds a conclusion that ER and EF have behaved unreasonably towards the applicant.

Conclusion regarding Whether Applicant Bullied at Work

[38] In light of my conclusions above concerning the applicant's allegations against the Persons Named, I am not satisfied that the Persons Named have either individually or as a group of individuals repeatedly behaved unreasonably to the applicant. Therefore, I am not satisfied that the applicant has been bullied at work within the meaning of s 789FD(1). As noted above, one of the three jurisdictional pre-requisites under s 789FF(1) to the making of a stop bullying order is that the Commission must be satisfied that the applicant has been bullied at work by an individual or a group of individuals (s 789FF(1)(b)(i)). As I am not satisfied that the applicant has been bullied at work by an individual or a group of individuals there is no jurisdiction for the Commission to make a stop bullying order as the 789FF as the requirement in s 789F(1)(b)(i) has not been made out. Consequently, on this ground alone the applicant's application must be dismissed.

[39] Furthermore, there are circumstances relating to the applicant's current work arrangements which are pertinent to the third jurisdictional pre-requisite for the making of a stop bullying order, being the Commission's satisfaction that there is a risk that the applicant will continue to be bullied at work by an individual or a group of individuals (s 789FF(1)(b)(ii)).

[40] As noted in paragraph [36] above, the applicant is from time to time presently working additional shifts in other wards (ie wards other than ICU) when offered by the respondent and when the applicant accepts those shifts. However, in respect of her Monday ICU shift, the applicant is currently simply submitting a medical certificate in the day or days prior to the Monday ICU shift, such certificate indicating that the applicant is unfit to work on that day. The applicant in her evidence indicated that this situation would continue indefinitely. In these circumstances, in light of the applicant's indefinite absence from work at the ICU in respect of her allocated Monday shift, I am not satisfied that there is a risk that the applicant will continue to be "bullied at work" by an individual or group of individuals. This is certainly true in relation to work at the ICU noting the applicant's indefinite absence from each of her allocated shifts at ICU. Furthermore, when the applicant is offered and accepts work in other wards (ie wards other than ICU), there is no basis to find a continuing risk of bullying of the applicant, arising from the conduct of any of the Persons Named whether staff in the ICU staff or the Workforce Bureau.

[41] Therefore, separately from my lack of satisfaction that the applicant has been bullied at work by the Persons Named, I am also not satisfied that there is a risk, whether present or proximate, that the applicant will continue to be bullied at work by an individual or group. Consequently, I am also not satisfied that the jurisdictional requirement in s 789FF(1)(b)(ii) is made out.

[42] Having regard my reasons set out above, the applicant's application under s s789FC is dismissed.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer