The attached document replaces the document previously issued with the above code on 22 August 2025.

The decision has been amended to correct an obvious typographical error at paragraph [81].

[2025] FWC 921

Fair Work Act 2009

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

• [1] Seema Kurup (Applicant) has made an application to the Fair Work Commission (Commission) for an order to stop bullying. The Applicant's employer is Woolworths Group Limited (Employer) and the Applicant has named Deanne Scholfield (Ms Schofield) and Janet Stoffels (Ms Stoffels) as the persons she alleges have bullied her at work. The Employer, Ms Schofield and Ms Stoffels were all represented by the same representative in these proceedings and made joint submissions. The Employer, Ms Schofield and Ms Stoffels are referred to as the 'Respondents' when referred to jointly in this decision.

• [2] Sections 789FF (1) and (2) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth)(Act) provide:

(1) A worker who reasonably believes that he or she has been bullied at work may apply to the FWC for an order under section 789FF.

(2) For the purposes of this Part, worker has the same meaning as in the Work Health and Safety Act 2011, but does not include a member of the Defence Force.

(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:

(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.

(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.

(2) In considering the terms of an order, the FWC must take into account:

(a) if the FWC is aware of any final or interim outcomes arising out of an

investigation into the matter that is being, or has been, undertaken by another person or body--those outcomes; and

(b) if the FWC is aware of any procedure available to the worker to resolve

(c) if the FWC is aware of any final or interim outcomes arising out of any

procedure available to the worker to resolve grievances or disputes--those outcomes; and

• [5] It is not in contention, and I find that the Applicant is a worker. However, the Respondents have submitted that the application should be dismissed on the basis that:

• Ms Schofield and Ms Stoffels did not repeatedly behave unreasonably towards the Applicant;
• the allegations and incidents outlined in the Applicant's application amounted to reasonable management action carried out in a reasonable manner; and

• • there is no risk that the Applicant will continue to be bullied at work by the Respondents such that an order should be made.[1]

• [6] A hearing was held to deal with the Application across two days on 2 and 3 April 2025 and the Respondents sought permission to be represented by a lawyer.

• [7] The Respondents sought to be represented by a lawyer on the basis of efficiency, and due to the factually complex nature of the matter. The Applicant objected to permission being granted, submitting that it would cause an imbalance and unfairness to the Applicant as she would be representing herself.

• [8] Permission was granted under s.596(2)(a) of the Act on the basis that the matter is complex in that there are multiple persons named and an interested employer, together with a highly contested factual matrix and voluminous materials, and I considered that that the participation of one lawyer who represents all Respondents would enable the matter to be dealt with more efficiently, taking into account the complexity of the matter.

• [9] The materials filed in this matter are extensive, with the digital court book being over 2700 pages in length and the Applicant filing highly detailed notes. The Applicant filed her outline of submissions on 2 March 2025, the Respondent filed its outline of submissions on 19 March 2025, and the Applicant filed materials in reply on 26 March 2025. The Applicant has also filed further material following the hearing outside of the directions and which also concern other people who are not named in the application, although that material does not have any bearing on the outcome of this matter or recommendations made.

• [10] The Applicant gave evidence during the hearing and the Respondent filed witness statements in respect of the following people who also gave evidence during the hearing:

• Ms Schofield, the Applicant's direct manager and person who leads the eBusiness team of which the Applicant is a member;
• Ms Stoffels, the Employer's Head of Business Support Services (BSS) and Ms Schofield's manager;
• Malinda Price (Ms Price), the Employer's Employee Relations Manager; and
• Owen Yang (Mr Yang), who was the temporary leader of the eBusiness team before Ms Schofield was appointed as the new team leader.

The Applicant's allegations concerning Ms Schofield

• [11] The Applicant alleged that she had been subjected to bullying by Ms Schofield since 23 May 2024 when Ms Schofield took over the team.[2]

• [12] In particular, the Applicant alleged that:

• on 12 June 2024:
  • Ms Schofield ordered her, in an authoritative manner, to have a 'Social Contract' with a team member, Faye, who the Applicant considered had been consistently misusing work time, not replying to emails or closing support related cases for days and offloading work to other team members; and

• o when the Applicant expressed confusion Ms Stoffels repeated in a very rude/condescending manner: "You didn't listen to me. What did I say, Seema? Tell me what I said." [3]
• • on 27 June 2024, after Ms Schofield took over from the Applicant's previous manager, Ms Schofield said: "Though you have done your work well, your ways of working are not good so we reduced your rating to 'Achieved'".[4] The Applicant said her previous manager had assessed her performance as outstanding/exceeding expectations and that Ms Schofield's rating was announced without justification;[5]

• despite consistently delivering high performance and contributing positively to the team, Ms Schofileld repeatedly targeted her in one-on-one meetings with destructive personal feedback, including by making the following comments:

• o "From what I'm hearing from you Seema, praise is important. So some people don't care for the praise, but its seeming like praise is very important to you and being called out."[6]
• o "You are not humble", "You don't have humility."[7]
• o "You have a need for praise and you have a need to be always telling me and others of the great work that you do." [8]
• o "Whatever you do is just business as usual; the company pays you for that." [9]
• o "If we get allocated projects that are business as usual. That is the expectation from the company to perform and do your role and you are paid for that. If you are not doing your role, we have other conversations".[10]
• o "You are not a team player", "You put everything for your individual performance."[11]
• o "You don't put a lot of importance on the team as opposed to your individual contribution", "I am much more of a team person. For me, you put everything for your individual performance."[12]
• o "You value quite heavily being called out as an individual in the work that you do."[13]
• o "I don't think you could ever acknowledge when you are wrong." [14]
• o "I don't think you could ever acknowledge where you think you are not doing something correct. The 'Ways of Working' is a good example for that."[15]
• o "You can't take feedback so I don't feel respected. I find it extremely frustrating and it makes me feel really underappreciated. It also makes me feel like you don't respect me at all.. and that is how you make me feel".[16]
• o "I believe that you can't take feedback at all ..., you never can..., that is my observation over the last few months. Every time I talk I get five words out. Every time .. and you cut me off. You don't listen to me at all..."[17]
• o "You think you are perfect and absolutely nailing everything, that is where your 'Ways of Working' also bring you down." [18]
• o "You think you're absolutely nailing all of that. You are telling me that you are perfect, like you are perfect and that you have done all of this. That is expected."[19]
• o "Everybody, including myself, have multiple things that we should be improving on for sure. I have never heard that from you saying, you have a development opportunity."[20]
• o "Thank you for actually listening to me because I think that's the first time you've actually listened to me".[21]

• "You just told me that I am wrong in regards to the team work. You know what Seema, yes, it is what I think and I listen to you all the time about what you think. I really would like you to appreciate my opinion and I would really like you to respect my opinion because quite frankly you put me down, you don't listen to me, you can't take feedback at all ..."

• • Ms Schofield made similar comments in every one-on-one meeting without providing any constructive feedback, reasoning, or specific examples; [22]

• between July 2024 and September 2024 Ms Schofield also said:
  • "Your ways of working are not good."
  • "We need to work on your ways of working."
  • "I think we do get very murky waters when people think that they are exceeding as opposed to doing what is expected of you and what you are paid to do. That is where your ways of working bring you down."
  • "You say you don't have any challenges in your work now. You have a different perception of yourself than perhaps what I see now that I've been working with you for a few months"

• • when she disagreed with Ms Schofield's unreasonable comments, Ms Schofield accused her of being disrespectful and read the Respectful Workplace Policy from printed out papers;[23]
• • Ms Schofield said "don't be emotional, it is unprofessional",[24] even though the Applicant was not displaying any inappropriate emotions;[25]
• • Ms Schofield said "Don't use the word 'dodgy' anymore, it is unprofessional"[26] despite the word being commonly used in workplace discussions. [27]

• [13] The Applicant also alleged that Ms Schofield made insensitive comments about the Applicant's home country, India, during a one-on-one meeting, saying:

• • "I heard that India has a lot of corruption and bribery"; [28] and
• • "I heard from another person that in India, government jobs are corrupt and poorly paid".[29] The Applicant submitted this was an irrelevant and culturally insensitive comment that made her feel uncomfortable, humiliated and targeted due to her ethnic background and in response she had to provide clarification to Ms Schofield on the nature of government jobs and other facts about India.[30]

• [14] The Applicant also alleged that when she extended her medical leave/workers' compensation claim on 18 December 2024, Ms Schofield:

• • said "I will look to start training up someone to replace you in the new year";[31] and
• • pressured her to submit medical certificates directly to her, even though they had been provided to human resources and the Applicant had informed her of this.[32]

• despite being a key contributor and subject matter expert for Big W and EDI-related work, she was completely excluded from Big W support and other projects she had previously worked on;
• while all other team members were included in these job activities and Ms Schofield publicly praised their contributions, the Applicant's contributions and positive feedback from stakeholders were deliberately ignored;

• • Ms Schofield said: "Whilst you were working on Janus (name of the high-visibility MoNDC/Moorbank DC project), the rest of the team were doing other activities so that you can work on Janus. Doing Janus was your job, that is your role. It is not going above or beyond or anything. That is just doing your job we should all do, that was a task allocated to you to do over the past two years."[33]

The Applicant's allegations concerning Ms Stoffels

• [16] The Applicant alleged that she escalated her concerns about Ms Schofield to Ms Stoffels and that Ms Stoffels:

• dismissed the Applicant's concerns and echoed Ms Schofield's sentiments including by saying that the Applicant's "ways of working were not good" without providing examples or justification;
• defended Ms Schofield and repeated her negative feedback without any justification;
• told the Applicant that her previous leader was no longer her manager and that Ms Schofield, as her current manager, had the authority to make such comments;
• unfairly reduced her performance rating, leading to the lowest bonus the Applicant had received in years despite the Applicant considering she had performed well;

• • downplayed the Applicant's concerns by implying that her complaint had no legal standing or that she had confirmed this with the legal team, which the Applicant said discouraged her from seeking justice.[34]

• [17] The Applicant alleged that between July and October 2024 Ms Stoffels said:

• "oh you say Dee gave that rating to you? It is not Dee, it is my rating, your ways of working is not good so your work numbers don't matter for me and hence I gave you an 'Achieved' rating."
• "Your previous leader is not your manager anymore, Dee is your manager. Dee can give any feedback as she is your manager and just being in the leader role for less than a month is enough for Dee to give you a rating for your last year's performance. Also, your manager is not going to change, it is going to be Dee."
• "Dee would have mentioned the BSS social contract that she can tell you to have with your colleague."
• "I saw that email you wrote to Dee on your meeting with [the Major Supplier], it is a blunt email."
• "I heard from Dee that you are doing dirty laundry washing."
• "What you say is your version and there is no evidence for that."
• "What Dee did is reasonable management action."
• "Your allegation against Dee on discrimination and racism put her down."

• • "I heard that you were giving running commentary to your team mates".[35]

• [18] The Applicant submitted that Ms Stoffels enabled and endorsed Ms Schofield's bullying which emboldened Ms Schofield to continue treating the Applicant poorly and left the Applicant with no safe avenue within management to seek relief.[36] The Applicant submitted that Ms Stoffels could have reassigned her or adjusted her reporting lines while the investigation was underway or at the very least firmly instructed Ms Schofield to cease any potentially bullying behaviour but did none of these things and what started as work-related stress evolved into a "full-blown psychological injury".[37]

• [19] While the Applicant did not specifically identify anyone from human resources as a respondent to her application, the Applicant also alleged that the human resources team members failed to act as they:

• did not reach out to the Applicant for any further evidence, even after the Applicant's escalations;
• supported Ms Stoffels' conclusion that there was insufficient evidence without conducting a separate investigation;

• • warned the Applicant for discussing her distress with team members.[38]

• • she raised her concerns with Daniel Duncan (Mr Duncan) from human resources but no corrective action was taken; [39]
• • she escalated the matter to Ms Price but no intervention was made other than advising the Applicant to request that Ms Schofield pause one-on-one meetings until the human resources ticket was closed;[40]
• • despite her request not to involve Ms Stoffels in the investigation, the investigation was conducted by Ms Stoffels "and her friends", which was later reviewed and approved by Mr Duncan and Ms Price from human resources.[41]

• [21] The Applicant submitted that human resources ruled that Ms Schofield's behaviour did not breach the Employer's Code of Conduct or Respectful Workplace Policy despite clear evidence of bullying, harassment and discrimination.[42]

• [22] The Applicant also submitted that the investigation was led by Ms Stoffels and lacked integrity as Ms Stoffels had a dual role as an interested party and investigator.[43] The Applicant submitted that rather than conducting an impartial inquiry, Ms Stoffels coordinated with colleagues familiar to her to produce a predetermined outcome and approached the Applicant's concerns with a defensive mindset instead of an open mind.[44] The Applicant submitted that:

• there was no truly independent investigator assigned to her case;
• Ms Stoffels played a leading role in gathering evidence, which is a conflict of interest;
• she was not interviewed by an impartial third party but instead had meetings with Ms Stoffels and a human resources representative who already seemed aligned with management's perspective;
• key witnesses or pieces of evidence she identified were not pursued with rigor;

• • statements from individuals including the Applicant's colleagues Mr Yang and Catherin, who were defending the management narrative, were taken at face value and this made the outcome a foregone conclusion that favoured the Respondents.[45]

• [23] The Applicant also submitted the review of her performance rating by Mr Shankar, a manager from another division and a peer of Ms Stoffels, was biased and procedurally unfair because:

• it was Ms Stoffels that recommended that Mr Shankar conduct the review;
• at no point did Mr Shankar contact the Applicant to gather her version of events, understand her perspective or seek clarification; and

• • Mr Shankar solely relied on information provided by Ms Stoffels and Ms Schofield.[46]

• [24] The Applicant said she maintained detailed diary notes of virtually every significant interaction with Ms Schofield from the time she became the Applicant's manager in May 2024, and these notes were written immediately after the meetings or incidents in question.[47]

• [25] In this regard, the Applicant filed a copy of a highly detailed document entitled 'Seema's Diary Notes' which presents as notes of events taking place between 23 May 2024 and 21 January 2025 embedded with screenshots and images together with observations made by the Applicant (Applicant's Diary Notes). During the hearing the Applicant appeared to indicate that the Applicant's Diary Notes included contemporaneous notes but had also been edited for the purposes of the hearing.[48] I have considered them and referred to evidence within them throughout this decision.

• [26] The Applicant sought that the Commission:

• investigate her allegations of bullying and harassment;
• ensure the Employer complies with workplace laws and policies;

• • take necessary actions to prevent further harm and retaliation;[49]
• • issue a stop bullying order,[50] including ordering that:
  • Ms Schofield not engage in any form of bullying toward the Applicant;
  • Ms Schofield not unnecessarily interact with the Applicant except for legitimate business communication and in writing or with a witness present;
  • Ms Schofield undergo appropriate training or counselling to ensure she understands her obligations under workplace standards or conduct;

• recommend that the Employer facilitate measures to minimise contact between the Applicant and Ms Schofield, such as a reporting line change or other practical accommodations given the breakdown of trust;

• • forbid the Employer's management from taking retaliatory action against the Applicant in any form, including but not limited to termination of employment, disciplinary action, putting the Applicant on a performance management plan, reducing the Applicant's performance ratings or excluding the Applicant from key projects/activities;[51]

• recommend that the Employer implement corrective measures including:
  • stronger anti-retaliation policies for employees who report bullying;
  • a review of human resources practices, specifically in relation to how complaints of bullying are handled;
  • making the human resources representatives accountable and ensuring that they face disciplinary action;
  • an independent review of human resources' grievance handling process, ensuring fair and unbiased treatment of complaints;
  • investigation of retaliatory actions the Applicant said were taken against her, including the performance downgrade, exclusion from work and threats to replace her whilst she was on medical leave;

• o ensuring her return to work process is managed fairly to prevent further harm and avoid future workplace discrimination.[52]

Reasonable management action carried out in a reasonable manner

• [27] The Respondents objected to the Application on the basis that the alleged bullying was reasonable management action, carried out in a reasonable manner.[53] In this regard the Respondents noted that the Applicant was not undergoing any form of formal performance management, had been a good performer for several years and that there had been no formal conversations to manage the Applicant's performance.[54]

• [28] However, the Respondents submitted that there had been several informal conversations where feedback or direction was provided around the Applicant's performance or behaviours in certain areas which would benefit from improvement.[55]

• [29] While the Respondents disputed some of the specific comments attributed to Ms Schofield, it submitted that those comments related to feedback on the Applicant's performance and behaviours.[56]

• [30] The Respondents also submitted that the comments were made in direct response to the Applicant continuing to discuss why she felt she had outperformed members of her team and why others in the team were not at her same level.[57] In this regard the Respondents submitted that in the context in which the comments were provided, the feedback was reasonable and carried out in a reasonable manner.[58]

• [31] As will become apparent below, the escalation of this dispute followed the Applicant's performance rating being changed from 'Exceeding' to 'Achieving' in financial year 2024 (FY24). Each financial year employees are given a rating each in respect of 'Business Strategy and Contribution' (Business Performance) and 'Ways of Working and People' (Ways of Working) as well as an 'Overall' rating combining both inputs.

• [32] The Applicant provided copies of her performance ratings for previous years. These indicate that:

• in financial year 2021 (FY 21), the Applicant was rated:

• 'Exceeding' in respect of 'Business Strategy and Contribution';
• 'Achieving' in respect of 'Ways of Working and People'; and
• 'Exceeding' overall;

• in financial year 2022, the Applicant was rated:

• 'Exceeding' in respect of 'Business Strategy and Contribution';
• 'Exceeding' in respect of 'Ways of Working and People'; and
• 'Exceeding' overall;

• in financial year 2023 (FY 23), the Applicant was rated:

• 'Exceeding' in respect of 'Business Strategy and Contribution';
• 'Achieving' in respect of 'Ways of Working and People';

Applicant's complaint about her colleague Faye on 31 May 2023

• [33] It is clear that the Applicant has long standing concerns about the work performance of her colleague Faye. On 31 May 2023, before Ms Schofield became her manager, the Applicant emailed Ms Stoffels and said:

I am writing this to let you know of an evidently unfair treatment done in my team or some team members get special privileges (for years). That is, Faye has one rule in the team and all others have another rule.

• do work or not,
• attend team meetings or not,
• vanish from the support job all of a sudden leaving everything to the backup person saying that I have an appointment and off for the rest of the day (that she has most of the weeks and would be pre planned but won't advise the team in advance or it is kind of punishing the backup person who has to do their job + her job) or has nanny duty or some personal jobs or some excuses all the time without giving advanced notice to the team,
• hold cases for a long time (sometimes weeks) without answering,
• She is the only person in the team who doesn't have a proper work start and end time on a day-to-day basis (I don't know what is her timing as it changes most days), and I am seeing this for almost 5 years now. She butters up people and survives.. fed up with this now as it is demotivating for others like me who work honestly and diligently.

I am not sure if this is applicable to every other team member in eBusiness and BSS and if we can do this as well (though I don't want to do any of these dodgy things or misuse anything or mixed personal and work life). Or when a person has 20+ years of experience in Woolworths can they do this kind of work here?

But one thing I know is, I had been asked to apply the leave (even for a shorter time), update in Calendar, and produce a medical certificate for taking sick leave on Monday or Friday (that I did one or 2 times) in the same team (though later Melissa helped me and stopped Derong from asking me alone for producing medical certificate when she was our manager, so that was stopped at least by her).

I have raised this to Derong multiple times (I think some past and present team members as well had raised it), but there was no action taken and no improvements in this matter. Perhaps she doesn't listen to him if he conveyed this already. She still continues her time pass work and doesn't care about the team or work or is responsible for the work she does or won't update the team if she has to update us on something etc.. . Hope you can at least take some action or correct this team member.

I can understand people taking flexibility and need that sometimes and may have doctor appointments, but her continuously misusing flexibility during work time and not following team rules are clear to everyone and come up with excuses all the time (specially for a person who does a support job and monitoring the gateway and order missing kind of questions) are not correct. I think this is not the ways of working we all agree to.

Most of the time Derong and Owen protect her and help her a lot by creating special reports, macros to mass close cases, and templates to send emails in the partner hub, excluding her from some work we do, allowing her to skip team meetings, etc...(there can be even more of these others do not know), all special things when others are capable to do all these jobs themselves, and doing it daily without any issues and complaints or excuses.

I don't even know if she applies for leave whenever she takes a long time away and goes for her personal activities on a working day. Faye does some personal favours to Derong and Owen back for this and there is a mutual understanding between them (that everyone knows in the team). So I don't trust them to take any action on this or control her, that is another reason for me reaching out to you. I have even written this issue sometime in the VOT without mentioning her name."[60]

• [34] Ms Stoffels responded to the Applicant's email the same day, thanking her and indicating that she would discuss the matter with Derong, the Applicant's manager at that time, and Mr Yang and would endeavour to get back to the Applicant as soon as she could.[61]

• [35] The Applicant said that instead of addressing the issues she raised, Ms Stoffels and Ms Schofield shifted the focus on to her, accusing her of having "poor ways of working".[62]

First one-on-one meeting between the Applicant and Ms Schofield on 23 May 2024

• [36] The Applicant and Ms Schofield had their first one-on-one meeting on 23 May 2024.[63] Ms Schofield gave evidence that she had not previously dealt with the Applicant before becoming her manager on 13 May 2024[64] and the Applicant's Diary Notes indicate this was the first time the Applicant spoke to Ms Schofield in a one-on-one setting.[65] Ms Schofield said the intention of the meeting was to get to know the Applicant and understand how she could best support her in her role and that she had a list of questions that she shared with the Applicant as a part of the meeting invite.[66]

• [37] Ms Schofield attached a copy of her notes of the meeting to her statement which indicate she asked the following questions,[67] which are consistent with those that appear in a meeting invite embedded within the Applicant's Diary Notes:[68]

• "What has been something that you have achieved whilst working at Woolworths that you are really proud about?"
• "What does a regular day look like for you?"
• "Are you really motivated to come to work or some days just feel it's a bit of a challenge and if so, why?"
• "What do you really like about working in your team and why?"
• "Is there anything preventing you from doing your job well and achieving your goals?"
• "Do you have any particular goals/aspirations for the short term i.e. next 12-18 months?'
• "Would you like to see something change, what is it and why? What can I do to help influence the change?"

• [38] In relation to this last question the Applicant stated in the Applicant's Diary Notes that:

• she raised an issue she and her team had faced for years, being that her team member Faye consistently misused work time, did not check and close support cases within service level agreement requirements and offloaded her work to others;
• she showed Ms Schofield some of the support cases that Faye had not closed;
• she requested that Ms Schofield observe Faye's work in the team and requested that she correct Faye and make her work to help the team if she was convinced that Faye was not doing her job as expected;
• Ms Schofield said "why are you raising it to me?" and she felt from Ms Schofield's attitude and response that she took the Applicant's comments in a negative way or did not like that she had raised the issue;
• she requested that Ms Schofield 'erase' what she said about Faye's work and to watch and act, not just based on what the Applicant said or showed her during the meeting;

• • Ms Schofield then asked her to give evidence to her next time it occurred.[69]

• she mentioned Faye does some 'dodgy work' in moving cases to on hold status to 'fool' the team and the service level agreement which kept cases untouched for weeks that then went to others in the team to answer; and

• • Ms Schofield then warned her in a bossy tone "don't use the word 'dodgy' anymore, it is unprofessional.[70]

• [40] Ms Schofield gave evidence that the Applicant referred to Faye as being "dodgy" and that she did say to the Applicant that it was unprofessional to use the word "dodgy" when referring to another team member.[71]

• [41] In this regard, the Applicant gave evidence that she had brought up a concern regarding the work habits of Faye, explaining that Faye had a practice of moving cases to an "on hold" status for extended periods, which she felt was a way to avoid work and mislead the team about the backlog, bypassing service level agreements.[72] The Applicant said that in describing this to Ms Schofield she said that Faye was doing "some dodgy work", meaning the actions were questionable.[73] The Applicant gave evidence that she did not call Faye herself "dodgy" but was pointing out a potentially dishonest practice in her work.[74]

• [42] The Applicant said Ms Schofield warned her "don't be emotional, it is unprofessional" when she was not crying or behaving unprofessionally but may have been talking about how she would be in a hurry after work time in peak traffic to pick up her son from care and would get calls about being late due to the traffic, yet at the same time Faye would come and go in her own time.[75] Ms Schofield denied telling the Applicant not to be emotional because it was unprofessional.[76]

• [43] Ms Schofield gave evidence that the meeting stalled when discussing what the Applicant would like to see changed, at this point the Applicant dominated the rest of the meeting and instead of discussing her role and how Ms Schofield could best support her, focused almost exclusively on past grievances with her former team leader and ongoing grievances with her colleague 'Faye'.[77]

• [44] Ms Schofield's evidence was that the Applicant's complaint about Faye included that:

• Faye was not performing her role to the standard expected, including not closing cases and misusing work time;

• • Faye had a close personal relationship with her former team leader, Derong, and Mr Yang who the Applicant claimed were making excuses for and protecting Faye.[78]

• [45] Ms Schofield gave evidence that the Applicant told her that she was keeping detailed notes on Faye's performance issues, including screenshots of unresolved cases in the support queue.[79]

• [46] The Applicant gave evidence that during the meeting Ms Schofield described her former manager's behaviour as "toxic" and expressed curiosity about why several of her former teammates had left the team.[80] The Applicant said it appeared Ms Schofield was prompting her to speak negatively about her former manager and colleagues but she refrained from doing so and responded professionally, explaining that some of her former teammates had transferred, others had retired and the rest had pursued roles aligned with their interests.[81]

• [47] Ms Schofield's evidence was that the Applicant's complaint about Derong related to his:

• management style;
• "lack of leadership skills";
• failure to properly manage Faye;
• inability to provide examples of feedback to the Applicant; and

• • failure to thank the Applicant, which Ms Schofield said she was surprised by as she recalled Derong regularly announcing the Applicant's good work.[82]

• [48] Ms Schofield's evidence was that the Applicant seemed quite distressed when discussing her concerns about Derong and Faye and that she raised her voice, spoke quickly, jumped between and repeated stories.[83]

• [49] Ms Schofield said it was hard to follow what the Applicant was saying and difficult to speak and she told the Applicant that if she had any particular concerns regarding Faye, she could send them through to her.[84] Ms Schofield said it was not correct that she told the Applicant to "provide further evidence" in relation to Faye as this is not a word that Ms Schofield would use in this context and said she was just trying to better understand the Applicant's challenges.[85]

• [50] Ms Schofield's evidence was that the meeting was supposed to run for an hour but ended up going for an hour and a half.[86] The Applicant gave evidence that she reminded Ms Schofield multiple times during the meeting that the allotted time had concluded but that Ms Schofield stated she was free and willing to continue, and proceeded to extend the meeting beyond the scheduled duration.[87]

• • saying "you didn't listen to me, what did I say Seema? Tell me what I said..." in the first meeting;[88]
• • raising the concept of a social contract in the first meeting;[89] or
• • being rude, dismissive or bossy in her tone with the Applicant.[90]

• [52] Amendments to the Applicant's Diary Notes suggest that the discussion concerning a social contract with Faye did in fact occur in a later meeting and I return to this below.

Concerns raised by the Applicant about Faye on 6 June 2024

• [53] In the Applicant's Diary Notes the Applicant indicated that in respect of Faye's jobs in the support queue:

• on 6 June 2024 she messaged Ms Schofield with a screenshot of the support queue from that date;
• the same issue was happening most days;

• • Ms Schofield responded saying "Thank you Seema, please leave it with me."[91]

Second one-on-one meeting between the Applicant and Ms Schofield on 12 June 2024

• [54] The Applicant gave evidence that in the second one-on-one meeting on 12 June 2024:

• Ms Schofield unexpectedly brought up the topic of the Applicant's complaint about Faye's work performance when the Applicant had been trying to avoid the topic because the first meeting had gone poorly when this was raised;
• Ms Schofield said "Seema, you need to have a social contract with Faye" in a bossy tone;
• rather than explaining what she meant by "social contract" or why it was necessary, Ms Schofield raised her voice and demanded "You didn't listen to me, what did I say Seema? Tell me what I said..."
• the Applicant said "You just told me that I need a social contract with Faye" to show she had heard her;
• Ms Schofield responded "Yes...We can have that meeting next Friday when you, me, Owen and Faye are available in the office", effectively planning to schedule a four way meeting for the following week;
• Ms Schofield did not frame this as an informal coffee or voluntary chat to mend fences but issued an order and made the Applicant recite the order back to her;

• • she did not refuse outright in the moment but was mostly stunned into silence and compliance; [92]

"I have raised the issue about 'Faye not working' only with the line leaders or I never had any discussions about Faye's work directly with her and I maintain a good personal relationship with Faye and she does that to me as well. I always help her whenever she reaches out to me and I still do that."

"I don't even talk with anyone outside of my team other than work related matters as I go only on Friday to the office and that day only my team is there who already knows about Faye not working properly, and I don't need to tell them that or they can see that every day."[93]

• [55] The Applicant said after the meeting she:

• kept thinking why these things were said and why they were said in a rude and bossy manner;
• wondered why she deserved such treatment after working hard for the team for years and helping everyone in the team, including Faye;

• • wondered if Faye had raised false accusations about her with Ms Schofield to 'escape from her wrong doings'.[94]

• [56] Ms Schofield's evidence was that the meeting started off well, but that discussion quickly turned again to the Applicant's historic complaints about Derong and her concerns with Faye.[95] A copy of Ms Schofield's notes of the meeting were attached to her statement.[96]

• [57] Ms Schofield gave evidence that during the meeting the Applicant:

• raised allegations about Faye again, including that she wasn't doing her job (because cases in the Partner Hub were lagging) and stating that she "misuses others' trust" without detailing what she meant by this;
• said she was "fed up" with Faye's excuses for not doing her job;
• said she was frustrated because this had been happening for a long time and "no one tells Faye to do her job";
• said that continually raising her concerns about Faye was "mentally not good" and that it was hard to talk about;

• • said her issues with Faye were not personal and her concern was about Faye's performance.[97]

• [58] Ms Schofield gave evidence that during the meeting:

• she again found it very hard to get a word in;
• the Applicant spoke over the top of her and tended to repeat the same thing;

• • she acknowledged that she may need to take some action related to Faye's performance if it was the case that she was not completing tasks;[98]
• • she assured the Applicant that she was taking her concerns about Faye's performance seriously and told her that she needed more time to observe Faye's performance, which takes time and is of a sensitive nature.[99]

• • in her brief time in the team, she had not observed any significant performance issues with Faye;[100]
• • despite inviting the Applicant to come to her with concerns she had with Faye following the first one-on-one meeting, the Applicant had not done so except for one occasion on 6 June 2024 where the Applicant sent a screenshot of the job queue showing that Faye had not completed all of her tasks as at 6pm.[101] Ms Schofield said she did not consider this to be a significant issue in isolation[102];

• her observations from speaking with both the Applicant and Faye were that they had a very strained work relationship and were both keeping detailed notes on each other;

• • she was concerned by the Applicant's fixation with Faye's work performance, demonstrated by the amount of time the Applicant spent in the first two one-on-one meetings discussing Faye and the emotive language she was using.[103]

• her priority in the short term was to help the Applicant and Faye improve their working relationship;
• she suggested the idea of forming a 'social contract' which would involve bringing the Applicant and Faye together in a meeting to resolve their differences and agree on how they would like to be treated by the other in the workplace;
• she thought this was a thoughtful approach to take that would create a nicer work environment for the Applicant and Faye, and also benefit the broader team;

• • she ran the idea past her manager, Ms Stoffels before she raised it with the Applicant and Ms Stoffels supported the approach.[104]

• [61] Ms Schofield gave evidence that she suggested to both the Applicant and Faye that a meeting be set up for this purpose, but both declined to meet and she did not pursue it further.[105]

• [62] Ms Schofield denied being bossy or rude during the meeting and gave evidence that she struggled to say much as the Applicant consistently spoke over the top of her.[106]

• [63] Ms Schofield gave evidence that on 13 June 2024, the day after her meeting with the Applicant, she received an email from the Applicant asking her to "withdraw the issues" she had raised about Faye in the first two one-on-one meetings.[107] A copy of this correspondence is included in the Applicant's Diary Notes.[108]

• [64] The Applicant said she had no personal issue with Faye outside the work-related concerns she had raised to management, she had always maintained a civil working relationship with Faye and after the meeting she formed a realisation that she was being forced into a direct confrontation with Faye under those circumstances and this was deeply unfair. [109] The Applicant said forcing a meeting felt more like a punishment or a manufactured confrontation rather than a means of addressing the performance problem and that in withdrawing her complaint about Faye on 13 June 2024 she "essentially conceded defeat on that issue" - a result that left the original concern unresolved.[110]

• [65] Ms Schofield gave evidence that she was surprised by the email but assured the Applicant that she had taken her feedback on board, was working to address it and was available to listen to constructive feedback.[111] Ms Schofield denied the Applicant's allegations that she dismissed her concerns or tried to shut her down.[112]

• [66] Ms Stoffels is the Head of BSS[113] and Ms Schofield is her direct report.[114] Ms Stoffels said she is not friends with Ms Schofield outside of work and does not have a relationship with her outside of work.[115] Ms Stoffels gave evidence that:

• prior to June/July 2024 she did not have day to day contact with the Applicant;

• • she would hear the Applicant's name through liaising with Mr Yang and Derong about what the team had done or if there were issues raised within the team;[116]
• • the feedback she had received from Mr Yang was that the Applicant was technically capable.[117]

• [67] Mr Yang gave evidence that in May 2024 he was acting as the lead of the eBusiness team and Ms Stoffels had asked him to send through performance ratings for the team for the 2024 financial year (FY 24) .[118] Mr Yang rated the Applicant with an overall rating of 'Exceeding' expectations on the basis that her technical skills were excellent.[119] Mr Yang said that as per the usual process for performance reviews, once managers rate their team's performance those preliminary ratings are put through a process of calibration involving senior leaders coming together to compare results against an agreed benchmark.[120]

• [68] Ms Stoffels said that employees were provided with two ratings, one for 'Business and Strategy Contribution' and one for 'Ways of Working and People', which each contributed to the overall rating by 50 per cent.[121] Ms Stoffels attached a copy of a presentation to her statement that provided further details of these performance areas.[122] Ms Stoffels gave evidence that:

• while 'Ways of Working and People' had always been a criteria worth 50 percent of the overall performance rating, in previous years managers across the BSS group had focused too much on the 'Business and Strategy Contribution' which assessed technical skills;
• the focus of the FY 24 calibration process was to better assess how employees were achieving results (i.e. 'Ways of Working') and not just the end result ('Business Performance');

• • Mr Yang, who is usually the Applicant's peer but was acting in the leadership role, had rated the Applicant as 'Exceeding' expectations; [123]
• • a calibration process took place where employees across BSS were benchmarked;[124]

• she did not believe that the Applicant was demonstrating everything expected for an 'Exceeding' rating including because:
  • the Applicant was not always proactively looking for ways to support the wider team and assist with the development of others;
  • she understood the Applicant was always willing to assist if asked and would provide feedback to others on work they completed but would do so in a very direct way;
  • she did not see evidence of the Applicant showing enough initiative; and

• o the Applicant's approach appeared more focused on her individual work;[125]
• • a part of the calibration process the Applicant was rated as 'Exceeding' for 'Business and Strategy Contribution' but was downgraded to 'Achieving' and after the criteria was weighted this meant the Applicant achieved an overall rating of 'Achieving';[126]
• • across the BSS team a total of six employees had their performance ratings downgraded from 'Exceeding' to 'Achieving' as a result of the calibration process and the Applicant was not targeted in any way;[127]
• • as the Head of the BSS team, she made the decision to downgrade the Applicant's performance rating as a part of the calibration process, not Ms Schofield.[128]

• [69] A presentation attached to Ms Stoffels' statement states:

"The Ways of Working, as well as our Values, underpin our Purpose and how we will deliver on our Strategy. They describe how we operate and what behaviours are important to us. Performance is not only about what we deliver (our results) it's also how we deliver those results (our behaviour).

Whilst we have definitions for each of the Ways of Working, everyone should take the time to understand what it means for them".[129]

• [70] The presentation sets out a number of descriptions of Ways of Working and includes a matrix which indicates that if an employee is rated 'Achieving' under 'Ways of Working' but 'Exceeding' under 'KPIs/Business Performance', they will be given an overall rating of 'Achieving'.[130] This appears to be different to previous years noting that in financial years 2021 and 2023, the Applicant was also rated 'Exceeding' in respect of 'Business Strategy and Contribution' and 'Achieving' in respect of 'Ways of Working and People' yet was still rated as 'Exceeding' overall.[131]

• [71] Under the rating 'Exceeding' the following descriptors appear in respect of the eBusiness team:

• 'We're customer 1st, team 1st'':
  • "I always listen to and understand our customers (Suppliers and business stakeholders) problems and requests. If the problem is not within our domain, I will strive to resolve, or reach out to the correct team, and ensure the issue gets resolved for our customers. Based on the outcome I will learn an update our processes or documents accordingly".
  • "I always (100%) adhere to Service Levels expectations and aim to respond to customers within one business day".
• 'We're always improving':
  • "I have identified ways to improve and develop ebusiness processes and systems and worked with relevant team to deliver them".
  • "I initiate the change and collaborate with other teams to make ideas or areas of improvement happen in order to realise business benefits".
  • "I take proactive actions to prevent the issues before they happen"".
• 'We deliver end-to-end':
  • "I proactively deliver the initiatives with other teams and achieved better outcomes and share the learning and feedback with the relevant teams".
  • "I understand the importance of team success over individual, I always proactively offer help and support other team members when there is a need, and value the team members' contribution".
  • "I actively seek for feedback and turn it into an opportunity for growth".
  • "I consistently receive outstanding stakeholders feedback."
• 'We support freedom within clear frameworks':
  • "I speak up to ensure that I and people around me do the right thing, and provide constructive feedback in a respectful way".
  • "I always understand how to apply the frameworks and how to embrace the freedom in my current role. I also enable others to do the same thing."
• 'We keep things simple':
  • "I identified ways to simplify our process is for suppliers and business stakeholders and delivered the simpler and more efficient processes for our customers".

• o "I have a thorough understanding of the negative impacts that my actions slash in actions can have on business stakeholders and suppliers therefore making no room for mistakes."[132]

• [72] Under the description 'Achieving' the following descriptors appear in respect of respect of the eBusiness team:

• 'We're customer 1st, team 1st':
  • "I listen to an understand our customers (Suppliers and business stakeholders) problems and requests. If the problem or requests are not within our domain, I will explain and direct them to the right team".
  • "I regularly (95%) Adhere to Service levels expectations and aim to respond to customers within one business day".
• 'We're always improving':
  • "I'm actively looking for ways to continuously improve our business processes and ebusiness systems. I have actively participated in the idea sessions and retrospective meetings with new ideas and areas of improvement".
  • "I have achieved my performance goals and my personal development objectives".
  • "I have taken the ownership and initiative to improve ebusiness systems or processes whenever there is a gap or room for improvement".
• 'We deliver end-to-end':
  • "I collaborate with other team members and share my knowledge and resources to achieve better outcomes for the team".
  • "I offer ideas and suggestions and work with other teams to provide better service to our customers".
  • "I collaborate with business and project teams to achieve common business goals and receive positive stakeholder feedback".
  • "I am open for any feedback including constructive feedback".
• 'We support freedom within clear frameworks':
  • "I understand how to apply the frameworks and how to embrace the freedom in my current role".
  • "I can make my own decision in my area of expertise to ensure our customers are satisfied".
  • "I have the ability to prioritise my activities based on business impact and urgency."
• 'We keep things simple':
  • "I actively look for ways to improve and simplify our processes for suppliers and business stakeholders".
  • "I enable suppliers to do business simpler with Woolworths and ultimately contributes (sic) to keep things simple for our customers".

• o "I am aware of the negative impacts that my actions/inactions can have on the business stakeholders and suppliers and do my best to avoid mistakes."[133]

• [73] Ms Stoffels said she discussed her decision to downgrade the Applicant's 'Ways of Working' rating with Mr Yang and Ms Schofield after the benchmarking exercise[134] and that Mr Yang agreed with the decision, admitting he had not focused as much on 'Ways of Working'.[135] Ms Stoffels said she and Mr Yang agreed that the Applicant's technical skills were very good and that is why the 'Exceeding' rating for 'Business and Strategy' was maintained.[136]

• [74] Mr Yang gave evidence that when he provided the Applicant with an initial rating of 'Exceeding' he had not given equal weight to her 'Ways of Working' and confirmed he agreed to downgrade the Applicant's rating to 'Achieving' on this basis.[137] Mr Yang gave evidence that while the Applicant would help someone in the team when asked, he did not always see the Applicant proactively supporting the rest of the team and did not always think she was helping others to achieve their goals.[138]

• [75] Ms Schofield also gave evidence that during the Applicant's FY 24 performance review, the Applicant's performance rating was downgraded as a result of a Business Enablement (BE) management decision to undertake a calibration process impacting all employees across the BE team, with a particular focus on reassessing those who had received an 'Exceeding' rating.[139] Ms Schofield said that this meeting was attended by Senior BE managers, she was not included and she did not participate in that process.[140]

• [76] Ms Schofield expressed an understanding that as a part of the calibration process the BE management team benchmarked each rating against the categories of 'Business and Strategy Contribution' and 'Ways of Working and People' which contributed by 50 percent.[141]

• Mr Yang, as the acting team leader for the majority of FY 24, was responsible for the Applicant's performance review;
• Ms Stoffels attended the calibration meeting and made the decision to downgrade the Applicant's performance rating;

• • she provided no input into the decision-making process;[142]
• • she understood from discussions with Ms Stoffels and Mr Yang in a meeting she had with them that Ms Stoffels, with Mr Yang's support, decided to downgrade the Applicant's rating from 'Exceeding' to 'Achieving' as a part of the calibration process because she did not satisfy the requirements for an 'Exceeding' rating for the category 'Ways of Working and People'.[143]

• [78] Within the Applicant's Diary Notes was an extract from Success Factors dated 4 July 2024 which set out the following feedback from Ms Schofield in relation to the Applicant:

"Performance review conducted and by Owen Zang as he was Seemas TL for 2024, I took over mid May. Over the past 12 months, Seema has demonstrated outstanding performance in both BAU and project areas, continuously seeking opportunities to deliver improvements in our systems and processes. She completed 74 EDI implementations, achieving a weightage point of 268, and maintained an impressive survey record of 4.9 out of 5 for her implementations, reflecting a high level of satisfaction from suppliers and stakeholders. Additionally, she covered BigW EDI support and closed many admin support cases all within the SLA.

In her project activities, Seema managed and coordinated the continuous service improvement (CSI) project by providing requirements, reviewing user stories, performing UAT and business verification, and successfully delivering 19 enhancements and changes into production. She also contributed to the Janus project's success by coordinating and providing regular updates to the stakeholders, and nearly reaching the project goal for overall pallet volume in preparation for the opening of MonDC. Her efforts have been positively received by the stakeholders.

Beyond her BAU and project responsibilities, Seema completed [the Major Supplier]-BigW EDI testing and identified issues with SPS Commerce, showcasing her attention to detail. She updated both Woolworths and BigW Message Implementation guidelines to reflect the latest enhancements and changes. Seema managed numeric issues in the Self-certification portal and liaised with the provider to promptly resolve those issues, ensuring smooth failures, and assisted them in resolving message issues. Seema also provided invaluable support to the team by covering for colleagues during their leaves, addressing team questions, and covering after-hour support.

Seema's commitment to excellence, proactive approach, and ability to manage multiple projects independently make her a valuable asset to the team. I look forward to her continued contributions and success in the coming year'.[144]

• [79] While the evidence of Ms Stoffels suggests that it was only the Applicant's rating with respect of 'Ways of Working' that was downgraded to 'Achieving' and that the Applicant's rating in respect of 'Business and Strategy Contribution' remained as 'Exceeding', data provided by the Applicant indicates that Success Factors had recorded her as 'Achieving' in all measures.

• [80] Ms Schofield gave evidence that an incident occurred on 25 June 2024 involving the Applicant, another employee within the Respondent's group and an external person from a major supplier (Major Supplier Meeting Incident).[145] In particular, Ms Schofield gave evidence that:

• • upon the conclusion of a meeting the Applicant started sending a large number of messages to her entire team through an eBusiness Google chat, a screenshot of which is included in the Applicant's Diary Notes;[146]

• she told the Applicant that she thought the group chat was not the way to raise concerns she had with another internal stakeholder, noting that the Applicant had referred to the employee as a "crazy person from the IT team" and said that the employee was inappropriately questioning the Applicant and the external stakeholder and being rude;
• she messaged the Applicant in the group chat advising that she would take it up with the employee's manager and would need constructive feedback sent through to her;

• • she needed to ask the Applicant to do this twice because after the first request the Applicant had only sent a screen shot of the messages she sent to the employee and the Applicant said that she did not want to take the incident further because she wasn't sure if the employee was "mentally affected or have any problem (sic)".[147]

• [81] In an attachment to her statement, Ms Schofield included a copy of the messages in the group chat which state:[148]

Applicant: "just had a meeting with [the Major Supplier] on the PAD file update"

"my goodness we had a crazy person from the IT team, she was literally questioning me and the Applicant lady"

"on what is the problem statement, tell me that etc.."

Applicant: "I passed on all the data though there is already an enhancement ticket exists for that raised by the CM or CA"

"and it was a shame to have that meeting with [the Major Supplier] with her"

"she didn't prepare anything for the meeting and I had to share all the details to her over the meeting"

"don't know if she had some issue or was in fight with someone and came to the meeting"

Applicant: "hmm.. that is why she showed her power infront of the supplier"

"it was a shame for me infact to take her to the call"

Syed Zaidi: "It was [the Major Supplier]!! no power show off"

Applicant: "I had to go behind her to check if she is attending at the last moment"

Syed Zaidi: "too much and useless talking always have a bad impact"

Applicant: "I had to interrupt [IT team member] to check if we need to reschedule the meeting checking the request again"

Ms Schofield: "@Seema Kurup please send through email and not via this chat group. Please ne (sic) clear and constructive with your points, perhaps inclusive of how they made you feel in in the meeting and concern for our customer being [the Major Supplier] rep."

• [82] In the attachment to her statement, Ms Schofield also included a copy of the messages that the Applicant sent to her directly:[149]

"Applicant: Hi Dee, this is the chat I had to do internally to remind her we are in a

Applicant: "Can you please be polite infront of the supplier"

"I am not sure what we are talking infront of the supplier here, you are questioning her and me"

"for an enhancement request the CM raised internally"

"if we are not prepared to talk to them please reschedule the meeting instead of talking rude infront of the supplier"

"you were telling what this lady is talking about etc. infront of the supplier"

"I was talking politely and was providing all what you wanted"

Applicant: "I don't want to create any issues with her job"

"because I don't know if she is mentally affected or have any problem"

"she was telling ne to raise it as she too felt it odd"

"otherwise I don't even know [IT team member] from WDP".

• [83] The Applicant provided the following account of the [the Major Supplier] Meeting Incident:

• she had a meeting with an external supplier and an internal team member from the WDP team;
• the meeting was based on the Applicant's request that the WDP team join the meeting and details were sent to them days prior to the meeting;
• the WDP team member who joined the meeting was not prepared, had not checked the request prior to the meeting and was questioning the Applicant and the external supplier in a rude tone, stating:

"Why [the Major Supplier] alone needs a change, it is not possible, it needs an enhancement request, who told you we can make a change, Big W can't do this change, why can't [the Major Supplier] adjust your system ..."

• she then:
  • clarified that a system enhancement request had already been already opened and approved by the category manager so the WDP team member would understand;
  • told the WDP team member that [the Major Supplier] had been in touch with the Big W team for over a month and the enhancement request was opened and approved based on another internal team's advice;
• she asked the WDP team member if she wanted to move the meeting to go through it and discuss the matter again;
• the WDP team member was rude in her response and said in front of the [Supplier] contact "what is the problem with this lady..."
• she felt bad as the supplier was listening;
• she put herself on mute and messaged the other team member to remind her that she was speaking rudely to the Applicant and the external party;
• the WDP team member slowed down and continued discussing the requirement;
• the [Supplier] contact was kind and walked through the requirement again, which she had been talking about in various emails for a month;
• after the meeting she casually said to her team in the group chat that she had a bad experience with one of the internal team members in the meeting and the person was rude to the Applicant and the external supplier;
• her team members were asking about it;
• Ms Schofield then got involved in the conversation and asked her to write about it so she could check and escalate;
• she then told Ms Schofield in a private chat that she did not know the WDP team member and did not want to affect her job as she had no idea if she had any issues on that day and was expressing her bad mood in that meeting;

• • Ms Schofield insisted that she write down her concerns in an email and the Applicant finally did as she instructed.[150]

• [84] The Applicant met with Mr Yang and Ms Schofield for a performance review meeting on 27 June 2024. There is conflicting evidence about what happened during the meeting and I provide the accounts of the meeting provided by the Applicant, Mr Yang and Ms Schofield below.

• [85] The Applicant's Diary Notes indicate, by way of summary, that during the meeting:

• she was asked to share what she wrote about her FY 24 performance and did so;
• Mr Yang read out his review and said the Applicant's performance was outstanding/exceeding performance expectations, but the Applicant's rating would be done by Ms Schofield as her new leader;
• Ms Schofield then said "though you have done your work well, your ways of working is (sic) not good so we reduced your rating to Achieved" and asked the Applicant if she agreed;
• she was shocked to hear the feedback, lost patience and said:

"No, I don't agree with my rating or your feedback. I believe I did an exceeding performance last year and my work numbers and stakeholder feedback and survey ratings clearly shows it, and I always maintained the highest level in my ways of working. You are attacking me personally, on the other day you said I am emotional, unprofessional and ordered me to not use the word dodgy anymore. In another meeting, you ordered me to have a social contract with Faye when I have no personal issue with her and asked me to repeat that. Now you are saying my ways of working is bad and hence you reduced my performance rating as well. It is unfair. It shows there is an issue here with the work culture";

• she added that some of Ms Schofield's promotional team members showed emotions in public in meetings by crying and "playing dramas" but Ms Schofield did not say anything to them;
• she told Ms Schofield that she was trying to erase the word 'dodgy' from her head and dictionary because Ms Schofield told her never to use that word;
• Ms Schofield replied:

"oh, you are disagreeing with me, and questioning me?"

"Is there any issue with my ways or working? Am I unprofessional Owen? Do I have any personal issues with Faye? Do you know anything about it for me to have a social contract with Faye? Did I ever talk about Faye's work directly to her?"

• Mr Yang nodded "No" but was on mute at the time;
• she asked for an example from Ms Schofield to demonstrate what she meant in saying the Applicant's ways of working were bad and Ms Schofield said:

"You said you had a bad experience in a meeting with [the Major Supplier] from another internal team member to your team, that is not correct, you were not supposed to say that, it is bad ways of working and it is unprofessional";[151]

• • she was shocked hearing about this and about it being used as an example to reduce her rating and the example did not make sense to her.[152]

• [86] The Applicant said that when Ms Schofield told her that her 'ways of working' were not good she immediately asked for clarification, disagreed with her assessment, pointed out that at that moment she was personally attacking the Applicant and brought up the examples of Ms Schofield's prior comments (such as calling the Applicant emotional and unprofessional and the comments concerning the social contract with Faye) to illustrate that Ms Schofield's treatment of her had been unfair.[153]

• [87] The Applicant indicated in the Applicant's Diary Notes that:

• she was so upset after the meeting she took personal leave for the rest of the day and following day to recover;

• • during this time some of her teammates called her, offered support to her, mentioned that the Applicant did nothing wrong by saying she had a bad experience in a meeting and endorsed that she was a professional and always had good ways of working and work ethics based on their observation and experience;[154]
• • Mr Yang had told the Applicant that he nominated her for the top rating 'Exceeding' but that the final rating was not within his control.[155] In support of this the Applicant included a copy of a message from Mr Yang in the Aplicant's Diary Notes dated 27 June 2025 and which states:

"btw, I did nominate you as exceeding performance, but it's not up to me to approve it, sorry"[156]

• [88] Also included with the Applicant's Diary notes is a copy of some messages sent between the Applicant and one of her team members on 27 June 2024 and which read:

"had a meeting with Owen and Dee and I was mad in taht (sic)..."

"she was telling me a feedback I was not supposed to say about my [Supplier]meeting in the ebiz chat"

"she questions me unnecessary for each and everything"

"I am kind of a black listed person in her list and she questions me for everything. So I had to speak up for myself"

"she says my ways of working is not good though I have the highest numbers in everything else work related in the team, so I have only the achieved rating"

"so the whistle blower is questions !! why they raise the issue"

"she was telling me I was not supported to tell about my bad experience in the [Supplier] meeting to the team in the team chat"

Colleague: "thats what we have been doing in this team chat, share our discussions, thoughts, ideas, feelings etc"

Applicant: "she was questioning me earlier for the same thing when I was asked to provide proof about Faye note closing cases and leaving in the queue and going"

"when I provided her that she questioned me on tat too asking why are you giving that"

"she says one and talks another in the next meeting just to beat me"[157]

• [89] The Applicant maintains that she exceeded her performance goals for the financial year.[158]

• [90] Mr Yang gave evidence that he led the performance review meeting with the Applicant on 27 June 2024 and Ms Schofield came to observe as she had recently replaced him as the leader of the team.[159] Mr Yang gave evidence that during the meeting:

• he told the Applicant that her work product and performance had been outstanding;
• he explained that while the Applicant's work product was 'Exceeding' expectations, as a result of calibration and her 'Ways of Working', her overall rating had been set as 'Achieving';
• the Applicant started asking questions about why this had happened;
• the Applicant said she couldn't believe she had only received an 'Achieving' rating and believed she deserved an 'Exceeding' rating and started to explain how she had done an outstanding job in the last 12 months;
• the Applicant kept asking the same questions repeatedly about why she hadn't received a higher rating so Ms Schofield stepped in to assist in explaining;
• in response to the Applicant's request for examples, Ms Schofield provided an example of a communication to the wider team in respect of an internal employee who had not acted professionally in front of external stakeholders that the Applicant could have handled better (i.e. the Major Supplier Meeting Incident);
• the Applicant was talking very quickly and cut Ms Schofield off when she tried to say anything;
• the Applicant was very emotional and upset and it was hard to follow what the Applicant was saying because she was talking so quickly;

• • Ms Schofield ended the meeting by telling the Applicant that she shouldn't let her disappointment with her rating detract from all the outstanding work she had done and that her contribution was appreciated.[160]

• Ms Schofield did not raise her voice and was very calm and polite when talking to the Applicant;
• the feedback provided by Ms Schofield was given in the context of the Applicant asking for examples of why her 'Ways of Working' were not at an 'Exceeding' level;

• • Ms Schofield did not do anything in the meeting which he felt was not appropriate or that could be considered bullying or harassment.[161]

• [92] Ms Schofield gave evidence that while she wasn't involved in decision making regarding ratings, she attended the performance review discussions along with Mr Yang.[162] A copy of Ms Schofield's notes of the meeting was attached to her statement.[163] Ms Schofield said that during the meeting with the Applicant on 27 June 2024: [164]

• the Applicant shared what she said were her successes for the last 12 months and said she was achieving all her goals at a high standard;
• Mr Yang agreed that the Applicant was achieving at a high standard;
• Mr Yang advised the Applicant that it was a tough year and that a lot of the ratings were challenged, particularly where the proposed rating was exceeding;
• she explained the calibration process;
• Mr Yang advised the Applicant that the rating was split equally between 'Business and Strategy' and 'Ways of Working' and that while she was rated as 'Exceeding' for the former category, she was rated as 'Achieving' for the 'Ways of Working category and was therefore rated as 'Achieving' overall;
• the Applicant's demeanour changed immediately, and she asked for examples of how her 'Ways of Working' were not at an exceeding level;
• Ms Schofield put forward the Major Supplier Meeting Incident as an example;

• • Ms Schofield suggested to the Applicant that a way she could improve her 'ways of working' would be to email Ms Schofield constructive feedback when a similar incident happened in the future including key details of what happened and how it made her feel;[165]

• the Applicant immediately became defensive, argued that the eBusiness team was a family and that it discusses these sorts of things all the time and said she would not use the group chat anymore;
• Ms Schofield told the Applicant that expressing her feelings about a meeting was ok and she could continue to use the group chat, but clarified that she should be mindful of name-calling and spreading negative perceptions of internal stakeholders which might give other team members pre-conceived ideas about them and that the appropriate way to pass feedback on would be to email Ms Schofield directly;
• Ms Schofield explained that in the Promotions team, where she had been involved in ratings decisions, she had put forward three people for an 'Exceeding' rating but was challenged through the calibration process and that the ratings were revised such that only one person achieved an 'Exceeding' rating in the team;
• Ms Schofield explained this was occurring across all of BSS;
• the Applicant became emotional, and the meeting was derailed;
• the Applicant was speaking quickly and jumping between topics, and it was difficult to follow her conversation;
• the Applicant accused Ms Schofield of calling her dishonest on multiple occasions but was unable to clarify what she meant by this when Ms Schofield asked her;
• the Applicant said that since someone had accused her of being a bully she was being treated differently. Ms Schofield said that she didn't know what the Applicant meant at the time but formed a later understanding that Faye had told others in the team that the Applicant was bullying her;
• the Applicant brought up the previous discussion Ms Schofield had with her about use of the term dodgy and returned to this point multiple times;
• the Applicant said that if Ms Schofield thought the term 'dodgy' was unprofessional then the Promotions team was unprofessional because they were "always laughing and talking too loudly";
• the Applicant continued to revisit past issues with Derong and Faye, returning to this on multiple occasions;
• the Applicant said she consistently performed better than others in her team, particularly Faye, and that this was having an impact on her mental health;
• Ms Schofield reassured the Applicant that she was taking her feedback seriously and was monitoring Faye's performance;
• the Applicant said she had never been treated like that before and if it happened in her home country of India, Derong and Ms Schofield would have been sacked;
• the Applicant said she did not get the pay rises that others did and in response Ms Schofield clarified that all team members receive the same percentage-based pay rise, which is linked to CPI and not to the performance review;
• the Applicant said she was paid less than others in the team despite working harder and when Ms Schofield asked her how she knew this, the Applicant admitted that she did not know but started to talk about earning more elsewhere;
• Ms Schofield suggested getting pay rises was difficult but that the Applicant could form a case to justify why she deserved a pay rise;
• the Applicant said her meetings with Ms Schofield, and previously Derong, were always a bad experience at perhaps that "was the Woolworths Way" to which Ms Schofield replied she did not agree and would like to think the Applicant had attended pleasant meetings;
• Ms Schofield told the Applicant that she should see feedback as a gift and pointed out that the example provided to her was a result of the Applicant asking for examples;
• Ms Schofield reinforced that an 'Achieving' rating was still very good and that the meeting should not detract from the great work that the Applicant had achieved in the past year;
• Ms Schofield thanked the Applicant for her work and acknowledged her achievements, including a 4.9 out of 5 supplier satisfaction score and managing working with a challenging supplier who was very important to the business;
• the Applicant kept repeating herself, Ms Schofield felt she was no longer getting anywhere so she thanked the Applicant for her time and suggested a catch up with the Applicant and Ms Stoffels the following week to talk through the Applicant's concerns;
• the Applicant said thank you and the meeting ended.

• [93] The Applicant said that at no point during the meeting did Ms Schofield or Mr Yang mention that a calibration process led by higher management "had forced [the Applicant's] rating down" and that the first time she heard this explanation was much later, by Ms Stoffels, after the Applicant challenged the fairness of her rating.[166] The Applicant also said that while Ms Schofield now asserts that the Applicant was rated as 'Exceeding' for Business Strategy and Contribution, Ms Schofield did not inform the Applicant of any 'Exceeding' aspect of her performance and that her message was entirely negative, focusing on alleged flaws.[167] The Applicant said the impression she was given was that Ms Schofield considered both aspects of her performance to be subpar as nothing positive was mentioned and she was told she had been "reduced" to 'Achieved' in general.[168]

• [94] Ms Schofield said she found the conversation challenging as:

• the Applicant was upset and had a confrontational manner;
• the Applicant's demeanour was erratic, and she spoke very quickly and jumped between topics, which made it difficult to speak to the Applicant and contribute;
• at times she considered what the Applicant was saying to be irrational;
• she had to consistently raise the virtual hand to get the Applicant's attention, and the Applicant rarely paused to take a breath;

• • when Ms Schofield did have an opportunity to contribute it would not take the Applicant long to interrupt and talk over the top of her.[169]

• • saying to the Applicant "oh, you are disagreeing with me, and questioning me?"; [170]
• • bullying the Applicant during the meeting.[171]

• [96] Ms Schofield's notes of the meeting also included a screenshot of text messages sent by the Applicant which appear to be sent approximately one hour post the end of the meeting and which state:[172]

"I would like to take leave for the rest of the day"

"Also, if you can write the feedback about me for getting the achieved rating due to my ways of working (is poor according to you), it would be greatly appreciated"

"I just want to understand that and review and learn myself where I need to improve though I believe I do my work and ways of working better than anyone in the team and it is visible and evidence for the team"

• [97] Ms Schofield lodged a people services case on 28 June 2024 to flag the details of the meeting. [173]

Applicant's complaint to Ms Stoffels on 27 June 2024 and events on 28 June 2024

• [98] On 27 June 2024 the Applicant emailed Ms Stoffels raising a complaint about Ms Schofield.[174] A copy of this email was included in the Applicant's Diary Notes and in that email the Applicant raised, by way of summary that:

• she had a few meetings with Ms Schofield;
• she had been impacted mentally by Ms Schofield questioning her on almost everything she did at work including what she said to her team members who she considered as friends, the chats she had with them and the issues and points she raised for the team;
• Ms Schofield considered that everything she did was unprofessional;
• Ms Schofield prejudged her without knowing what she did or not and whether it was right or wrong;
• Ms Schofield had given her the impression that she was "in her bad book" from day one;
• she did not feel she was treated equally with others in the team;
• she did not feel that Ms Schofield gave her constructive feedback;
• she felt she was a victim for raising an ongoing issue when asked in the first one-on-one meeting "Would you like to see something change, what is it and why? What can I do to help influence the change?"
• she was questioned that day for informing Ms Schofield in in a chat that she "had a bad experience" in a meeting with one an internal team member who was talking rudely to a supplier and Ms Schofield used this as an example for giving her a lower rating;

• • she was not aware of what she should and shouldn't talk about in a team chat or meetings.[175]

• [99] Ms Stoffels gave evidence that she replied to the Applicant advising that she would like to meet with her to discuss her concerns.[176] A copy of Ms Schofield's response was included in the Applicant's Diary notes and states:

I take issues raised very seriously, and would like to catch up with you tomorrow to discuss this further.

I have between 1pm and 2pm tomorrow available if you are free. I will send through a calendar invite following this email."

• [100] Ms Stoffels said this was not the first time that the Applicant had raised concerns with her, but it was the first time she had raised concerns with her about Ms Schofield.[177]

• [101] On 28 June 2024 the Applicant emailed Ms Stoffels advising that she would like to involve human resources and the 'responsible team'[178] stating this was because:

"I got a rating from a manager who just had 2 meetings with me (one casual and another 1:1) and 1 month of experience managing our team. She simply judged based on that.

In my observation and experience, I can not exceed in my work and ways of working more than this to please her. The performance rating done for me was not fair and I am not convinced by the feedback Dee has given over the meeting."[179]

• [102] Ms Stoffels gave evidence that on the same day, 28 June 2024, she raised a case with 'People Services', the Employer's human resources team.[180]

Applicant's message to Mr Yang following the performance review meeting

• [103] Mr Yang said that after the performance review meeting the Applicant told him she did not want much work assigned to her anymore and that if she was not getting an exceeding performance rating, she did not want to put extra effort into her work.[181] Mr Yang attached a copy of the Applicant's messages to him on 1 July 2024 to his statement.[182] These read:

"I would like to slow down in my work and would like to do only what I can do in a day time like others in the team"

"so please consider that when you do the work assignments or talk to that to the managers when there is a discussion on that"

"as you know I was doing more that a person job until now for nothing"

"I do not want to do that anymore and just want to do what I can in my normal working time as any other team members here"

• was made in the immediate aftermath of a review outcome she considered "deeply upsetting and unfair";
• was taken out of context;
• was not a literal refusal to perform her duties but was an expression of shock and demoralisation;

• • was the Applicant's way of asking Mr Yang to reduce the cases assigned to her and balance it with what he assigns to others in the team, as she always had a higher share of normal business as usual tasks than anyone in the team.[183]

Meeting between the Applicant and Ms Stoffels on 1 July 2024

• [105] Ms Stoffels met with the Applicant on 1 July 2024 online to discuss the Applicant's concerns.[184]

• [106] The Applicant's Diary Notes indicate that during this meeting:

• she discussed her performance review/rating and Ms Schofield's feedback with Ms Stoffels;
• Ms Stoffels did not take the issue seriously, heavily supported Ms Schofield and said:

"Oh you say Dee gave that rating to you? It is not Dee, it is my rating, your 'Ways of Working' is (sic) not good so your work numbers don't matter for me and hence I gave you an achieved rating"

"Owen is not your manager anymore, Dee is your manager. Dee can give such feedback as she is your manager and just being in the leader role for less than a month is more than enough for Dee to give you a rating for your last year's performance. Also, your manager is not going to change, it is going to be Dee";

• Ms Stoffels said, "Dee would have mentioned the BSS social contract that she can tell you to have with Faye" and showed support to Ms Schofield;
• she felt confused and helpless because of this feedback and treatment from Ms Stoffels;
• Ms Stoffels said, "I heard from Dee that you are doing dirty laundry washing" and the Applicant was puzzled hearing this;
• she mentioned that Ms Schofield had given the Major Supplier Meeting Incident as an example of bad ways of working and Ms Stoffels said "ah, I saw that email you wrote to Dee, it is a blunt email". The Applicant said she was belittling and teasing her;
• she realised that Ms Schofield had provided incorrect information to Ms Stoffels about her and said to Ms Stoffels:

"Oh, you are telling me that too. I never even wanted to escalate that issue. I was forced to write that down in an email. Whatever happened I wrote in that email. I can't accuse someone simply of something to make a story. I have my chat with Dee to show as evidence".

"Oh, now I have to be very careful here. I never thought these were conveyed this way to others especially after I was asked to write about the meeting. I have all the chats with me to prove that I did nothing wrong";

• she kept asking Ms Stoffels for the "accused wrong ways of working", Ms Stoffels provided no reasons and finally said "ah your rating was reduced as part of calibration";
• she requested that Ms Stoffels provide written feedback as to what she did wrong in her 'Ways of Working' and to provide guidance as to how to escalate the issue with human resources;
• she said "I didn't get justice from you and I feel more victimised" to which Ms Stoffels replied "oh, so you say you didn't get justice from me and you are a victim and you want to go to HR" in a way the Applicant felt to be a "teasing tone";

• • Ms Stoffels' reply did not make any sense to the Applicant who formed the view that Ms Stoffels and Ms Schofield were unreasonably targeting her or that Ms Stoffels "simply protects her friend" Ms Schofield in all her wrong doings.[185]

• [107] Ms Stoffels attached a copy of her notes of the meeting[186] and gave evidence that:

• • the Applicant presented as angry, agitated and aggressive from the start of the meeting;[187]

• when she asked the Applicant "How are you?... How can I help you?" the Applicant said words to the effect of "I am not happy" and indicated that Ms Schofield had said certain things;
• the Applicant said that Ms Schofield had changed her performance rating to 'Achieving' and had told her this was due to her 'Ways of Working' not being where they needed to be;
• she tried to explain to the Applicant that Ms Schofield had no input into her performance rating, that she had asked team leaders to put an indicative rating into a spreadsheet and that this information goes to the broader BE team as a part of a calibration process where anyone who was indicatively rated as exceeding was discussed in the context of a benchmark;
• the Applicant did not reach the benchmark;
• she said there were many things to consider including contribution to the team, broader BSS team and business, impacts and influence, and whether an employee went above and beyond their day to day role when looking at ways of working;
• she said the Applicant may have done an amazing job from a task perspective but the bigger pictured needed to be looked at;

• • she tried to explain this to the Applicant but she did not believe her and continued to raise the same issues about Ms Schofield.[188]

• [108] Ms Stoffels said the Applicant raised that Ms Schofield had provided the Major Supplier Meeting Incident an example of where her ways of working could have been improved.[189] Ms Stoffels said:

• the Applicant told her that the other staff member in had been quite rude and didn't know what she was talking about;
• the Applicant said she sent private messages to the staff member during the meeting telling her she was being rude;
• the Applicant said after the meeting she made comments on her team's group chat that she had a bad experience with this staff member;
• Ms Schofield became aware of the group message and subsequently asked the Applicant to send her an email in order for her to follow up with the person's line manager;
• the Applicant did not think Ms Schofield's request was appropriate;
• she indicated that based on what the Applicant had told her she did not believe the request Ms Schofield made of the Applicant was unreasonable;

• • the Applicant appeared to not like Ms Stoffels' response, changed the subject and reverted to her performance rating;[190]
• • she struggled to say anything during the meeting, she had to be quite firm with the Applicant at times and had to keep saying "Seema, I need you to listen to me ... Dee had nothing to do with your performance rating".[191]

• • she did not recall making any comment to the Applicant about her doing "dirty laundry washing" and these are not words she would use;[192]
• • she did not say "You feel like you didn't get justice from me and now you want to go to HR";[193]
• • she did not recall there being any outcomes from the meeting.[194]

• [110] The Applicant said that Ms Stoffels' description of her presenting as "angry, agitated and aggressive" was a gross mischaracterisation of her demeanour and that she was utterly exhausted as she had been working since 5.00am that morning.[195] The Applicant described her tone as one of fatigue and distress and not anger and said that she spoke firmly about her concerns but did not raise her voice or act unprofessionally.[196]

Applicant's complaint via 'Speak Up' on 8 July 2024

• [111] The Applicant's Diary Notes suggest she called the Respondent's 'Speak Up' team on 8 July 2025 and after speaking with a member of that team a case was referred to the employee relations team.[197]

Third one-on-one meeting between Ms Schofield and the Applicant on 10 July 2024

• [112] The third one-on-one meeting between the Applicant and Ms Schofield occurred on 10 July 2024. The Applicant's Diary Notes indicate that during this meeting Ms Schofield asked:

"Seema, did you say anything bad about Faye to others?"

"I have no idea what you are talking about. About the work Faye does, everyone in the team (past and present members) knows about it and they can see that. Additionally all of them were/are affected doing her extra work under backup duties and I know some of the past members have complained about it to multiple leaders even before me. I don't know anything about Faye personally other than what she herself tells us in our team meetings. I don't talk to anyone outside of my team other than work".

