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

Application for an FWC order to stop bullying - application dismissed under s 587

• [1] On 2 May 2025, Mr Jimmy Parel (the applicant/worker) applied for an order to stop bullying at work under s 789FC of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). Mr Parel is a Registered Nurse who works in the Emergency Department. Mr Parel's employer is Northern Health (respondent), and he says he was bullied by Mrs Casey Crooks, Clinical Nurse Specialist and Clinical Support Nurse (named person).

• [2] I held conferences on 5 August and 12 September 2025 to discuss and explore resolution of this matter. Those discussions were not successful.

• [3] I issued directions on 17 September 2025 that required the parties to file submissions, witness statements and documents. Those directions initially required Mr Parel to file his materials on 2 October 2025. I granted Mr Parel's request for an extension of time within which to file his materials to 9 October 2025.

• [4] Mr Parel did not file his materials by that further deadline.

• [5] On 13 October 2025, Mr Parel asked me to recuse myself from the matter, which I declined in [2025] FWC 3097 (published on 16 October 2025).

• [6] In the decision above and by email on 9, 13, 16 October and 23 October 2025, Mr Parel was reminded about the requirement to file materials, and the consequences of failing to do so.

• [7] I held a hearing on Thursday 20 November 2025. Mr Parel did not attend the hearing. My associate telephoned Mr Parel at the commencement of the hearing. Mr Parel told my associate he was not aware of the hearing date, but my chambers informed Mr Parel of the hearing date on multiple occasions (in a Notice of Listing sent on 17 September 2025 and in emails on 1, 9 and 23 October 2025). My associate offered to bring Mr Parel into the hearing by telephone or video, but Mr Parel declined, saying that we could proceed without him.

• [8] The Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation (ANMF) on Mrs Crooks' behalf filed a witness statement and written submissions at the commencement of the hearing. I accepted both. The ANMF submitted that I should dismiss the matter as the applicant had not been bullied at work as alleged and that the application should be dismissed under s 587(1)(b) and (c) of the Act.

• [9] I grant the application and dismiss Mr Parel's application for the following reasons.

• [10] Section 587 of the Act says:

(1) Without limiting when the FWC may dismiss an application, the FWC may dismiss an application if:

(a) the application is not made in accordance with this Act; or

(b) the application is frivolous or vexatious; or

(c) the application has no reasonable prospects of success.

Note: For another power of the FWC to dismiss an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal made under Division 5 of Part 3 - 2, see section 399A.

(2) Despite paragraphs (1)(b) and (c), the FWC must not dismiss an application under section 365, 536LU or 773, or an application under section 527F that does not consist solely of an application for a stop sexual harassment order, on the ground that the application:

(a) is frivolous or vexatious; or

(b) has no reasonable prospects of success.

(a) on its own initiative; or

(b) on application.

• [11] The Full Bench in Viavattene v Health Care Australia [2013] FWCFB 2532 at [39] said that the above grounds do not limit the Commission's power to dismiss an application, and the Commission can also dismiss an application where

an applicant's conduct clearly demonstrates an unwillingness to participate in proceedings commenced at his or her initiative.

• [12] I am not satisfied that Mr Parel's application is frivolous or vexatious. The Full Bench in Gorman v Australia Post [2010] FWAFB 9413 at [10] said that the phrase

would suggest that the application must demonstrably be of such little merit or pursued for such ulterior purposes or motives as would amount to an abuse of process.

• [13] This is a high bar. The Full Bench went on to say that the Commission should only exercise its power to dismiss applications on this ground in limited circumstances (at [12]).

• [14] Although much of his material was irrelevant, there is sufficient information in Mr Parel's application and the various materials, emails and other documents that he has supplied to my chambers throughout these proceedings to discern that he contends he was bullied by Mrs Crooks on 3 occasions, and more generally, members of Northern Health management in unspecified ways and on unspecified occasions. It was appropriate for him to be given an opportunity to put his case. That he has not taken up the opportunity does not render his application frivolous or vexatious nor is there any material from which I could draw an inference that the application was made for any other purpose than to stop bullying that Mr Parel believes he has experienced.

• [15] Mrs Crooks denies the allegations of bullying and further submits that the actions alleged by Mr Parel to be bullying were reasonable management action carried out in a reasonable manner. Her submissions and evidence are persuasive. But I do not make findings for the reason that Mr Parel has not had an opportunity to respond to those submissions and Mrs Crooks' evidence.

• [16] Nevertheless, I dismiss Mr Parel's application because I am satisfied that Mr Parel's application does not have reasonable prospects of success and he has failed to prosecute his application.

• [17] The Commission may make any order it considers appropriate to stop bullying but only if it is satisfied that the worker has been bullied at work and that there is a risk that the worker will continue to be bullied at work. Mr Parel has failed to file any materials from which I could make any factual findings, and he failed to attend the hearing. I am satisfied that Mr Parel was given a fair opportunity to present his case and that he was informed of the consequences of failing to do so.

• [18] Further, Mr Parel has failed to prosecute his case. It is not credible that Mr Parel was not aware of the hearing date. He was informed during a case management conference on 12 September 2025 and on multiple occasions by email; he replied to some of those emails. Mr Parel declined the opportunity to participate by telephone or video when that was offered to him at the commencement of the hearing. He offered no explanation for why he did not and would not attend.

• [19] Mrs Crooks and her representative, and Northern Health did attend the hearing; they have been inconvenienced by Mr Parel's failure to attend the hearing and to comply with directions. Bullying allegations are necessarily upsetting, including for named persons and respondents. They deserve the opportunity to have the matter resolved; Mr Parel's non-attendance has deprived them of that opportunity. Given his apparent disinterest in prosecuting his matter, I am of the view that it is not appropriate to provide him with any further opportunity.

• [20] For all the above reasons, I dismiss Mr Parel's application under s 587 of the Act.

• [21] I order that the application for a stop bullying order under matter number AB2025/353 filed by Mr Jimmy Parel on 2 May 2025 be dismissed under section 587 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

Ms M Stojanoski and Ms C Baker for the Respondent.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer