Fair Work Commission|2025-10-13

Mrs Prabhjot Kaur [2025] FWC 3052 (13 October 2025)

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

Application for order to stop bullying -whether action is bullying under the FW Act -whether reasonable management action carried out in a reasonable manner - whether individuals repeatedly behaved unreasonably so as to create a risk to health and safety - no conduct found to have amounted to bullying for the purposes of the FW Act - no risk to health and safety found - no basis to make an order - application dismissed.

[1] Mrs Prabhjot Kaur (Applicant) has made an application to the Fair Work Commission (Commission) for an order to stop bullying at work under s.789FC of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). The application was made seeking stop bullying orders that apply to Doutta Galla Aged Services Ltd (Respondent Employer or Doutta Gala) and its managers Biji Hinso and Manpreet Kaur.

[2] Mrs Kaur identifies that in around August 2023 she raised concerns about the impact of reduced staffing levels on herself and co-workers, along with the level of care and support available to residents and made a health and safety complaint. The following day, she says she was placed on a performance improvement plan as an act of retaliation. She argues there was no basis for her being put on a plan to improve her performance, and that this was an unreasonable, baseless, retaliatory act meant to intimidate her. She identifies 12 further separate instances of alleged bullying conduct engaged in by the Respondent and its managers that occurred over an extended period from August 2023 into early 2025.

[3] Mrs Kaur argues that the repeated, unreasonable and vexatious behaviour she has been subjected to amounts to bullying within the meaning of the Act. That this behaviour has negatively impacted her health and safety and that it continues to do so. She seeks a stop bullying order be made to ensure this behaviour ceases and that she can perform her duties in a safe and respectful work environment.

[4] The Respondent does not accept that Mrs Kaur has been subjected to bullying. Further and in the alternative, they submit that the bullying she has alleged can be accurately described as reasonable management action, carried out in a reasonable manner. On this basis, they submit her application should be dismissed.

[5] This decision considers Mrs Kaur's application for a stop bullying order. Specifically, it considers whether any of the actions she has been subjected to can be objectively considered 'bullying' as defined in the FW Act.

Legislative Provisions and Commission Decisions

[6] Section 789FF of the Act specifies when the Commission may make orders to stop bullying as follows:

(a) a worker has made an application under section 789FC; and

(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.

[7] It is not in contest that Mrs Kaur is a worker who has made an application under s.789FC. The keys issues in this case are whether Mrs Kaur has been bullied at work and whether there is a risk she will continue to be bullied at work.

[8] Section 789FD of the Act specifies when a worker is bullied at work as follow:

(a) while the worker is at work in a constitutionally‑covered business:

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:

(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.

[9] It is accepted that the Respondent is a constitutionally covered business and that the bullying Mrs Kaur is alleged to have been subjected to occurred at work.

[10] It is not accepted that Mrs Kaur has been bullied at work within the meaning of the FW Act or that the actions of the Respondent and its employees in dealing with Mrs Kaur is not reasonable management action carried out in a reasonable manner.

[11] It is not the case that all action or behaviour that Mrs Kaur disagrees with or perceives to be to her detriment or that causes her offense will be considered bullying under the FW Act. To be bullying, the actions Mrs Kaur has been subjected to must be repeated and unreasonable and create a risk to health and safety. The action must also not be reasonable management action caried out in a reasonable manner.

[12] These concepts have been considered in previous decisions of the Commission.

[13] Repeated behaviour must be behaviour of a persistent nature, although it can be a range of different behaviours over a period of time.[1]

[14] In Amie Mac v Bank of Queensland Limited & Others, Justice Hatcher (Vice President as he was then) identified the test of determining what is unreasonable behaviour is an objective test. And that the test is to identify behaviour that a reasonable person, having regard to all the relevant circumstances at the time, would consider unreasonable. His Honour went on to identify the sorts of behaviours that may be encompassed within this broad definition of unreasonable behaviour may include - "intimidation, coercion, threats, humiliation, shouting, sarcasm, victimisation, terrorising, singling-out, malicious pranks, physical abuse, verbal abuse, emotional abuse, belittling, bad faith, harassment, conspiracy to harm, ganging up, isolation, freezing-out, ostracism, innuendo, rumour-mongering, disrespect, mobbing, mocking, victim-blaming and discrimination".[2]

[15] The behaviour must have a causal link to endangering health and safety. It is not necessary, however, for an Applicant to demonstrate actual illness of injury as result of the behaviour. Evidence of a real risk to health and safety is enough.[3]

[16] It is accepted that s.789FD(2) provides a qualification on what may be considered bullying by the Commission.[4] The qualification recognises that management have a right to give reasonable directions for the running of the business, provided they are provided in a reasonable way. As Commissioner Allison identified recently in Application by Inderjeet Kaur, following Deputy President Hampton (Commissioner as he was then) in Application by SB[5] - "Determining whether management action is reasonable requires an objective assessment of the action in the context of the circumstances and knowledge of those involved at the time."[6]

[17] In SB, the Deputy President further commented in relation to reasonable management action carried out in a reasonable manner as follows:

"[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:

management actions do not need to be perfect or ideal to be considered reasonable;

a course of action may still be 'reasonable action' even if particular steps are not;

to be considered reasonable, the action must also be lawful and not be 'irrational, absurd or ridiculous';

any 'unreasonableness' must arise from the actual management action in question, rather than the Applicant's perception of it; and

consideration may be given as to whether the management action involved a significant departure from established policies or procedures, and if so, whether the departure was reasonable in the circumstances.

[52] For the circumstances in s.789FD(2) of the FW Act to apply, the management action must also be carried out in a 'reasonable manner'. Consistent with the approach above, what is 'reasonable' is a question of fact and the test is an objective one.

[53] Whether the management action was taken in a reasonable manner may depend on the action, the facts and circumstances giving rise to the requirement for action, the way in which the action impacts upon the worker and the circumstances in which the action was implemented and any other relevant matters."

[18] I have applied these provisions and the principles in the authorities above to the circumstances of this case. To the extent relevant my assessment of all the circumstances of this case and my consideration is set out below.

[19] Mrs Kaur commenced work as registered nurse on a part-time basis with the Respondent Employer on the 30th of March 2023. She initially worked approximately 15 hours a week. Because of how she was being treated she decided to limit herself to work only Sundays from July 2024. At the time of proceedings, she worked Sundays as a Grade 5, Clinical Care Supervisor.

[20] Mrs Kaur's place of work is the Doutta Galla Aged Care residence in Sunshine West, Victoria. Her work involves administering care and treatment to residents as required; liaising with residents, doctors and other carers; being the nurse in charge; and supervising, directing and managing other staff on shift as required.

[21] In her work, Mrs Kaur reports directly to Ms Biji Hinso, Residential Services Manager and Ms Manpreet Kaur, Clinical Care Coordinator.

[22] Mrs Kaur asserts that since August 2023 she has endured a series of unreasonable actions and targeted conduct, including:[7]

Retaliation and micromanagement for raising legitimate safety and staffing concerns,

Consistent exclusion from work related communications,

Unjustified undermining of her professional capacity,

Denial of permanent shift requests despite availability and policy entitlements,

Procedurally unfair performance review based on baseless allegations,

Intimidation and aggressive conduct during meetings and communications,

Denial of procedural fairness, including refusal to provide an opportunity to respond to allegations,

Unsubstantiated performance related criticisms presented informally or in bad faith,

Being subjected to vexatious complaints just to put pressure on her,

Deliberate actions intended to isolate and intimidate her.

[23] The Respondent's position is that Mrs Kaur has not been bullied at work, and nor is she at risk of being subjected to further bullying. They accept that some of the conduct alleged by Mrs Kaur occurred but submit that it was reasonable management action, carried out in a reasonable way. On this basis, it is their position that her application should be dismissed.

[24] The Respondent also identified there is no basis for the Commission to be the satisfied Mrs Kaur is at risk of further bullying working Sunday shifts when the people she has alleged to have bullied her do not work Sundays.

[25] I have considered all the evidence and submissions in this matter as presented by the parties. For the reasons relevantly set out below, I am not satisfied the conduct alleged to have occurred constitutes bullying within the meaning of the FW Act or was not reasonable management action, carried out in a reasonable way.

[26] Mrs Kaur has presented a significant body of material in support of her application. In summary, her argument is that the following conduct of the Respondent and its representatives amounts to bullying:[8]

Being placed on a performance improvement plan in August 2023 in retaliation for making a safety complaint.
Not being provided with an opportunity to respond, procedural fairness and being treated aggressively and dismissively at a meeting regarding performance improvement in September 2023.
Being treated unprofessionally, aggressively, and intimidated in a meeting to follow up her performance improvement in September 2023.
Being attacked and accused of abusing sick leave entitlements in a text message exchange in November 2023.
Being attacked, intimidated, threatened and racially denigrated in a meeting to discuss her performance in December 2023.
Being falsely accused of discriminatory and serious misconduct in an isolating and ostracising way in a telephone call in January 2024.
Being intimidated and denied an opportunity to consider the details of baseless complaints made against her aggressively and in bad faith in a meeting in January 2024.
Being falsely accused of serious misconduct involving a patient in a text message exchange in February 2024 and discouraged from making a bullying complaint.
Being accused of "bitching" about other staff in a critical and nit-picking conversation about her performance in May 2024.
Being denied shifts she was willing and able to work on 28th of November 2024 because she was Punjabi and/or pregnant.
Being denied additional shifts she was willing and able to work that were formally requested on 13 February 2025 that were provided to casual nurses favoured by the Respondent because of their race or her history of complaints.
Being falsely advised of complaints being made about her and accused of making baseless complaints in a performance review meeting on 28th February 2025.

[27] Together, the above amounts to the bullying complaints alleged by Mrs Kaur. To the extent necessary, I have considered the evidence and submissions of each of these complaints below.

[28] Mrs Kaur argues that in sending her an email on 30th of August 2023 raising concerns with her performance and attendance and inviting her to a discussion to develop a performance improvement plan, Ms Sandhu acted unreasonably towards her. That Ms Sandhu's concerns were baseless, caused her stress, sleeplessness and to fear for her job. And that this conduct was bullying conduct within the meaning of the FW Act.

[29] The Respondent rejects this assertion. They submit Ms Sandhu's conduct was reasonable management action, taken reasonably. That there is nothing unreasonable about a manager sending an email to an employee at the end of their probationary period setting out performance and attendance concerns and inviting the employee to discuss planning how things could improve. Furthermore, that in circumstances where Ms Sandhu is no longer employed by the Respondent and presents no risk to Mrs Kaur's health and safety, the Commission cannot be satisfied of a basis to make a stop bullying order.

[30] I accept that as a probationary employee having concerns identified by her employer about her performance and attendance and invited to a meeting with her supervisor to discuss a performance improvement plan would have been a concern.

[31] It is well established that there is nothing implicitly sinister, or unreasonable, in an employer bringing their concerns to the attention of an employee and seeking to discuss how things can be improved. This is a purpose of the probationary period.

[32] Mrs Kaur asserts Ms Sandhu's concerns were baseless. Further, that she acted in retaliation to her decision to lodge a safety concern the day before. There is no evidence before the Commission to support this assertion and absent an opportunity to hear from Ms Sandhu, I do not make this finding.

[33] Further, I consider this conclusion is reinforced by what the evidence demonstrates happened next. On the 1st of September Mrs Kaur raised her concerns about Ms Sandhu's letter with the Respondent's HR representative Mr Latkas. She advised Mr Latkas that she believed Ms Sandhu's email was sent impulsively, without foundation and in retaliation to her safety report, noting:[9]

"I am hesitant to use the word bullying for now until I discuss all those points in the meeting. But at the same time, I want someone from senior management to be present there.

Declaring someone's performance unsatisfactory without even properly checking the facts is not only demoralizing for the staff but it seems very unprofessional on the part of the manager. It has caused me immense stress..."

[34] Mrs Kaur further sought the meeting time be changed to accommodate her personal circumstances. Both of her requests were accommodated. Mr Latkas attended the meeting that while scheduled for 4th of September, did not occur until September 8th.

[35] This evidence does not support a conclusion the actions of Ms Sandhu or the Respondent were unreasonable.[10]

[36] Whether management action is reasonable is an objective test, considering all the relevant circumstances - that is, management action may still be reasonable even if an individual perceives it to be unfair.[11]

[37] Considering these factors, I am not satisfied Mrs Kaur's complaint that the email Ms Sandhu sent amounts to bullying conduct.

[38] Mrs Kaur submits she attended a meeting to discuss concerns with her performance and an improvement plan on the 8th of September 2023. Also present at the meeting were Ms Sandhu, Ms Hinso, and Mr Latkas. The meeting was held in a windowless hairdresser's room. Her evidence is that at this meeting she was not provided an opportunity to respond, dismissed, and treated aggressively by Ms Sandhu. She claims Ms Sandhu's, Ms Hinso's and Mr Latkas' conduct at the meeting towards her was bullying conduct. Further, that the meeting caused her significant stress and created a risk to her health and safety.

[39] The Respondent does not accept Mrs Kaur was subjected to bullying conduct on the 8th of September. Their submissions are that the purpose of this meeting was to provide Mrs Kaur with an opportunity to address their concerns with her performance and attendance. That the meeting was held on the only appropriate meeting room on site. That the meeting was rescheduled at Mrs Kaur's request and that Mr Latkas attended as requested. Further, that Mrs Kaur was provided, and had every opportunity to express her views in the meeting and did so.

[40] Ms Hinso and Mr Latkas provided a very different account of what occurred at the meeting on September 8th than Mrs Kaur. Their consistent evidence is that Mrs Kaur had a lot to say during this meeting. That she has not bullied, spoken over the top off, treated dismissively or aggressively by anyone present.

[41] I find the evidence of Ms Hinso and Mr Latkas more compelling to that of Mrs Kaur regarding what occurred at this meeting. Their evidence was consistent and genuinely provided. Their explanations for the meeting's location and the fact Mr Latkas attended as requested by the Applicant all support a conclusion that the meeting was reasonable management action, taken reasonably. Absent an opportunity to hear from Ms Sandhu, considering this consistent evidence, I am not persuaded Mrs Kaur was subjected to bullying conduct by the actions of Mr Latkas, Ms Hinso or Ms Sandhu on the 8th of September.

[42] Mrs Kaur's own evidence of what followed this meeting supports this conclusion. This evidence includes a follow up letter Ms Sandhu provided Mrs Kaur setting out the further actions and improvements she would like to discuss with the Applicant at another meeting to be held on September 25th. On review, the terms of this letter do nothing to support Mrs Kaur's concerns. In simple terms, it identifies actions for improvement and articulates outcomes Ms Sandhu would like to see. It directs Mrs Kaur to resources and policies for clarification and support, inviting further concerns and queries to be raised by contacting Ms Sandhu.[12] In tone and context, I consider this communication reasonable management action, taken reasonably in the circumstances appropriately reinforcing outcomes and expectations for improvement.[13]

[43] Mrs Kaur submits that she attended a further meeting to discuss her performance with Ms Hinso, and Ms Sandhu on the 25th of September 2023. The meeting was again held in the windowless, hairdresser's room. Mr Latkas attended the meeting via telephone. At the meeting Mrs Kaur says she was subjected to 'nit picking' about minor performance issues and treated aggressively and dismissively by Ms Sandhu. Her evidence is that she felt Ms Sandhu was not interested in her responses and just wanted her to "shut up'. Further, that Ms Hinso and Mr Latkas were against her in the meeting and tried to exclude and intimidate her. She felt defeated at the end of the meeting and became visibly upset. Mr Latkas abruptly ended the meeting as a result. Mrs Kaur believes she was not afforded procedural fairness at this meeting and that the conduct of Ms Sandhu, Ms Hinso and Mr Latkas amounts to bullying conduct.[14]

[44] The Respondent does not accept Mrs Kaur was subjected to bullying conduct on the 25th of September. Their submissions are that the purpose of this meeting was to provide Mrs Kaur with a further opportunity to discuss and address their concerns. That the meeting was also a mechanism to program this improvement going forward and that Mrs Kaur was given every opportunity to express her views in the meeting. That she was listened to and treated with professional dignity, and respect. And further, that there is no evidence the Applicant was ganged up on, victimised, humiliated or intimidated at this meeting.

[45] The Respondent accepts that there was no follow up to this meeting, that it was not resumed once Mrs Kaur composed herself, and that there were no further discussions about Ms Sandhu's concerns with her performance is an anomaly. Their position is that this is not what Mrs Kaur alleges to be bullying. Rather, that her complaint is focused on the conduct of Ms Sandhu, Ms Hinso, and Mr Latkas at this meeting. Conduct, they say, there is no basis to objectively conclude was not reasonable conduct carried out in a reasonable way.

[46] I have had the opportunity to consider the evidence of Ms Hinso, Mr Latkas and Mrs Kaur about the meeting on September 25th. The consistent evidence is that Mrs Kaur became significantly upset towards the end of this meeting, and the meeting was ended by Mr Laktas. Considering this evidence, I am not persuaded that Ms Hinso and/or Mr Latkas engaged in any conduct or behaviour towards Mrs Kaur amounting to bullying conduct at this meeting. While Ms Sandhu did not provide evidence, I consider Ms Hinso's evidence she did not observe anything untoward or unprofessional occur in this meeting reliable. The consistent evidence is the meeting ended at Mr Latkas' intervention in deference of Mrs Kaur becoming upset supports the Respondent's position of reasonable conduct towards her.[15]

[47] I do not, however, discount that from Mrs Kaur's perspective she felt her clinical skills, competence, employment and livelihood were under attack. In the space of 3 weeks since she made a safety complaint, she had received 3 letters about her performance and attended 2 meetings with management. I accept there was basis for her to be concerned and apprehensive about her employer's concerns and her future. This clearly had an impact on her. She disagreed with the legitimacy of her employer's concerns and defended her position.

[48] The fact Mrs Kaur and her employer disagree about the legitimacy of their concern with her performance, however, does not mean she was being bullied. For this to be so I must be satisfied not just that there was no basis to her employer's concerns but that the way these concerns were raised with Mrs Kaur was unreasonable, malicious, spiteful, targeted, vindictive or retaliatory.

[49] Despite Mrs Kaur's assertions, the evidence before me does not support this conclusion. Ms Hinso and Mr Latkas presented as credible and reliable witnesses. Their evidence is that concerns were identified with Mrs Kaur's performance, she was in her probationary period and that they sought to bring these concerns to her attention to be addressed and to improve her performance in the usual way. I accept this evidence. Further, I have not been able to identify anything other than a genuine level of regard, care and respect from both Ms Hinso and Mr Latkas towards Mrs Kaur.

[50] It is clear from the evidence there was some basis for Mrs Kaur to consider she was being placed on a performance improvement plan (PIP). Her evidence and that of Ms Hinso makes clear the Respondent had concerns with her performance that needed to be improved. While I accept Mr Latkas's evidence that the Respondent's consideration was in the context of a probationary review, not a formal PIP, the fact this was not made clear to Mrs Kaur legitimately elevated her concern.

[51] Ultimately, Mrs Kaur accepted there may have been minor concerns with her performance that could be improved. She further accepted in proceedings the Respondent's concerns were not unreasonable.[16] Her submissions are they were all either minor or baseless concerns, including nit picking, and the means and way they were communicated to her was unprofessional and upsetting. These facts do not mean, however, her employer cannot legitimately bring their concerns to her attention and seek to have them addressed. That they did so in a reasonable, measured and formal way does not equate to anything other than reasonable management action, reasonably taken - not bullying conduct.

[52] I do not accept the Respondent's position Mrs Kaur did not articulate a bullying complaint about her performance management process not being resumed means it cannot amount to bullying. The above complaints Mrs Kaur has made are she felt subjected to various forms of bullying conduct arising from the Respondent's articulation of their concerns about her performance. I consider the fact the Respondent failed to follow through with these concerns can support a conclusion the concerns were not only baseless but were raised as a form of bullying.

[53] Despite this being the case, I do not make this conclusion.

[54] The Respondent's evidence is Ms Sandhu left its employment not long after this meeting. Ms Hinso took over her position and overall responsibility for the management of Mrs Kaur's performance. Ms Hinso's unchallenged evidence is that her considered assessment of Mrs Kaur's performance was that it was improving. She was happy with things and was happy for things to continue. This included allowing Mrs Kaur's probationary period to conclude and her employment to continue. On this basis, she saw no need for any formal performance management or improvement plan for Mrs Kaur to continue.[17]

[55] The fact that neither Ms Hinso nor Mr Latkas made Mrs Kaur aware of this decision was less than ideal. It was a clear failing that, if avoided, may have done much to alleviate Mrs Kaur's concern that she was being targeted, singled out and subjected to bullying. While significant and unfortunate in the circumstances, on its own this failing is nothing more than poor management, not conduct amounting to bullying in these circumstances.