• [113] Ms Schofield gave evidence that during this meeting the Applicant:[198]

• said she had to cancel plans because she was unwell due to work pressures;
• said work was ok because she wasn't dependent on anyone;
• said she was feeling bad since the performance review and that despite not doing anything wrong, she was unfairly accused of having issues with her 'ways of working';
• said she thought she was 'exceeding' in all aspects of her role and that she was being punished;
• said that her wings had been clipped and that Woolworths was a bad environment to work in;
• repeated her concerns about Faye and added that she thought Faye was "backstabbing" her and telling people in the team that the Applicant was bullying her;
• said she had raised a complaint via 'Team Speak Up' and that Ms Schofield would be contacted about it soon;
• said that "if she was let go" she would go straight to the Respondent's former CEO;
• said that Faye was not "moral to others in the team" and just "plays around";
• told Ms Schofield to get in touch with former members of the team to get their views on Faye;
• said that Faye was performing better because Ms Schofield was monitoring her work.

• she told the Applicant that Faye had some hearing challenges to provide some context as to why Faye may not have been performing to the level expected by the Applicant;
• the Applicant cut her off and said she was fed up with hearing this and that Faye's hearing issues were not an "excuse" for her not clearing emails;
• the Applicant said she had heard that excuse for six years and that Mr Yang and Derong were always making excuses;

• • she was taken aback by the Applicant's insensitivity to Faye's condition, which had been recognised by Faye's two previous managers;[199]

• she did not get much of an opportunity to speak in the meeting due to the Applicant's pattern of talking over the top of her and jumping between topics;

• • the meeting was dominated by the Applicant's concerns about Faye's performance and the Applicant repeated the same issues over again, despite acknowledging that she had seen some improvement from Faye.[200]

• [115] Ms Schofield attached the notes of her meeting to her statement.[201]

• [116] The Applicant's Diary Notes indicate that on 11 July 2024 the Applicant emailed Ms Schofield, making a complaint about Faye.[202] The Applicant's Diary Notes provide some context for that complaint including that the Applicant's colleague Catherine had told her that Faye had told her in a training session that the Applicant bullied her and that Faye may have also said this to leaders.[203] The Applicant's Diary Notes indicate that this upset her and that she had never directly discussed her concerns about misuse of work time with Faye.[204]

• [117] A copy of the email was included in the Applicant's Diary Notes[205] and attached to Ms Schofield's statement and said:[206]

In yesterday's meeting, you hinted that Faye had made some allegation on me accusing me of spreading bad things about her. Now I believe this would be the reason I was accused of having wrong ways of working by the managers (Dee and Janet) and given this as feedback (over a meeting) for my just achieved rating.

As I mentioned over the meeting yesterday, I never had any personal issues with Faye and all my communications about her misusing work were directly to her line managers (ie, to my managers Derong/Owen/Janet/Dee) and none of them were direct to her. Moreover, all her wrong doings are visible to the team members (past and present) and all of them are aware of it (you can check with them if I raised anything wrong about Faye to you).

Faye's false allegation, and the manager's questioning about that to me (you were questioning on my character) gave me sleepless nights thinking about what I did wrong (other than raising a complaint about a person constantly misusing the work time to her managers that too as per my ways of working) and I would like to let you know that I was mentally depressed for the last few weeks. Due to my current mental stress I had to even cancel my holiday plans next week to take some rest at home. So I kindly request you to investigate this and prove what I did wrong and take action against the person who wrongly accused me of doing the same.

Also, I request my managers (Dee and Janet) to free me from the false acquisition you have done on me, and I request you explain to me the reason behind your feedback 'my ways of working are not good' (I am still waiting for you to give me a proper clarification on your feedback, I am neither agreeing with what you said nor convinced with the silly reasons you gave me during the performance review). I am writing this because even Janet had echoed this false statement during my meeting with her and she even mentioned that my work numbers don't matter to her due to poor ways of working. That was clearly an unfair treatment to me from the management."

• [118] Ms Schofield responded to the Applicant indicating that she was consulting with People Services as to next steps.[207]

Ms Schofield's People Services request on 31 July 2024.

• [119] Ms Schofield raised a request with People Services on 31 July 2024.[208] In Ms Schofield's People Services request of 31 July 2024, Ms Schofield attached her notes of the meeting on 10 July 2024 and:

• stated that a case had already been raised in relation to the Applicant's "over all poor behaviour that is very difficult to manage as she is unable to accept feedback and cannot acknowledge that she indeed has poor ways of working as reflected in her FY24 Performance review";
• indicated that the Applicant had sent an email requesting that allegations be investigated;
• indicated that she was seeking guidance on how to manage this as the working relationship was already very toxic and the Applicant was making a lot of allegations about Faye which were considered bullying according to the Code of Conduct;
• indicated that she did not say anything relating to Faye accusing the Applicant of saying bad things but rather:
  • the Applicant advised that Faye was giving a bad impression of the Applicant's character;
  • Ms Schofield asked the Applicant whether she was giving a bad impression of Faye's character to which she responded "no";
  • the Applicant advised her that she had been told by someone that Faye was telling others that the Applicant was bullying her and that she did not have any information to support this comment;
• indicated she was seeking a way forward to support the Applicant to overcome her challenges with Faye and to restore a harmonious working relationship with Faye.

One-on-one meetings between Ms Schofield and the Applicant on 24 July 2024, 7 August 2024 and 21 August 2024

• [120] Ms Schofield gave evidence that in her fourth one-on-one meeting with the Applicant on 24 July 2024:

• • the Applicant said that she had been contacted by People Services regarding a case she raised via 'Speak Up';[209]
• • Ms Schofield talked about the process for People Services cases, including that there could be interviews with various people and that she should trust in the process to drive an outcome.[210] Ms Schofield gave evidence that at this stage she had no context about what the Speak Up case was about but believed it related to Faye;[211]
• • the Applicant said she was feeling better compared to the prior week but said she has had "mental trauma" and still needed more time to recover;[212]
• • she considered the meeting to be "very good" and positive;[213]

• the Applicant said her husband was going back to India and the Applicant wanted to work from home on the one day that she would normally work from the office to help care for her son;

• • Ms Schofield and the Applicant talked a lot about India and how the schooling system worked in India;[214]
• • Ms Schofield acknowledged that the meeting was nice and so did the Applicant.[215]

• [121] Ms Schofield also gave evidence that the fifth and sixth one-on-one meetings with the Applicant on 7 and 21 August 2024 were positive.[216]

• [122] Ms Schofield attached a copy of her meeting notes to her statement.[217]

• [123] The Applicant's Diary Notes appear to indicate that the discussion about India occurred in August and Ms Schofield had said she heard from an employee who made a presentation about India in a team bonding meeting that in India government jobs were low paid and there are bribes and corruption everywhere in government jobs.[218]

• [124] The Applicant's Diary Notes indicate the Applicant felt the comments were out of context for a work related meeting and made her uncomfortable.[219] The Applicant said she had not been talking about anything related to India or her background at that moment but had mentioned her husband had gone to India for two weeks and requested to work from home to send her son to school.[220] The Applicant said the comments left her with the impression that Ms Schofield might perceive her as someone who came from an inferior or corrupt environment.[221]

• [125] The Applicant's Diary Notes indicate that in response to these comments the Applicant:

• clarified that India is a diverse nation with many cultures, languages and classes of people;
• told Ms Schofield about a focus on academics in India;
• added that government jobs are highly paid in Indian currency and that she was also highly paid in her previous job in Indian currency;

• • said she was not sure what the person who told her about India and Indian jobs was referring to and suggested that he may have been talking about a particular part of India.[222]

• [126] Ms Schofield did not recall making any comment about people in India being low paid or India having a corrupt government and said these were not her beliefs.[223]

• [127] The Applicant's Diary Notes also indicate that Ms Schofield said that in her locality there were a lot of Indian migrants, and the schools had a lot of Indian children and that the Applicant perceived these comments to be negative.[224]

• [128] The Applicant's Diary Notes also indicate that in meetings in August Ms Schofield said "we need to work on your 'Ways of Working'" and showed her some printed documents regarding the Respondent's 'Ways of Working'.[225] The Applicant's Diary Notes indicate the Applicant felt that such matters were not being discussed with other team members in their one-on-one meetings, which the Applicant described as "very casual chit chats" on "mostly non-work related topics".[226]

• [129] The Applicant's Diary Notes also indicate that Ms Schofield asked the Applicant how she raised a "ticket" to Human Resources, how the Applicant knew about team 'Speak Up' and how the Applicant raised a concern to team 'Speak Up'.[227]

• [130] Ms Schofield gave evidence that the Applicant's use of the group chat was an ongoing issue, and on 22 August 2024 she emailed the whole team reminding them of some general guidelines about the use of the group chat, not wanting to single the Applicant out.[228]

• [131] A copy of an email dated 22 August 2024 was attached to Ms Schofield's statement and stated:[229]

"Just following on from our discussion last week in regards to some improvements that we could make to improve the effectiveness of our Friday standup. Can I please ask that you all take some time to watch Atlassian - How to have a successful daily standup video which will give some great guidelines for an effect (sic) Standup.

It's important that we celebrate milestones, whilst helping our team with any blockers that they may have to see if we can help them to move forward.

In our discussion we also talked about improving our listening and not talking over each other. I did talk about the concept of Seek first to understand, then be understood which is habit number 5 from Steven Covey's book 'The 7 Habits of highly effective people' and when you put it into practice in all aspects of your life it can have a profound impact.

Please watch a short You tube video Seek First to understand, then to be understood to give you some more insights then put into practice, you will be amazed at how quickly it becomes a habit and super beneficial. Of course there are other videos related to the 7 habits that are also very beneficial to our personal and working life...ENJOY !!"

Meeting between Ms Schofield and the Applicant on 27 August 2024

• [132] Ms Schofield gave evidence that she had no involvement in setting the rate of bonuses for her team, although she does need to formally sign off on them from a workflow perspective.[230]

• [133] Notwithstanding this Ms Schofield does meet face to face with her team members to deliver their reward letter and discuss their bonus and pay rise.[231] Ms Schofield met with the Applicant for this purpose on 27 August 2024 and during the meeting:

• • the Applicant advised that she didn't agree with the numbers and said she had worked harder than any of her team members and shouldn't be compared to other roles.[232] Ms Schofield said she considered this as criticism of her team members and the calibration process which used a benchmarking system;[233]
• • she told the Applicant that she had hoped her People Services case would have been finalised before giving her the reward letter and that the letter was a product of what was currently on the system;[234]

• the Applicant said she knew it was Ms Stoffels who gave her an 'Achieving' rating, and said "What would [Ms Stoffels] know about how I work?";

• • Ms Schofield said she would let Ms Stoffels know.[235]

• [134] Ms Schofield attached her notes of the meeting to her statement.[236]

Seventh one-on-one meeting between Ms Schofield and the Applicant on 4 September 2024

• [135] The Applicant's Diary Notes indicate that during her one-on-one meeting with Ms Schofield on 4 September 2024:

• Ms Schofield asked, in reference to Mr Duncan from human resources:

"Have you heard from Daniel Seema? Did Daniel contact you this week?"

"Yes he contacted me and said that he will check the allegation from Faye to others that I am bullying her under my ticket if I don't have an issue with that and I said okay to him for that. I thought it would be something for you to check as Faye is your reportee and I haven't done anything wrong to her."

"That is not for me to deal with. That's actually a people services problem. And I raised that case a few weeks ago. And I did tell you that in the chat. I asked you, have they reached out to you? And I also have got communication from Daniel that he has merged the cases together and that he is dealing with it. Allegations around bullying will be taken extremely seriously. That's not a leader issue because it's a serious allegation, as per our Respectful Workplace Policy and also our Code of Conduct."

• Ms Schofield showed her printed copies of the Code of Conduct and Respectful Workplace Behaviour policy and said:

"We are taking it very seriously, I have read through these documents at length, so I've got an understanding of what sort of constitutes things like harassment, bullying, examples of behaviour that may be workplace bullying, if it is repeated, unreasonable creates (sic) on health and safety, abusive, insulting or offensive language or comments, aggressive and intimidating conduct repeated".

"I know that Dee it is a serious allegation. I have done the mandatory Code of Conduct course this week and I do it every year by reading it fully so I know it line to line and I do that diligently. I am clear that I have not done anything wrong. I have not even talked with Faye about anything, I talk with her only in the team chat that everyone can see. So how can somebody simply say that I bullied, them that is the reason I raised it and I have told Daniel the same."

"Daniel was taking my permission to add this Faye's allegation in the existing ticket so that's the only thing he was asking me recently."

"No worries. It's all in hand, I just hope that there's an outcome sooner rather than later because I feel that it had dragged on a little bit too long."

• [136] The Applicant's Diary Notes indicate that following a wider communication from the Respondent's leadership, Ms Stoffels sent an email to the BSS team mentioning the effort the eBusiness team had put into a major project and thanking all team members, including the Applicant, for their work on that project.[237]

• [137] The Applicant's Diary Notes indicate that:

• While talking about the Applicant's work Ms Schofield asked the Applicant about the work she did for the project team.

• The Applicant explained what she did and said that for the project:

• she was a little disappointed that her name was called out for those who had not contributed to the project yet;
• she felt like her effort spent on the project was not valued and her work was not appreciated and was just called out in general along with some people who were not part of the project;

• Ms Schofield asked the Applicant what she meant, and the Applicant replied:

"For example, Catherine has not even contributed a single supplier onboarding for that project. I was treated like them and my effort was not valued. I felt like I didn't get any appreciation for my huge effort behind that."

• [138] Ms Schofield attached a copy of her notes to her statement.[238] In those notes is an extract of the email from Ms Stoffels praising the team that the Applicant was concerned about. That email states:

Not sure if you have seen this video in the support update today.

Moorbank NDC will start delivering products in October this year.

This has been a HUGE effort from many teams across the business including our very own E-Business team, Owen, Seema, Syed, Catherine and Faye, who have supported about 159 suppliers onto EDI to be able to deliver to the new NDC site.

Well done to you all and thank you for all that you have done to support this mammoth project."

• [139] The Applicant's Diary Notes indicate that Ms Schofield responded in a way that she describes as "unprofessional" as well as "teasing and belittling".[239] In particular, the Applicant alleges that Ms Schofield said:[240]

• "From what I'm hearing from you Seema, praise is important. So some people don't care for the praise, but its seeming like praise is very important to you and being called out."
• "You don't have humility, you are not humble, you have a need for praise and you have a need to be always telling me and others of the great work that you do."
• "You don't put a lot of importance on the team as opposed to your individual contribution. I am much more of a team person. For me, you put everything for your individual performance."
• "You value quite heavily being called out as an individual in the work that you do."
• "Whilst you were working on Janus, the rest of the team were doing other activities so that you can work on Janus."
• "Doing Janus was your job, that is your role. It is not going above or beyond anything. That is just doing your job we should all do, that was a task allocated to you to do over the past two years."
• "Have you been doing the job? Well, yes, you have. Have you been doing that job at an exceeding level? I can't comment because I haven't been here long enough."
• "If we get allocated projects that are business as usual, that is the expectation from the company to perform and do your role and you are paid for that. If you are not doing your role, we have other conversations."
• "I don't think you could ever acknowledge where you think you are not doing something correct. The 'Ways of Working' is a good example of that."
• "I think we do get very murky waters when people think that they are actually exceeding as opposed to actually doing what is expected of you and what you are paid to do. That is where your ways of working also bring you down."
• "You can't take feedback so I don't feel respected. I find it extremely frustrating and it makes me feel really underappreciated. It also makes me feel like you don't respect me at all ... and that is how you make me feel."
• "I believe that you can't take feedback at all... you never can... that is my observation over the last few months. Every time I talk I get five words out... Every time...and you cut me off. You don't listen to me at all."
• "You think you're absolutely nailing all of that. You are telling me that you are perfect, like you are perfect and that you have done all of this. That is expected."
• "Everybody, including myself, have multiple things we should be improving on for sure. I have never heard that from you saying, you have a development opportunity."
• "You say you don't have any challenges in your work now. You have different perception of yourself than perhaps what I see now that I've been working with you now for a few months."
• "Thank you for actually listening to me because I think that's the first time you've actually listened to me."

• [140] The Applicant said she raised her (virtual) hand and responded by saying:

"I disagree with your feedback and I always put importance to my team and always was a team player. You can check that with my teammates or anyone who worked with me here for years."[241]

• [141] The Applicant's Diary Notes indicate that Ms Schofield then said:

"You just told me that I am wrong in regards to the teamwork. You know what Seema, yes, it is what I think and I listen to you all the time about what you think. I really would like you to appreciate my opinion and I would really like you to respect my opinion because quite frankly you put me down, you don't listen to me, you can't take feedback at all..."[242]

• [142] The Applicant's Diary Notes suggest that the Applicant considered that Ms Schofield's comments were unreasonable and that she told Ms Schofield:

• she discriminated against her by depreciating her work and showing racism when she appreciated and praised Catherine, including reading feedback about Catherine in front of the wider team while ignoring the Applicant's feedback from the same feedback survey;
• that the Applicant had learned from Catherine that Faye had been telling people that the Applicant was bullying her and Catherine had suggested Faye may have also said this to leaders, resulting in the Applicant's reduced rating;

• • she had given her "destroying personal feedback for not agreeing with her wrong accusations".[243]

• [143] The Applicant's Diary Notes indicate that Ms Schofield said the Applicant had "put her down" in alleging discrimination and racism and disconnected from the meeting.[244]

• [144] Ms Schofield provided a different perspective regarding the meeting with the Applicant, which she described as "very confrontational" and gave evidence that:[245]

• the Applicant raised her disappointment with an email from Ms Stoffels to the whole team thanking them for the work they did on a project and not the Applicant individually;
• the Applicant said some team members did not contribute to the project;
• the Applicant mentioned she had not felt very appreciated for past work;
• Ms Schofield said, in a calm and measured voice, it was her observation that the Applicant was "not particularly humble" because she had observed the Applicant telling her and others that her performance exceeded that or team members and degrading the performance of her colleagues;
• the Applicant again brought up issues with Faye and her performance review rating;
• the Applicant repeated the examples of why she considered her work was exceeding expectations and listed the sort of tasks she performed;
• Ms Schofield said "these are BAU (business as usual) activities" to clarify what the business would consider to be standard duties and what could be considered to be going above these standard duties but denied saying "the company pays you for that";
• the Applicant said that Ms Schofield had "attacking feedback", had pre-judged her and was attacking her;
• the Applicant said that Ms Schofield had silenced the team through her feedback on use of the group chat and this stopped team bonding;
• Ms Schofield put her digital hand up in the meeting as a way of requesting time to speak however the Applicant took a long time to pause and continued to talk over the top of her;
• when the opportunity presented, she told the Applicant that she constantly talks over her and when she did speak, she rarely got to say three or four words at a time;
• Ms Schofield told the Applicant that she felt the Applicant disrespected her;
• the Applicant then called Ms Schofield racist, said Ms Schofield had an issue with the colour of her skin and said that she had heard from others in the BSS team that she was racist and tough;
• Ms Schofield clarified whether the Applicant meant to call her a racist, the Applicant confirmed that she did and this offended and upset Ms Schofield;
• the Applicant then brought up the issue of the social contract;
• the Applicant then raised a meeting she had with Ms Stoffels about her performance review rating and said Ms Stoffels told her she was doing "dirty laundry washing" which Ms Schofield said made no sense to her;
• Ms Schofield said on three different occasions during the meeting that she would like to end the meeting as no resolution was going to be reached and said this because the Applicant continued to berate her and she was distraught and upset from being called a racist;

• • the Applicant was not listening to Ms Schofield and did not respond to Ms Schofield's request to end the meeting, so she was left with no choice but to hang up to end the virtual meeting.[246]

• [145] The Applicant gave evidence that she never directly called any colleague or manager a "racist" but expressed her feeling that she was being treated in a manner that she perceived as racist or discriminatory.[247] In particular, the Applicant told Ms Schofield she was "discriminating against" her and "showing racism" to her in the way she treated the Applicant compared to others.[248] More specifically the Applicant indicated that she said to Ms Schofield:

"I even noticed that you have actually sent all the emails, silenced our team basically, and we had to open another chat to interact, another meeting to talk as a team for bonding.

You are basically attacking me which I notice from day one with your prejudgment - when you are telling Catherine to give more examples of Faye doing wrong things or whatever she is raising you are giving value to it.

I can see clear discrimination, bias, racism, everything in your words.

I still do not know what is the problem with my 'Ways of Working'. So I cannot, I cannot listen to all these things simply, it is affecting me as a person."[249]

• [146] The Applicant indicated she said this out of distress and that her comments were based on her observations that Ms Schofield frequently praised her colleague Catherine's work while consistently ignoring, dismissing or downplaying her contributions.[250] The Applicant said she perceived this different treatment to be rooted, at least in part, in bias that was possibly due to the Applicant's race or national origin given certain comments that Ms Schofield had made about India.[251]

• [147] Ms Schofield recalled saying "nobody is perfect, we all have areas of opportunity that we can work on to improve" and said this in the context of the Applicant's continued requests for reasons for why she had been told that her 'Ways of Working' were rated as 'Achieving'.[252]

• [148] Ms Schofield denied telling the Applicant:

• "You are not a team player";
• "I don't think you could even acknowledge when you are wrong";

• • "You think you are perfect and absolutely nailing everything, that is where your ways of working also bring you down".[253]

• [149] Ms Schofield denied that she was racist.[254]

Applicant's interaction with her team on 4 September 2024 following her one-on-one meeting

• [150] The Applicant's Diary Notes indicate that soon after her meeting with Ms Schofield on 4 September 2024 the Applicant sent a series of messages to her team members in the 'eBiz Hut' team chat in which Ms Schofield was not a member.[255] The Applicant noted that nobody replied to her and suggested they may have been scared to support her in front of others but some of them were supporting her "behind the scenes".[256] Those messages, set out below, were sent between 12.11 and 12.16 and provide some insights into the Applicant's use of group chat:[257]

"guys, do you think that I am working only for me and going and not for the team until now?"

"did I not help you as a team member or work for the team until now and was working only for my own personal cases and going?"

"I got such a feedback from Dee just now so checking if I was not helping you as a team member after over the last few years"

"I felt it so bad and had to resist it as she's attacking me like anything to pull me down and I see it is only to me she does it"

"so I am forced to say that I don't know what she meant by saying 'you are working for yourself only and not considering the team'"

"how can I just agree all these whatever she says again and again"

"according to her all work assigned to me are just BAU and nothing is better than the average"

"she is giving me terrible feedbacks which I am unable to digest"

"I can't agree whatever she think and says about me and I see she is doing that only to me"

Applicant's emails to Ms Schofield and Mr Duncan following the meeting on 4 September 2024 and Ms Schofield's People Services case

• [151] The Applicant's Diary Notes indicate that that on 4 September 2024, after her one-on-one meeting with Ms Schofield, the Applicant sent Ms Schofield a lengthy email, in which Ms Stoffels and Mr Duncan from human resources were copied, raising several concerns about the meeting.[258]

• [152] The Applicant also emailed Mr Duncan separately asking that the email be included in the "ticket" and stating that she was "[l]ooking forward to an getting a resolution from an independent panel".[259] Mr Duncan responded the following day, 5 September 2025, stating it may be the case that the issues were not within the scope of the existing case and that it may be better to review them as part of a separate case so the Applicant could get an outcome on her existing case sooner.[260] The Applicant replied that same day expressing the view that the matters she raised were a continuation of what was happening between her and Ms Schofield, raising allegations of discrimination by Ms Schofield and requesting Mr Duncan assist her in opening a new case if he did not consider the complaints fit into the existing "ticket".[261] Mr Duncan responded indicating that the Applicant did not need to open a new case.[262]

• [153] Ms Schofield also raised a case to People Services about the Applicant's behaviour during the meeting on 4 September 2025.[263] A copy of this was attached to Ms Schofield's statement.[264]

Applicant's interaction with Catherine and Mr Yang following the meeting on 4 September 2024

• [154] The Applicant's Diary Notes infer that Ms Schofield had spoken to the Applicant's colleague Catherine about the Applicant. In particular, the Applicant alleges that on 6 September 2024, a day in which the Applicant attended the office:

• Catherine kept a distance from her and was not talking to her or minding her presence there;
• Catherine was sitting next to Mr Yang when she would ordinarily sit opposite the Applicant;

• • Catherine asked the Applicant "Did you say anything about me to Dee?" to which the Applicant replied "I told Dee that Faye told you that I bullied her. Since it is serious allegation I requested Dee to get that checked as I don't know how many people she is telling that to. I didn't say anything about you other than that."[265]

• [155] The Applicant's Diary Notes indicate that the Applicant felt Ms Schofield told Catherine not to talk to her or share anything with the Applicant after the meeting on 4 September and that Catherine stopped talking to her after that day.[266]

• [156] The Applicant's Diary Notes also indicate that on 6 September 2024 the Applicant spoke to Mr Yang about some of the matters discussed with Ms Schofield on 4 September 2024.[267]

Communications between Ms Schofield and the Applicant on 12 September 2024

• [157] Ms Schofield said on 12 September 2024:

• she received a message from the Applicant saying she was not feeling well, not in a "good mental stage (sic)" to attend the team meeting and wanted to go home;

• • she replied "of course you can go home" and let the Applicant know where she was located in case she wanted to have a chat, however the Applicant declined.[268]

Communications between the Applicant and Ms Schofield post September 2024

• • in relation to the post September 2024 period, that she only engaged in Google chat conversation and email with the Applicant when she was advising her that she was entering leave into Success Factors for Ms Schofield to approve;[269]
• • the eBusiness team attend the office on Friday, she attends the office on Thursday, and she did not recall seeing the Applicant in person for the for the rest of the year;[270]
• • on 1 October 2024 Ms Stoffels advised her not to meet with the Applicant for any one-on-one meetings until the People Services case she had raised in relation to the Applicant and a People Services case the Applicant had made about Ms Schofield were completed.[271]

The allegation concerning exclusion from Big W work

• [159] The Applicant said that from 2019, and prior to Ms Schofield becoming her manager, she was a key contributor to Big W support but after Ms Schofield was appointed as her manager she was systematically removed from Big W support activities and denied access to project work streams where she had established expertise, without any valid business reason or notice.[272] The Applicant said these responsibilities were assigned to all other team members while she was sidelined and underutilised.[273] The Applicant said her requests to be involved were ignored or dismissed and that the exclusion was a targeted act of bullying and retaliation intended to punish the Applicant for raising concerns.[274]

• [160] Ms Schofield acknowledged training a new person to assist with Big W work but denied excluding the Applicant from Big W work.[275]

• [161] Mr Yang gave evidence that he assists Ms Schofield in the allocation of work to the team and that Ms Schofield has never asked him to exclude the Applicant from Big W or other important work.[276] Mr Yang also said he was aware that a new team member was being trained to assist with Big W to help manage the workplace but was not aware of any meetings or projects involving Big W that the Applicant was excluded from and she had never raised that issue with him.[277]

• [162] The Applicant alleged that Ms Schofield treated her differently to others and said that:

• her team member Catherine told her she had one-on-one meetings with Ms Schofield and Ms Schofield was very much appreciative of her work and thanked her for bringing Faye's nature of work to her attention and asked her to continue to provide more evidence of this;

• • during the same time she heard from another member of the team that Ms Schofield was nice to them and mostly talked about matters that were not related to work in one-on-one meetings;[278]
• • several colleagues remarked that Ms Schofield was friendly and casual with them, which contrasted sharply with the curtain critical way she interacted with the Applicant;[279]
• • she could see how Ms Schofield behaved toward others in team meetings or in the team chat;[280] and in team meetings or updates, Ms Schofield would openly praise other team members (such as Catherine and others) for their work, often reading out positive feedback they received, but pointedly ignoring similar feedback or survey results that reflected well on the Applicant.[281]

• [163] The Applicant provided extracts of messages she had received from her team members in support of her allegations of differential treatment. These include messages from a colleague on 11 September 2024 in which the colleague states:

"I guess Dee has taken this personally... because you cannot say anyone selfish or any other negative word even if you feel that in your heat"

"I can feel the rift...she is not the same with you as she is with others"

"I can understand...this type of attitude from Dee will really make you depress"

"after all this hard work and always try to stay on top of the issues faced by Ebiz team"[282]

• [164] Another chain of messages from a colleague dated 17 October 2024 reads as follows:

"and I know how to keep her happy...for 30 mins we just discussed travelling"

"last 2 mins for work talk for which I had nothing to discuss"

• [165] Another message from a colleague dated 28 October 2024 reads:

"Meeting was good...just chit chat about kids, dogs, traveling, Woolworths, jobs etc."

• [166] The Applicant's Diary Notes also state that the Applicant specifically considered that she was treated differently to Catherine in her team and referred to a meeting on 12 September 2024.[283] The Applicant's Diary Notes indicate that in this meeting Ms Schofield called out feedback that Catherine had received from what the Applicant described as "a small supplier for her simple and straightforward onboarding work in front of that wider audience".[284] The Applicant's Diary Notes indicate that she was aware that she had received some appreciative feedback from some of the Respondent's "bigger suppliers" but this was not called out.[285] The Applicant's Diary Notes allege that Ms Schofield discriminated against her and was "probably" racist by intentionally ignoring the "multiple appreciations" she received.[286]

• [167] The Applicant's Diary Notes indicate that her complaint via the Speak Up team was referred to Mr Duncan who called her on 24 July 2025.[287] The Applicant's Diary Notes state that the Applicant requested that Mr Duncan not involve Ms Stoffels in the investigation and told him that Ms Stoffels already supported Ms Schofield and she did not expect any justice from her on the issues she raised.[288] The Applicant's Diary Notes indicate that Ms Duncan told the Applicant that if Ms Stoffels did not investigate it would take some more time to investigate the issue but that the Applicant said she was ok with this as she wanted "fair treatment and justice".[289]

• [168] The Applicant's Diary Notes indicate that the following day, 25 July 2025, Mr Duncan sent an email to the Applicant which stated, by way of summary:[290]

• Based on the Applicant's 'Speak Up' report and Mr Duncan's conversation with the Applicant the previous day, he understood the Applicant was seeking:
  • a review of her performance rating, as well as further details around why she was advised that her "ways of working are not good";
  • an investigation into whether Ms Schofield had reduced her rating as a result of her raising concerns about Faye;
  • an investigation into whether Ms Schofield's comments about entering into a 'social contract' with Faye and whether this was appropriate.
• While the Applicant's report had initially indicated she was also seeking to have Faye's performance addressed, the Applicant had indicated in her discussion with Mr Duncan that she would leave this with the business to deal with. In this regard, Mr Duncan stated that was something that could still be reviewed but that as the issue related to the performance of another team member, if action was taken details around this would not be shared with the Applicant.
• In relation to the review of the performance rating and investigation into whether the Applicant's rating had been reduced as a result of her raising concerns about Faye, the Applicant had indicated that she did not feel it would be appropriate for Ms Stoffels to investigate the matter. In this regard Mr Duncan stated that another leader at Ms Stoffels' level would be appointed to review these matters.
• In relation to an investigation into whether Ms Schofield's comments about entering into a 'social contract' with Faye and whether this was appropriate, he did not see any concern with Ms Stoffels reviewing this matter but suggested it may be easier if this was reviewed by the same person as part of an overall review of the three issues.
• Even if the review found in her favour, the Applicant's preferred actions or outcomes could not be guaranteed.
• A review of the Respondent's records indicate that Ms Stoffels raised a matter with Human Resources prior to the Applicant's Speak Up report, that someone reached out to Ms Stoffels to discuss this and at that time it was confirmed that the Applicant had raised a Speak Up report about the same matters. It was then determined that Human Resources would engage with the Applicant directly to address her concerns.

• [169] The Applicant responded via email a short time later indicating, by way of summary:[291]

• she had raised the issue of Ms Schofield's comments concerning a social contract with Faye with Ms Stoffels during a meeting on 1 July 2024 however:
  • Ms Stoffels merely repeated Ms Schofield's comments and stated that the social contract was part of the Respondent's 'Ways of Working' when team members have issues with each other;
  • Ms Stoffels did not address her concerns nor clarify why she should have a social contract with another team member in circumstances where Applicant did not have any personal issues with Faye;
  • Ms Stoffels supported Ms Schofield and advised her that her manager could make the comments and could question her on different matters;
• in relation to the Applicant's performance rating:
  • Ms Stoffels had clarified that she made the decision about the Applicant's rating and Ms Schofield had merely shared the rating with the Applicant;
  • Ms Stoffels stated that Ms Schofield's observation of her work for less than a month was sufficient to provide feedback on the Applicant's ways of working during the performance review;
  • Ms Schofield was still learning how her new team worked and what their job responsibilities were;
  • the Applicant insisted she did nothing wrong to warrant her being told she had poor 'Ways of Working'.

• [170] On 3 September 2024 Mr Duncan emailed the Applicant to provide an update and stated, by way of summary, that:

• he understood that the Applicant had also requested that allegations of bullying that Faye made against her be investigated;
• these could be reviewed and were likely to be included as part of the overall concerns that the Applicant had raised;
• Ms Schofield had raised a follow up case for this, but this case was closed because the Applicant's new concerns were combined into the existing case that was already being reviewed;

• • he was seeking to clarify the Applicant's expectations as part of raising the concerns, i.e. whether she wanted to know who raised the concerns, wanted to know what the concerns were about or was seeking something else.[292]

• [171] The Applicant replied to Mr Duncan's email that same day on 3 September 2025 and stated, by way of summary:[293]

• she had learned from a colleague (i.e. Catherine) that Faye had told them she was bullying her;
• she requested that Ms Schofield investigate this, and she was okay to have that concern combined with the "current open ticket";
• she stood by her primary complaint;
• she was yet to receive an explanation from Ms Schofield for her comment about the Applicant's ways of working and "rude and bossy behaviour and feedback" that the Applicant needed to have a social contract with Faye;
• Ms Schofield had told her "we need to work on your 'Ways of Working' in the coming days" while sharing her bonus information with her and she did not understand the reason for this;
• Ms Stoffels stated the change in rating from 'Exceeding' to 'Achieved' was her rating because of the Applicant's poor 'Ways of Working' and was not Ms Schofield's rating, and added that the Applicant's work numbers didn't matter much to her;
• Ms Stoffels belittled the Applicant's concerns when the Applicant escalated the issue to her and 'teased' her for seeking justice;
• she had received her lowest ever bonus despite her performance being outstanding.

• [172] In that email the Applicant summarised the concerns she was seeking to have addressed as follows:

"1. The rating and feedback given to me for FY24. I want this to be reviewed and a formal written feedback to be provided on why the rating was reduced.

1. I want my managers to clear my name from the wrong accusation they made about my ways of working, they did my character assassination which gave me mental trauma and I am struggling to even concentrate on work after all these and have a feeling now that what is the point in doing a good work here.