[56] Mrs Kaur's evidence is towards the end of October she made a request to Ms Hinso to change shifts. Ms Hinso accommodated this request. At around 7:00pm on 18th November Mrs Kaur became ill, sought medical assistance and subsequently advised her employer she would not be able to attend work. At around 7.03pm, Ms Hinso sent her a series of texts wanting to know why she wanted to swap her shifts if she was going to call in sick and letting her know she had inconvenienced the Respondent. Mrs Kaur responded, advising she was genuinely sick and would send in her medical certificate which she did. Ms Hinso responded reminding her she had previously had to talk to her about her sick leave and since then she had 2 further sick days. Mrs Kaur responded maintaining she was genuinely sick and only used her sick leave when this was the case. Ms Hinso's final reply was "No worries."[18]

[57] Mrs Kaur's asserts this text conversation amounted to bullying conduct by Ms Hinso. That it made her feel like she was being accused of abusing her sick leave, threatened and put on notice about taking sick leave in future without any basis when she was genuinely ill. Further, that it is inappropriate for Ms Hinso to engage in a persistent texting conversation berating and accusing her, when she had provided medical verification of her condition.

[58] The Respondent denies Ms Hinso's conduct in texting Mrs Kaur on 18th November was an act of bullying. That there is nothing in the tenor or form of the conversation amounting to bullying language and further that once Mrs Kaur verified her condition Ms Hinso ended the conversation, accepting what she was told.

[59] I accept Mrs Kaur was justified in being upset with Ms Hinso sending a text to confirm she was sick on 18th November 2023. In her evidence, Ms Hinso accepted doing so was not necessarily the most appropriate thing to do.[19]

[60] While I accept this is the case and acknowledge Ms Hinso's reflections in proceedings she should have acted differently, it does not mean I accept Ms Hinso engaged in bullying conduct by texting Mrs Kaur about her absence. I find no evidence this was the case. Ms Hinso's explanation that she had to deal with Mrs Kaur's absence at short notice in context where she had recently accommodated her shift swap request is completely reasonably. As is her explanation that as the responsible manager it fell to her to reach out to Mrs Kaur.

[61] That Mrs Kaur did not like being accused by text message of not being genuinely sick and felt this was an attack on her integrity and bullying does not make it so. My consideration is not focused on how the Respondent's conduct made Mrs Kaur feel and whether there is valid basis for this. I must objectively assess whether the Respondent's conduct was reasonable and taken reasonably in the circumstances. I am satisfied this is the case.

[62] On 15 December 2023, Mrs Kaur attended a performance review meeting with Ms Hinso. Her submissions are that the meeting began with Ms Hinso attacking her for talking to HR, intimidating and threatening her. Further, that Ms Hinso proceeded to become aggressive, told her she refused to employ Punjabi people with last names like Kaur and Singh because they were all the "same". That she felt threatened, intimidated and bullied at this meeting. That she was fearful for losing her job and that she did not receive any other feedback on her performance or have any further discussions of her 2023 performance after this meeting.

[63] Ms Hinso denies she engaged in bullying conduct towards Mrs Kaur in their meeting on December 15th. She denies threatening Mrs Kaur or making any comments of a racially discriminatory nature towards Mrs Kaur or Punjabi people.[20]

[64] Both Mrs Kaur and Ms Hinso gave direct evidence on what was said in their meeting on December 15th. Considering both these versions of events, I do not accept either version is an accurate reflection of what in fact was said. Mrs Kaur's version presents Ms Hinso as a malicious, racially discriminatory actor intent on bullying her and making her feel threatened and intimidated.

[65] This version does not accord with my assessment of Ms Hino and her evidence. I found Ms Hinso to be a genuine witness. A member of the Respondent's line management team who cares about what she does, the residents in care, and members of her team - including Mrs Kaur. I am not persuaded she had malicious intent or engaged in bullying conduct or racism towards Mrs Kaur at this meeting.

[66] Ms Hinso's evidence that she employed several people from the Punjabi background, with surnames like Kaur and Singh, along with her treatment and deference to Mrs Kaur supports this conclusion. Similarly, her acknowledgement she encouraged Mrs Kaur to talk to her first and not go directly to HR.

[67] I find this evidence more reliable than that of Mrs Kaur in these circumstances. While genuine, my assessment of Mrs Kaur's version of these events is they are coloured by her perspective of having her performance questioned, rather than what was said or intended to be conveyed. This is my overall assessment of her evidence.[21]

[68] The uncontested evidence of what followed this meeting and the friendly engagement of Ms Hinso and Mrs Kaur at the staff Christmas party and communications thereafter support this conclusion.[22]

[69] On 18th January Mrs Kaur sent an email to Ms Hinso making her aware of her concerns about a co-worker, Ms Jose, being ignorant with residents and involved in residents falling to the floor. Mrs Kaur asked Ms Hinso to have a "one on one" with Ms Jose.