1. The attitude shown to me by the line manager and her manager when I raised these issues."

• [173] On 11 September 2024 Mr Duncan emailed the Applicant indicating that he had spoken with Ms Stoffels about her recent concerns and had suggested that Ms Stoffels arrange a time to meet with the Applicant to discuss the issues in more detail.[294]

• [174] Ms Stoffels gave evidence that Mr Duncan in People Services emailed her about some investigations commencing but she was not aware of who escalated matters and whether it was the Applicant or Ms Schofield.[295] Ms Stoffels said that she was asked by Mr Duncan to conduct interviews with the Applicant and Ms Schofield relating to allegations the Applicant had made in relation to Ms Schofield.[296] Ms Stoffels said she was not aware as to why she was asked to investigate the Applicant's concerns other than because she was the line manager.[297] Ms Stoffels gave evidence that the Applicant had raised that:

• Ms Schofield was "teasing" her about work she did on a project;

• • she believed Ms Schofield was racist and was attacking her due to the colour of her skin and that she was being discriminated against.[298]

• [175] Ms Stoffels said that Mr Duncan emailed her some speaking points or questions to ask the Applicant.[299]

• [176] Ms Stoffels met with the Applicant on 13 September in the presence of the Applicant's support person and Mr Cannel who was a trade activation lead external to the BSS team.[300] The invitation for that meeting stated that its purpose was to discuss the one-on-one conversation the Applicant had with Ms Schofield on 4 September 2025 and email sent to Ms Schofield after this.[301] The Applicant's Diary Notes set out the Applicant's account of the meeting.[302] The Applicant also provided a copy of her own minutes of the meeting to Mr Duncan.[303] Ms Stoffels also attached a copy of her meeting notes to her statement.[304]

• [177] Ms Stoffels gave evidence that she also met with Catherine from the BSS team as the Applicant had indicated that Catherine had a similar experience with Ms Schofield.[305] Ms Stoffels attached a copy of her meeting notes to her statement.[306] Ms Stoffels said that Catherine raised the incident with the supplier and said she'd had a similar issue involving someone else and Ms Schofield had asked her put something in writing so she could escalate it.[307] Ms Stoffels also said that Catherine raised that after she had received a thank you from a supplier the Applicant said "you got it .. and I didn't" and said she felt the Applicant was jealous and often needed praise from others.[308] The Applicant did not deny making this comment to Catherine but said:

• this was as a "trivial exchange", "casual remark acknowledging her shout-out" and "light hearted";
• she was telling Catherine that her appreciation from suppliers and stakeholders was ignored by Ms Schofield, as Catherine was aware that the Applicant was feeling discriminated against;
• she had consistently supported and congratulated her teammates on their achievements;

• • Catherine's "limited observations fail to account for the disparate treatment" she was receiving;[309]

• while she did not question that Catherine was sharing her honest impressions, those impressions were the product of incomplete information and possibly bias in favour of a manager who favoured her and had a reason to mislead;

• • Catherine's statements were unfounded character attacks that did not reflect the reality of the Applicant's conduct or the situation and served only to distract from the real issue, being the unreasonable behaviour the Applicant was subjected to.[310]

• [178] Ms Stoffels also met with Mr Yang.[311] Ms Stoffels attached a copy of her meeting notes to her statement.[312]

• [179] Ms Stoffels met with Ms Schofield on 1 October 2024 and put the questions to her that had been provided by Mr Duncan.[313] Ms Stoffels said that Ms Schofield denied the Applicant's claims.[314] Ms Stoffels attached a copy of her notes from the meeting to her statement.[315]

• [180] Ms Stoffels gave evidence that following her meetings with the Applicant, Ms Schofield, Mr Yang and Catherine, she emailed her notes to Mr Duncan and had no involvement in the decision making process in relation to the grievance.[316]

• [181] Ms Stoffels gave evidence that the Applicant's performance review was being investigated separately and as the Applicant had raised this with People Services, Mr Duncan reached out to her and asked who she believed would be an appropriate person to review the Applicant's performance rating.[317] Ms Stoffels suggested her peer Mr Shankar who was in a different team in BE.[318]

• [182] In this regard, the Applicant alleged Mr Shankar's review lacked procedural fairness because Mr Shankar was a peer of Ms Stoffels and it was Ms Stoffels who recommended that Mr Shankar review the performance rating.[319] The Applicant submitted that when the original decision maker recommends who should review their decision it creates a conflict of interest.[320]

• [183] On 4 October 2024 Mr Shankar emailed Mr Duncan indicating he had met separately with Mr Schofield and Ms Stoffels about the Applicant's case and after hearing from them concluded:

• the Applicant had contributed well towards the 'Business and Strategy' KPIs which were well documented in Success Factors and in his opinion the Applicant could have been rated as 'Exceeding' for her 'Business and Strategy' contribution;
• in relation to 'Ways of Working and People', after hearing the feedback, he suggested that the Applicant's rating would be 'Achieving';
• while "delivering on the day to day over and above is important, it is just as important, if not even more, to do so where interactions within the team and externally can be role modelled" and this is where he believed from discussions and notes that the Applicant could become more aware and improve her ways of working.

• [184] Mr Shankar indicated that his guidance to the Applicant would be to continue her good work but to explore improving her ways of working from self awareness and to seek out a couple of mentors who could help guide her.

• [185] The Applicant gave evidence that in reviewing her performance rating Mr Shankar did not contact her to gather her version of events, understand her perspective or seek clarification on the issues she had raised.[321]

• [186] Ms Stoffels gave evidence that on 8 October 2024 she received an email from Mr Duncan with speaking notes so she could have a discussion with the Applicant about the findings concerning her grievance with Ms Schofield.[322] The speaking notes and correspondence was drafted by Mr Duncan and the findings were that the Applicant's allegations of bullying, harassment, racism and discrimination by Ms Schofield could not be substantiated.[323]

• [187] The Applicant's Diary Notes indicate that on 9 October 2024, Ms Stoffels scheduled a meeting with the subject "Close out Meeting" and which stated that she was booking in some time to "close out" the concerns that the Applicant had raised.[324]

• [188] Ms Stoffels gave evidence that on 9 October 2024 she met with the Applicant in the presence of her support person and Mr Puckeridge, a Business Solutions Partner.[325] Ms Stoffels attached a copy of the notes of this meeting to her statement.[326] Ms Stoffels said the purpose of the meeting was to close out the Applicant's grievance and provide her with findings. [327]

• [189] The Applicant's Diary Notes indicate that during the meeting:

• Ms Stoffels walked the Applicant through findings reading from a written note;
• Ms Stoffels told the Applicant that she had investigated the issue and there was no evidence of Ms Schofield discriminating against her or being racist toward her;
• Ms Stoffels told the Applicant that Ms Schofield had not breached any of the Respondent's policies and that Ms Schofield's comments were constructive and reasonable feedback that the Applicant had taken negatively;
• Ms Stoffels said that the Applicant had accused Ms Schofield of discrimination and racism and had put her down;
• Ms Stoffels accused her of giving running commentary to her teammates on her issues;
• Ms Stoffels said that Ms Schofield had said that the Applicant was not respecting her or made comments due to heated arguments;
• Ms Stoffels confirmed that she had conducted the investigation, and the findings were then reviewed or approved by employee relations;
• Ms Stoffels said that Ms Schofield was not aware of appreciative feedback the Applicant had received from external stakeholders/suppliers when she read out Catherine's feedback.

• [190] Ms Stoffels gave evidence that during that meeting the Applicant was quiet, shook her head, said she had evidence and was going to take the matter further.[328] Ms Stoffels said at no stage since the meeting on 9 October 2024 did the Applicant provide further evidence, despite Ms Stoffels' request for more evidence if she had it, and no new evidence came forward from others.[329]

• [191] Ms Stoffels said she had not spoken to the Applicant since the meeting on 9 October 2024 until the conciliation conference facilitated by the Commission.[330]

Applicant's interaction with Mr Yang following the meeting

• [192] Following the close out meeting on 9 October 2024 the Applicant messaged Mr Yang, and the following exchange took place:[331]

"have anyone from HR or Janet reached out to you to check in on my complaints about Dee behaving different to me compared to others"

Applicant: "also, if I am correct Dee was aware of that Simplot feedback as you said on the other day"

Mr Yang: "It was sometime ago, I was showing her all the reports and noticed that comment and I did mention that comment is for Seema not me"

Applicant: "so she at least had seen it even before the last BSS meeting on that day I checked it with you"

"as I thought she just ignored it because it was for me"

Applicant: "yeah I mean before the last BSS meetings you had that talk with her while going through the list"

Mr Yang: "I walked her through way before the last BSS meeting"

Applicant: "by the way did Janet reached out to you asking for anything I raised about Dee?"

"she won't pick me for feed back.. may be [colleague]"

"[colleague] has her own issue...but [colleague] always praise your competency and knowledge"

Emails between the Applicant and Ms Stoffels post close out meeting

• [193] On the evening of 9 October 2024 Ms Stoffels emailed the Applicant and in that email Ms Stoffels:

• thanked the Applicant for her time and expressed understanding that the findings may not have been what she was hoping for;
• stated a commitment to support the Applicant going forward and to explore additional measures to allow the Applicant and Ms Schofield to work better together and for all parties to feel respected;
• asked the Applicant to think about any specific measures that could be put in place to assist the working relationship going forward;
• indicated that during the meeting Ms Stoffels had suggested that the Applicant consider how one-on-one meetings take place and whether the Applicant felt Ms Stoffels could sit in on some of the meetings;
• encouraged the Applicant to let her know if she had any suggestions about how she and Ms Schofield could interact that would be more comfortable and productive going forward;
• indicated that during the meeting she discussed providing the Applicant with some clarity on the line between BAU activities and those that would be considered exceeding;
• asked the Applicant to consider any tasks or activities that she currently performed that she felt may be beyond BAU so this could be considered and feedback and guidance provided;

• • confirmed that the Applicant was still not required to attend any one-on-one meetings with Ms Schofield.[332]

• [194] The Applicant responded to the email that night and:

• indicated she was still unclear about the specific expectations Ms Stoffels had of her regarding her relationship Ms Schofield "other than a normal team member and manager relationship";
• indicated she did not agree with Ms Schofield's feedback about her and described this as "unreasonable, mentally destroying" and "unacceptable";
• sought the reasoning behind Ms Schofield's feedback;
• indicated that team members shared her understanding about BAU and that project-related work was considered non-BAU;
• indicated that she believed she had consistently exceeded expectations despite handling multiple projects alongside her regular BAU and support responsibilities;
• indicated that if the definition of "exceeding" was beyond what the Applicant had achieved it would make achieving this rating virtually impossible;
• indicated she had been told that Ms Schofield was aware of the positive feedback about the Applicant before meetings and Ms Schofield might have intentionally chosen not to address it;
• in relation to the Major Supplier Meeting Incident feedback, the Applicant indicated:
  • that she had only shared basic information casually with the team such as the fact that she had a bad experience and that the team member was rude to her and the supplier;
  • she did not believe she had violated any policies;

• o she shared the rest of the details with Ms Schofield in a private chat when she asked her to "write it out";[333]

• stated Ms Schofield's practice of asking other team members to write about work related issues and then passing those messages on to the respective teams on their behalf is a departure from the previous practice where managers would connect employees directly with the relevant individuals;
• stated that she told Ms Schofield that she didn't want to escalate the matter or affect the job of the person who was responsible;
• stated that after her last one-on-one meeting with Ms Schofield, Ms Schofield abruptly ended the meeting as soon as the Applicant began responding to her feedback leaving the Applicant with no opportunity to fully address her concerns;
• stated that she had raised concerns about Ms Schofield's behaviour with Ms Stoffels but felt she did not value it much, instead simply stating that the Applicant's 'Ways of Working' were not good, and this prompted her to seek help outside of BSS;
• stated she assumed Ms Stoffels had gathered input from the majority of team members and not a single individual and indicated that the information she had did not align with this;
• indicated that she was disappointed that no action had been taken against Ms Schofield for what she described as "unreasonable and targeted feedback";
• indicated that she only brought up her feelings toward the end of her one-on-one meeting with Ms Schofield after she had finished her negative remarks and this contradicted Ms Stoffels' statement that Ms Schofield felt disrespected by her response;
• indicated that the meeting did not become heated until the Applicant expressed views about Ms Schofield's behaviour, specifically her allegations of discrimination and racism, and Ms Schofield then abruptly ended the meeting;
• sought clarification about what "not appropriate behaviour" from the Applicant triggered the reaction;

• • indicated she was not satisfied with the outcome and would like to escalate the matter further.[334]

• [195] Ms Stoffels responded to the Applicant's email on 10 October 2024 and in her reply email:

• indicated that while the Applicant did not agree with the findings she was comfortable a thorough review had been conducted and that determinations were made based on the information available;
• clarified that the Respondent had not said the Applicant had breached any policies or the Code of Conduct but had simply provided feedback that, in some of the cases discussed, the way the Applicant sought feedback or raised her concerns could have been handled differently;
• acknowledged that the Applicant had been told things by her peers that did not seem to line up with the information provided but that determinations could only be based on the information provided;
• indicated that many of the issues raised related to one-on-one meetings in which there were no witnesses, and the Respondent could only take formal action where there was sufficient evidence to do so;
• indicated she believed there was still some action that could be taken to address the Applicant's concerns and meet her preferred resolution of feeling respected going forward;
• asked the Applicant to consider what actions or support may assist her in working with Ms Schofield going forward, including suggestions around expected behaviours or how feedback is raised;
• asked if there were other tasks or actions the Applicant felt would represent exceeding expectations within her business KPIs and 'Ways of Working';

• • indicated that she hoped a solution could be found that allowed the Applicant to feel comfortable going forward, but if the Applicant still felt she wanted the matter escalated to let her know and she would seek information on what the process involved.[335]

• [196] The Applicant responded shortly thereafter and in that email:

• confirmed that she would like to escalate the matter and wanted to know the process for doing so;
• indicated that no one had reached out to her colleagues to get their feedback on Ms Schofield's behaviour towards them and that this contradicted what Ms Stoffels had told her;
• stated she was "not sure what kind of evidence someone can submit when they are undergoing harassment" and that she was surprised the Respondent did not follow guidelines outlined in a World Mental Health Day article;
• stated she had not received written feedback on her financial year 2024 rating or an explanation for the feedback that Ms Schofield had given her, noting the positive feedback she had previously received;
• indicated that she would like one-on-one meetings with Ms Schofield to be confined to work-related matters in a respectful environment and did not want discussion about her "personal characteristics or false accusations";

• • stated she would like to pursue all available means for the Respondent to take action against Ms Schofield.[336]

Meeting between the Applicant and Ms Duncan on 11 October 2024 and Applicant's request for escalation

• [197] On 10 October Mr Duncan sent an email to the Applicant seeking her availability to meet the following day to "discuss the matters [the Applicant] had raised in her Speak Up complaint".[337] The Applicant met with Mr Duncan the following day and the Applicant's Diary Notes indicate that during the meeting:

• Mr Duncan repeated what Ms Stoffels had said;
• she expressed disappointment about the findings;
• she said that since Ms Stoffels conducted the investigation, she did not expect fair treatment and that Ms Stoffels was protecting Ms Schofield;
• she asked how she could produce evidence for one-on-one meetings when the law did not allow her to record the meeting;
• Ms Duncan confirmed that the Applicant's ways of working were good and that the Applicant's performance was at the top of the team, but hinted that Ms Stoffels needed to review her KPIs to justify why the Applicant was not given an exceeding rating for her ways of working;
• she asked Mr Duncan how she got an exceeding rating in previous years and whether they were going to change her financial year 2024 business goals after the year was over, but Mr Duncan did not have a response;
• Mr Duncan indicated he understood the Applicant was given an 'Exceeding' rating for her Business Performance and an 'achieved' rating for her 'Ways of Working';
• the Applicant said that this would have resulted in her getting an exceeding rating as a final rating;
• the Applicant showed Mr Duncan her ratings in Success Factors and Mr Duncan said he would go back and clarify them with the leaders;

• • she requested that Mr Duncan help her escalate the matter further.[338]

• [198] On 14 October Mr Duncan sent an email to the Applicant and in that email Mr Duncan:

• indicated that he had committed to seeking further clarity in relation to the Applicant's overall performance rating and would come back to her when he had further information;
• indicated that he understood the Applicant was unhappy with the resolution of her complaint about Ms Schofield and would like to escalate the matter further;
• explained that the process for escalation would be for the Applicant to provide Mr Duncan with the reasons for her request to escalate the matter and this would be passed to the appropriate person within the business or Employee Relations team for further review;
• explained that a review may involve seeking more information from the Applicant or may just be a review of the steps and process taken;

• • asked the Applicant to send a brief email to outline why she was unhappy with the outcome and identify any errors or concerns she had with the process or review findings.[339]

• [199] The Applicant responded to Mr Duncan's email that evening and in that email:

• indicated that she had not been provided with any specific reasons for her 'Achieved' rating, believed it was unfair and that this remained an outstanding issue;
• stated that only Ms Stoffels had reached out to inquire about the details of her complaint concerning Ms Schofield's behaviour toward her;
• stated that she had experienced significant mental distress due to Ms Schofield's behaviour, including personal attacks during one-on-one meetings;
• expressed concern that the Respondent had not taken action against Ms Schofield;
• took issue with Ms Stoffels informing her that there was no evidence to support her complaints, suggesting this was inaccurate;
• expressed concern that the majority of her colleagues had not been contacted regarding the matter;
• indicated that she did not feel comfortable with Ms Stoffels handling the investigation and sought a thorough investigation by an independent third party;

• • indicated that she would like the Respondent to pursue all available means to take action against Ms Schofield and indicated that she may have to reach out to the "top level" or involve external independent bodies.[340]

Ms Schofield's request of the Applicant on 13 October 2024

• [200] On 13 October 2024 Ms Schofield emailed the Applicant removing the one-on-one meetings from the calendar and requesting that the Applicant send her through an email summarising the activities she had been working on over the past few weeks including:

• "Current WIP tasks"
• "CSI update"
• "Any blockers"
• "Any workload pressures"

• • anything the Applicant required her assistance with or that Ms Schofield would benefit from knowing.[341]

• [201] The Applicant responded on 14 October 2024 stating that the details she included were the "same I am sharing with you and the team in multiple meetings we have in a week (in the team meetings on Monday, Wednesday and Friday)".[342]

• [202] In the Applicant's Diary Notes, the Applicant indicated that Ms Schofield's request was made on top of her updating the team about everything she worked on in the three weekly team meetings and when details were already available in Salesforce and team reports, suggesting she was unhappy with Ms Schofield making the request.[343]