[70] The following day, Mrs Kaur received a phone call from Ms Hinso while she was tending a resident making her aware she had received a complaint about her from Ms Jose. Mrs Kaur alleges that in making this phone call Ms Hinso engaged in bullying conduct (the 6th complaint) because the call pertained to serious, false, ridiculous and absurd allegations.

[71] On receiving this phone call, Mrs Kaur finished what she was doing and went to Ms Hinso's office to talk to her about Ms Jose's complaint. She says on walking into Ms Hinso's office she was confronted by Ms Robles (Acting Clinical Care Coordinator), and that Ms Hinso proceeded to read all the allegations Ms Jose's had made against her. Mrs Kaur denied all the allegations and Ms Hinso refused to provide her a copy of Ms Jose's letter of complaint against her.

[72] Mrs Kaur's submissions are that in refusing to establish the legitimacy of the allegations against her and denying her a copy of the allegations Ms Hino acted unreasonably towards her, engaging in bullying conduct that created a risk to her health and safety. Following this meeting Mrs Kaur left Ms Hinso's office in tears, was unable to continue work and left work still upset (the 7th complaint).[23]

[73] The Respondent disputes the events of the 18th and 19th of January form any basis that the conduct of Ms Hinso or Ms Robles amounted to bullying conduct. Their version of events is that Mrs Kaur made Ms Hinso aware of her serious concerns about the conduct of Ms Jose. Ms Hinso acted on those concerns as requested and spoke to Ms Jose. Ms Jose was upset by Mrs Kaur's allegations against her and made her own complaint against Mrs Kaur. Ms Hinso in turn, did nothing more than take reasonable steps to raise these concerns with Mrs Kaur. Mrs Kaur sought to discuss these concerns and Ms Hinso listened to what she had to say in the presence of Ms Robles.

[74] The essence of the 6th and 7th bullying allegations are that Ms Hinso engaged in bullying conduct towards her by unreasonably making a phone call to her while she was at work to raise concerns about her work performance that were unfounded and refusing to give her a copy of the letter detailing the concerns raised against her by another member of staff.

[75] I have considered the evidence of both Mrs Kaur and Ms Hinso about these contentions. My assessment of this evidence is that, objectively viewed, there is no basis to support a conclusion Ms Hinso or Ms Robles acted unreasonably or engaged in bullying conduct towards Mrs Kaur on January 18th or 19th.

[76] It is not disputed the genesis of this interaction was Mrs Kaur raising concerns to Ms Hinso about Ms Jose. Mrs Kaur does not accept she was making a complaint or raising a concern about Ms Jose. The evidence is clearly that Mrs Kaur asked Ms Hinso to have a one on one with Ms Jose about a series of incidents involving patients falling.[24]

[77] Ms Hinso did so. Ms Jose denied the allegations against her. Ms Hinso's evidence is she subsequently reviewed CCTV footage and found no conduct of concern by Ms Jose.[25] Ms Jose responded with her own complaint against Mrs Kaur. Mrs Kaur's accepts her response included walking into Ms Hinso's office unannounced and without an appointment interrupting a meeting with Ms Robles and seeking to discuss and denying the allegations Ms Jose made against her.

[78] The fact Mrs Kaur was upset by the allegations against her is not in dispute. I also accept she was entitled to be upset about having her work interrupted and her performance questioned. That Mrs Kaur was upset at being called by Ms Hinso because Ms Jose may have made unfounded allegations against her does not necessarily mean she has been subjected to bullying conduct. For this to be the case, I must be satisfied that objectively viewed Ms Hinso's actions were unreasonable to the extent they were without any basis. I do not make this finding. Rather, I am satisfied the evidence is Ms Hinso did nothing more than respond to Mrs Kaur as she did Ms Jose as the responsible manager of them both after receiving performance related complaints.

[79] This is not bullying conduct. I have further considered the interaction in Ms Hinso's office and do not consider a manager interrupting a meeting to facilitate a discussion with an aggrieved employee or refusing to provide a copy of a colleague's complaints is either unreasonable or bullying. If there is any criticism to be made of Ms Hinso in this interaction, it is her failure to follow up with Mrs Kaur after she left her office upset and sought to return to work. While this may be a poor management decision, it does not amount to bullying.

[80] The 8th complaint concerns a text message interaction on the 3rd of February 2024 where Mrs Kaur was contacted by text message by Ms Hinso on her day off which happened to be her birthday. Mrs Kaur perceived this contact to be a further act of bullying, unreasonable and warranted contact by Mrs Kaur interrupting her precious family time.

[81] It is clearly less than ideal Mrs Kaur was contacted on her day off. Ms Hinso accepts this to be the case.[26] It is equally clear, however, that Mrs Kaur had a reasonable reason to contact Mrs Kaur about concerns brought to her attention concerning missed patient injections. Mrs Kaur, who was also on her day off, determined the most efficient way to address these concerns was to contact Mrs Kaur. I am satisfied she acted reasonably in doing so.

[82] I do not accept this interaction is an instance of bullying conduct. I have also considered Mrs Kaur's submissions that when she made a formal bullying complaint following this incident, Mr Latkas called her discouraging her to do so. Mr Latkas gave evidence that this is not the message he has endeavoured to communicate to Mrs Kaur in this phone call. I accept this evidence. And further conclude that the evidence of the Respondent's engagement with Mrs Kaur with respect to her bullying complaint supports this conclusion.

[83] The 9th complaint concerns an interaction following a conversation Mrs Kaur says occurred on 29th May where she asked Ms Hinso a question about RN's taking breaks together. Later that day she received an email from Ms Manpreet Kaur asking her to attend a meeting the following day to discuss several issues reported to her. Mrs Kaur felt this email was a targeted response to her questions of Ms Hinso. She submits the meeting initially proceeded as proposed. The issues she felt where minor "nitpicking" concerns about her performance were raised by Ms Manpreet and discussed. But then Ms Manpreet changed her tone of voice and accused her of "bitching" about other staff members to Ms Hinso.

[84] Mrs Kaur perceived this interaction to be an attack on her by Ms Manpreet aimed to shut her down and discourage her from making enquiries in the future. She submits this was not reasonable management action taking reasonably, that it made her feel stressed and undervalued, amounting to bullying conduct.

[85] Ms Manpreet gave credible evidence to the Commission about this conversation. She denies using the word "bitching" but accepts she raised her concerns with Mrs Kaur about going to Ms Hinso rather than her in the first instance. My assessment of this evidence is that from Mrs Kaur's perspective her impression that Ms Manpreet was telling her to stop going directly to senior management or HR to talk about other members of staff was well founded. I am satisfied Ms Manpreet sought to communicate this to Mrs Kaur.

[86] Proceedings made clear a certain level of animus between Ms Manpreet and Mrs Kaur warranting consideration by the Respondent. Ms Manpreet's further evidence of why she sought to convey this message, however, is completely plausible, rational and reasonable. In short, it was Ms Manpreet's job to manage inter-staff concerns, issues and grievances. While I identified some inconsistencies and a lack of supporting material in Ms Manpreet's evidence,[27] Mrs Kaur accepts the concerns she raised with her in this meeting, while perhaps minor, warranted explanation and discussion from the Respondent's perspective. It is Ms Manpreet's job to handle complaints from staff. She raised staff complaints she had received with Mrs Kaur.

[87] While I accept Mrs Kaur's impression of the message Ms Manpreet conveyed to her at this meeting is accurate, I do not find this was an instance of bullying conduct or retaliation. Ms Manpreet has provided credible evidence to the Commission, which I accept. Mrs Kaur concedes the reasons Ms Manpreet wanted to talk to her had foundation. The fact that Ms Manpreet sought to convey a sentiment that she would prefer Mrs Kaur raise concerns with her first is not an instance of bullying or unreasonable conduct when that was part of Ms Manpreet job. While it is clear Mrs Kaur and Ms Manpreet do not get along, this alone does not make Ms Manpreet's actions unreasonable. I do not accept this was the case. On this basis, I am not satisfied Mrs Kaur has been subjected to bullying conduct with respect to the 9th complaint.

[88] Mrs Kaur's submissions are that in at least 2 incidents on 28th November 2023 (complaint 10) and 13th February 2024 (complaint 11) she was denied shifts either because of her race, pregnancy or her history of raising complaints with management. The evidence Mrs Kaur has presented to support these allegations is circumstantial at best.

[89] In contrast, Ms Hinso has provided plausible and rational explanation of the decisions she has made with respect to the allocation of shifts to other members of staff and opportunities provided to Mrs Kaur. Ms Hinso and the Respondent rejects the assertion any of its decisions in relation to Mrs Kaur have been coloured by her race, pregnancy or any other factor.[28]

[90] My assessment of the evidence in this case does not identify any basis to Mrs Kaur's assertions. I am satisfied Ms Hinso has provided honest evidence to the Commission. Further, I am satisfied Ms Hinso, and the Respondent, generally have not treated Mrs Kaur differently to any other of its employees on account of her pregnancy, race or history of workplace complaints. The unchallenged evidence in this case is to the contrary. Ms Hinso accommodated Mrs Kaur's requests for shift changes and supported her employment beyond her probationary period.

[91] For the above reasons, I am not satisfied the conduct alleged in Mrs Kaur's 10th and 11th bullying complaint amounts to bullying conduct.

[92] On February 28th, Mrs Kaur attended a formal performance review meeting with Ms Manpreet. During this meeting her submissions are that Ms Manpreet made baseless complaints about her performance, referring to unfounded complaints from other members of staff not wanting to be around her, and her conduct and performance at work. She submits these remarks were targeted, made to make her feel unwelcome, ganged up on, and designed to push her out.

[93] Both Ms Manpreet and Mrs Kaur gave consistent evidence about the conduct of this meeting on February 28th. Both agree it was a civil discussion. That the topics discussed were with foundation and that the meeting was conducted reasonably.

[94] While there was initial confusion about the documents presented of this meeting, proceedings made clear Ms Manpreet has presented an internal post meeting record while Mrs Kaur had a copy provided prior to the meeting being concluded. That Mrs Kaur was not provided with this document is clearly unsatisfactory. However, I do not consider this omission anything other than a procedural failing not an intentional act of bullying or other malicious conduct.[29]

[95] Similar concerns arise about some of the complaints allegedly made by other members of staff, including Ms Cosh, about Mrs Kaur. Ms Cosh told Mrs Kaur she never made a complaint about her. Proceedings made clear that Ms Manpreet was referring to a conversation Ms Hinso had relating to Ms Cosh about a complaint made.[30] That Ms Manpreet may have made a mistake or failed to adequately communicate what she meant to Mrs Kaur is unfortunate. However, my assessment of this conversation on February 28th is not one of a form of conduct amounting to bullying or anything other than reasonable management action, undertaken reasonably. The meeting was civil. It was with foundation and conducted respectfully.

[96] It is clear Ms Manpreet did not adequately or accurately communicate everything to Mrs Kaur at this meeting. On its own, however, this is not an act of bullying. My assessment of Ms Manpreet is that she has difficulty managing Mrs Kaur, which she accepts and does not get on with her as a result. I find no evidence of malice, ill intent, or anything other than genuineness in the evidence Ms Manpreet has presented of her dealings with Mrs Kaur. I do not find she has engaged in bullying, or any other form of unreasonable conduct towards her.

[97] I have considered and assessed all the evidence presented in the circumstances of this application for stop bullying orders. For the reasons above, I have not been satisfied that any of the identifiable individual complaints of bullying by Mrs Kaur constitute unreasonable behaviour for the purposes of bullying under the FW Act.

[98] I will now consider an overview of Ms Sandhu, Ms Hinso, Ms Manpreet, Mr Latkas and Doutta Galla's behaviour towards Mrs Kaur considering all the complaints to determine whether there is an overall pattern of repeated unreasonable behaviour.

[99] This consideration does not lead me to conclude there is evidence to support a finding of repeated unreasonable behaviour. What is clear from the evidence in this case is that Mrs Kaur has formed a view she is being unreasonably managed, communicated with, and not having her concerns about others heard or adequately dealt with by management.

[100] From Mrs Kaur's perspective, I can appreciate that from her experience in August 2023 when she made a safety complaint and received a letter inviting her to a performance review the very time she raises a concern or a complaint she feels she must deal with a retaliatory complaint or performance review. While I accept this is a valid concern, my assessment of the evidence is that it is without foundation.

[101] In each of the 12 instances Mrs Kaur has presented as instances of bullying conduct, I am satisfied the Respondent's management have acted reasonably towards Mrs Kaur. That they had reasonable and rational reasons to act and that they acted reasonably and with professionalism, to the extent of their abilities towards Mrs Kaur. I am also satisfied Mrs Kaur has not been treated differently to any other employee who has made complaints or had complaints made about them by the Respondent. On this basis, I am also satisfied Mrs Kaur is not risk of future bullying.

[102] The overwhelming evidence is that management have genuinely considered what Mrs Kaur has had to say or request and responded as possible and appropriate. It is not that case that every call, complaint, email, request or conversation has been responded to. Nor is it the case that management has gotten everything right and not made mistakes or conveyed inaccuracies.

[103] On the evidence before me, much could be improved at Doutta Galla through better communication, clearer guidelines for the use of text messaging, and more rigorous processes for the initiation and conclusions of management efforts to improve employee conduct and performance, in consultation with the effected employees. Ultimately, however, there is no evidence before me to conclude Doutta Galla or its managers, specifically the persons named in this application, have acted in any way toward Mrs Kaur consistent with behaviours encompassed within the definition of unreasonable behaviour that would amount to bullying within the definition of the FW Act.

[104] I have determined that the behaviour of the persons named and Doutta Galla towards Mrs Kaur was not repeated, unreasonable behaviour and therefore, not bullying for the purposes of the FW Act. I have also not been satisfied that Mrs Kaur is exposed to a risk to her health and safety. For these reasons, I cannot make a finding that she will continue to be bullied at work and the stop bullying orders sought.

[105] This is not to say the Respondent has been faultless in its management of its employment relationship with Mrs Kaur. Certainly, as identified, the Respondent needs to take more care with establishing the accuracy of what is said to its employees and responding to complaints from staff without thorough prior investigation. In addition, they should consider a more rigorous process for the handling of inter-staff complaints and grievances. Particularly, requiring employees to spend more time focused on the care needs of residents and less on identifying the failings of their co-workers, being confident to leave these issues for management to reasonably manage.

[106] Accordingly, for the reasons set out above, Mrs Kaur's application is dismissed.

J McDougall of Counsel and Z Mohammed for the Respondent.

[1] Allison C, in Inderjeet Kaur [2024] FWC 3096 at [10] and Explanatory Memorandum, Fair Work Amendment Bill 2013 (Cth) 109.

[4] Application by Ms SB [2014] FWC 2104 at [47].

[7] Applicant's Outline of Submissions, Court Book p.5-44.

[10] Transcript of proceedings on 29 July 2025, PN505-PN583.

[12] Applicant's Outline of Submissions, Court Book p.19-20.

[18] Applicant's Outline of Submissions, Court Book p.23.

[22] BH-2, Witness Statement of Biji Hinso - 14 July 2025, Court Book p.175-176.

[23] Applicant's Outline of Submissions, Court Book p.25-28.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Health and Safety Act 2011

Mrs Prabhjot Kaur [2025] FWC 3052 (13 October 2025)

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Source

Judgment (158 paragraphs)

Mrs Prabhjot Kaur [2025] FWC 3052 (13 October 2025)

Legislation Cited (2)