• [203] Ms Schofield responded thanking the Applicant for sharing her updates and indicated that it helped her to learn more about the team and details around the tasks the Applicant was working on.[344]

Applicant's email to Ms Bourke on 23 October 2024

• [204] On 23 October 2024, the Applicant emailed the Respondent's Director of Health Safety and Wellbeing, Ms Bourke and in that email the Applicant raised, by way of summary:

• she came across a message from Ms Bourke on World Mental Health Day;
• she had concerns about the lack of support and action when team members, particularly those at lower levels, spoke up about their negative experiences;
• she had been subjected to bullying and discrimination by Ms Schofield;
• her performance rating for FY 24 was reduced by Ms Schofield or Ms Stoffels without clear justification and despite the Applicant being a top performer for the team;
• she had faced targeted and unreasonably belittling comments from Ms Schofield during one-on-one meetings;
• she raised the issue with Ms Stoffels on 27 June 2024, but her complaint had not been taken seriously;
• she raised the issue through the team Speak Up platform on 9 July 2024 and while the matter was referred to human resources, Ms Stoffels undertook the investigation;
• on 9 October 2024 Ms Stoffels closed the complaint stating that there was no evidence of harassment and this conclusion was reached without consulting with the Applicant or other senior team members for further evidence;
• Ms Stoffels said that the Applicant had accused a person of discrimination and racism when the Applicant was the victim of such behaviour and was forced to escalate the matter;
• ongoing harassment and a hostile work environment caused her significant mental trauma and sleepless nights, leading her to seek medical attention;
• on 11 October 2024 she requested that human resources advise her how to escalate the matter, but she had not received a process or person to escalate the matter to even after following up;
• she was disappointed that despite the Respondent's commitment to providing a safe and respectful workplace, her concerns had not been addressed;

• • she was seeking Ms Bourke's intervention to ensure the matter was properly investigated and resolved.[345]

• [205] Ms Bourke responded the following day indicating that if the Applicant was comfortable with her doing so, she would ask the team to make some enquiries in relation to the matter to better understand what had occurred and further steps and as a part of this they may reach out to her directly.[346] Ms Bourke also directed the Applicant to the Respondent's employee assistance program.[347]

• [206] Ms Price gave evidence that on 24 October 2024 she received an email from Mr McNair from the Respondent's legal team who forwarded her the email the Applicant sent to Ms Bourke.[348] Ms Price said at that stage she knew Mr Duncan, who was her direct report, was investigating the Applicant's grievances regarding her performance rating and allegations against Ms Schofield.[349] Ms Price said that having received an update from Mr Duncan, she was satisfied that he was handling the matters in a way that was consistent with the Respondent's Complaints Handling Standard and saw no reason to commence another investigation while one was already in progress.[350]

• [207] Ms Price gave evidence that on 29 October 2024 she emailed the Applicant advising her that she had been made aware of her email to Ms Bourke, that she knew her complaints were being progressed and managed by Mr Duncan and that if she was not satisfied with the outcome of her matters once Mr Duncan had finalised them, she should reach out to her.[351]

• [208] The Applicant responded on 29 October 2025 raising that:

• she was concerned about the delay, "lack of substantive action to address" the issues she had raised concerning Ms Schofield and that they were having a serious impact on her mental wellbeing;
• she had requested an independent investigation by the matter had been referred to Ms Stoffels;
• on 27 June 2024 Ms Stoffels had attributed her rating to reduction to vague "Ways of Working" without providing reasons despite her "strong work performance and positive working relationships";
• following this the feedback from Ms Schofield became increasingly personal and damaging;
• Ms Schofield's comments during one-on-one meetings were not constructive, and the Applicant felt they were targeted and intended to undermine the Applicant's confidence and value in her role;
• Ms Stoffels had indicated that the Applicant's complaints lacked evidence, but the Applicant believed the emotional impact on her was evident to her colleagues;
• she considered her complaints had been dismissed without due consideration of the personal harm caused;

• • she was seeking support in ensuring her complaint received a timely, fair and thorough review by an independent party in line with the Respondent's policies.[352]

• [209] Ms Price responded the following day and:

• indicated that Mr Duncan would reach out and that she had asked him to pause briefly once she was notified of the email to Ms Bourke so she could review the matters;

• • acknowledged the Applicant's frustration but noted that there were two separate matters, both were complex, and it took time to move through them in a thorough way.[353]

• [210] The Applicant responded the same day stating, by way of summary:

• she had no visibility as to whether her complaints had been taken seriously by the Respondent;
• she understood her complaints concerning her rating and Ms Schofield would be considered separately by human resources;
• she hoped the issue would be thoroughly reviewed by an independent person and not Ms Stoffels or someone close to Ms Stoffels or Ms Schofield;

• • Mr Duncan had set up a meeting the following evening to advise her of the escalation process.[354]

• [211] Mr Duncan met with the Applicant on 31 October 2024 and the Applicant's Diary Notes indicate that during that meeting:

• Mr Duncan told the Applicant her rating would not be reviewed and that he was confused about her 'Achieved' rating regarding her business goals;

• • Mr Duncan advised the Applicant that a review would be conducted but did not say anything more about the process.[355]

• [212] In an email to the Applicant on 8 November 2024 Mr Duncan explained that the review process would most likely involve someone reviewing the relevant information, documents and process of the investigation and that they may not need any further information from the Applicant. [356] In response to an earlier email from the Applicant in which the Applicant asked whether the Respondent would accept recorded conversations, Mr Duncan advised the Applicant not to record conversations as it could be seen as a breach of privacy and indicated that there should not be any one-on-one meetings between the Applicant and Ms Stoffels or Ms Schofield until the matter was resolved.[357]

• [213] The Applicant's Diary Notes indicate that on 13 November 2024 Ms Schofield accommodated a request of the Applicant to work from home[358] and on 18 November 2024 the Applicant commenced a period of personal leave.[359]

• [214] Ms Price gave evidence that on 13 November 2024 Mr Duncan emailed her confirming that he had finished his investigation, that the Applicant was unhappy with the outcome and wanted the matter reviewed.[360] Ms Price said she commenced a full desk top review, consistent with the Respondent's complaints handling process.[361]

• [215] Ms Price gave evidence that as a part of this process she:

• reviewed both of the Applicant's grievances, being her grievance about her performance rating and claims of bullying and harassment;

• • reviewed the case notes relating to the matter within the Respondent's case management system, including Speak Up case notes and detailed notes and statements for all interviews;[362]

• interviewed Ms Stoffels who conducted the investigation interviews with the support of notes and questions provided by Mr Duncan;

• • consulted with the 'wellbeing' team and others for advice.[363]

• • she is very familiar with the Respondent's policies and procedures including the Code of Conduct, Respectful Workplace Policy[364] and Team Member Complaints Handling Standard,[365] all of which were attached to her statement;[366]
• • findings had been made in relation to both of the Applicant's grievances and her role was to ensure that nothing was overlooked and that all policies and procedures had been followed;[367]

• to ensure the independence of the review, she did not interview the Applicant, Ms Schofield or witnesses;
• had she identified any deficiencies in the investigation process, her recommendation would have been for a fresh review to commence;
• she ultimately arrived at the same conclusions as Mr Duncan being that:
  • in relation to the Applicant's claims of bullying and harassment, the Respondent was unable to substantiate that the Applicant received any unfavourable treatment on the basis of insufficient evidence; and

• o the Applicant's performance rating of 'Achieved' should remain unchanged, noting it had been reviewed by multiple persons.[368]

• [217] On 22 November 2024 Ms Price emailed the Applicant advising that she had completed her review of two escalated investigations, would like to meet with the Applicant to discuss this but if it was the Applicant's preference not to meet, she could prepare findings and email her.[369]

• [218] The Applicant responded on 25 November 2024 indicating that as part of the escalation she expected someone to contact her or her team members to get more details on her complaints and seek further evidence and that since no one had reached out she assumed Ms Price was using the email communications she shared with Mr Duncan.[370] The Applicant's Diary Notes also indicate she attached notes to that email.[371]

• [219] On 29 November 2024 Ms Price emailed the Applicant of her findings[372] and in that email explained:

• the review was not an investigation but allowed for a "fresh perspective" from "someone removed from the matter";
• that Ms Price had reviewed everything to see if she would reach the same conclusions;
• in relation to the Applicant's grievance concerning her performance rating:
  • she could see the rating had been reviewed by multiple people, including someone external to the team;
  • it is rare that performance rating reviews are taken outside the team, as other leaders would be unable to verify the actual work or ways of working and this is why calibration is conducted by the head of the business unit to ensure consistency within the business unit;
  • she understood that the Applicant believed that the rating was changed due to concerns about the Applicant's new leader, Ms Schofield, but this was disproven as the rating was changed in calibration;
  • performance ratings are based on both performance and 'Ways of Working';
  • there was no question that the Applicant's performance output had been good however it was deemed not to be at the level required to be exceeding expectations;
  • she understood the Applicant had been given feedback around her ways of working but despite this the Applicant received an 'Achieving' rating which is a good rating and where people are expected to be;
  • she understood the Applicant's desire for more formal feedback on why her performance output was not deemed to be 'Exceeding', as well as in relation to her 'Ways of Working' and this feedback would be provided to her;
  • the grievance she had raised about her rating had been reviewed and the performance rating remained unchanged;
• in relation to the Applicant's grievance about unfavourable treatment by Ms Schofield:
  • she had reviewed all the information the Applicant shared along with interviews of other people in the team;
  • based on all the information shared and reviewed she was unable to substantiate that the Applicant had received unfavourable treatment on the basis of insufficient evidence;
  • the Applicant's meeting notes from her one-on-one meetings were unable to be used to substantiate the allegations as they were one person's version of events against another's;
  • she was unable to use opinions or unwitnessed events as evidence;
  • she observed that some feedback had been provided to Ms Schofield about the way things were said however the comments would not be considered to breach the Code of Conduct;
  • team members interviewed and were unable to support the Applicant's version of events;
  • the Applicant had mentioned that she spoke to witnesses about the matter and in this regard discussing the matter with witnesses may constitute a breach of confidentiality during the investigation;
  • she requested that the Applicant refrain from further contacting team members regarding the matters subject of the investigation;
  • the Applicant's attempts to continue discussing the matter was making team members uncomfortable and could result in disciplinary action for breaching confidentiality requirements;

• o the Applicant's grievance that she had been subject to unfavourable treatment had been reviewed and the findings remained unchanged.[373]

• [220] Ms Price gave evidence that none of the witnesses in the investigation agreed with the Applicant that Ms Schofield or anyone else was bullying her or treating her unfavourably and from the material available to her, it appeared that all witnesses shared the view that the Applicant's complaints arose because the Applicant had issues with accepting constructive feedback.[374]

• [221] Ms Price gave evidence that the investigation process identified areas of improvement, including that Ms Schofield could have phrased some feedback in a different way, taking into account the Applicant's sensitivities.[375] However Ms Price said she was satisfied that nothing said by Ms Schofield would amount to a breach of the Code of Conduct or any other policy and that Ms Schofield's conduct was at all times reasonable management action taken in a reasonable manner.[376] Ms Price also said the investigation identified that more could have been done by the Applicant's previous managers to better provide the Applicant with feedback on her 'ways of working'.[377]

• [222] Ms Price gave evidence that she has never spoken to the Applicant and had no involvement with her prior to the above events[378] and has only had one interaction with Ms Schofield and this was after she became aware of the Applicant's application.[379]

Concerns the Applicant had expressed about her previous manager Derong

• [223] Attached to Ms Stoffels' statement were copies of emails to and from the Applicant and her former manager, Derong from 2021.[380]

• [224] The Applicant said this was not relevant to the bullying, exclusion and unreasonable treatment she alleged she experienced from Ms Schofield and Ms Stoffels and said that the email raised legitimate, work-related concerns towards specific team members while neglecting recognition for the contributions of other team members, including the Applicant.[381] The Applicant said senior leaders intervened and rectified the issue, warning Derong about his behaviour, and at no time was the Applicant blamed or criticised.[382]

• [225] Mr Yang gave evidence that he did not recall saying to the Applicant words to the effect of "Deanne is ignoring your good work" as the Applicant alleged but said he may have generally agreed with the Applicant that she deserves praise, or something to that effect.[383]

• he had observed Ms Schofield praising the Applicant's work on multiple occasions;
• Ms Schofield provided the Applicant positive feedback at a similar rate as she would the rest of the team;

• • he is aware of instances where the Applicant has been upset when the entire team has been praised for work on a project.[384]

• [227] Mr Yang also referred to the Applicant's use of the group chat in the incident on 25 June 2025.[385] Mr Yang gave evidence that the Applicant's use of the group chat had made him feel uncomfortable at times and while the whole team uses the group chat to raise issues relevant to other team members the Applicant's use of the group chat could be described as 'intense'.[386] Mr Yang explained that the Applicant did not summarise her thoughts into one message but will often send 30 different messages in a period of a couple of minutes which could be very distracting.[387]

• [228] In response to this, the Applicant refuted that her communication "was inappropriate or disruptive in a way that violated workplace norms" and said that no team member, including Mr Yang, ever advised her at the time that her chat messages were an issue or asked her to change her style.[388] The Applicant said that all of her communications and reports of issues were driven by a desire to improve the team's functioning, and she remained professional in voicing her concerns.[389]

• [229] Mr Yang gave evidence that after the performance review meeting and sometimes after the Applicant's one-on-one meetings with Ms Schofields, the Applicant would use the group chat to tell everyone what was said to her, criticise Ms Schofields and try to seek reassurance from the rest of the team that her performance and 'Ways of Working' were good.[390] Mr Yang said these messages made him feel uncomfortable and nobody replied to the messages.[391]

• the Applicant had been complaining about Faye's performance for many years;
• he received complaints from the Applicant about Faye when he was acting leader;
• he is aware that the Applicant complained to the previous manager Derong about Faye;
• the Applicant would complain about Derong not 'managing' Faye well enough;

• • he was aware of some performance concerns about Faye but believed the Applicant went too far in her criticism of Faye and how she went about it.[392]

• [231] Mr Yang gave evidence that the eBusiness team has people who have come to Australia from lots of different countries, and he had never observed Ms Schofield treating the Applicant different to other team members, being racist or doing anything toward the Applicant that could be considered bullying and harassment.[393]

• [232] Mr Yang gave evidence that he had no issues with the Applicant's work performance, but he had observed that she does not take feedback well and receives it as a personal criticism and can become very defensive.[394]

• [233] The Applicant gave evidence of positive feedback she had received from Mr Yang and said that he had nominated her as team member of the month in the past.[395] The Applicant said that Mr Yang had never indicated any issue with her ways of working[396] and had praised her "willingness to help the team always" during her FY 24 performance review.[397]

• [234] The Applicant gave evidence that Mr Yang had previously voiced concern about the conduct of Ms Schofield and, before the dispute escalated, had confided in the Applicant that Ms Schofield might pose difficulties as a manager.[398] In particular, the Applicant alleged Mr Yang:

• described Ms Schofield as "very tough and difficult to work with";
• suggested that several employees from Ms Schofield's team had left due to her management style; and

• • expressed concern about the future of the team under Ms Schofield's leadership.[399]

• [235] The Applicant submitted that this showed Mr Yang was aware of and acknowledged problems in Ms Schofield's management style and directly contradicted Mr Yang's claim that he had not seen Ms Schofield treating the Applicant differently to others or engaging in bullying conduct.[400]

• [236] After Mr Yang filed his witness statement in these proceedings, the Applicant contacted him, sending him a series of messages and attempting to call him, although Mr Yang did not answer.[401] In those messages the Applicant accused Mr Yang of "cheating", "failing into the lawyers pressure", joining a "gang" and the "wrong team", and challenging aspects of Mr Yang's evidence. Mr Yang said these messages made him feel very uncomfortable.[402]

• [237] The Applicant said she was "deeply shocked and distressed that Mr Yang" decided to "side with the respondents" in the matter "given his previous supportive stance" and that until recently, the professional relationship between the Applicant and Mr Yang was respectful, collegial and mutually supportive.[403] The Applicant alleged that Mr Yang's statement was prepared by the Respondents' legal representatives and that Mr Yang was influenced by managerial pressure.[404]

• [238] The Applicant's Diary Notes indicate that the Applicant's bonus was affected due to her reduced rating. In particular, the Applicant's Diary Notes indicate she received her bonus letter from Ms Schofield on 27 August 2024 and received the lowest bonus she had ever received.[405] However I note Ms Schofield's explanation that all team members receive the same percentage-based pay rise, which is linked to CPI and not to the performance review.

• [239] The Applicant said she observed that several team members who previously maintained positive and cordial relationships with her began to distance themselves and stopped interacting with her altogether.[406] The Applicant said she did not know what specific conversations or comments were made by Ms Schofield to team members such as Catherine, but it became evident that their behaviour towards her changed after Ms Schofield assumed leadership of the team.[407] The Applicant alleged that repeated negative comments, exclusionary behaviour, and personal attacks by Ms Schofield isolated her professionally and turned her team mates against her.[408]

Ms Schofield's views about the ongoing relationship with the Applicant

• [240] Ms Schofield said she looked forward to continuing to work with the Applicant and expressed hope that she could contribute to the Applicant's development in her 'Ways of Working' and workplace interpersonal skills.[409] Ms Schofield expressed the view that with some coaching the Applicant could again attain an 'Exceeding' performance rating.[410]

Applicant's absence from work and Ms Stoffel's request for a medical certificate

• [241] On 2 December 2024 the Applicant submitted a workers' compensation claim and remained absent from work due to a medical condition.[411] The Applicant's workers' compensation claim was approved on 21 January 2025.[412]

• [242] The Applicant messaged Ms Schofield on 2 December to inform her that she had submitted a certificate of fitness from her doctor.[413] The following exchange of messages between Ms Schofield and the Applicant took place in relation to this:[414]

Applicant: "Hi Dee, I have submitted a certificate of fitness from my doctor to the TXP, Lisa."

Ms Schofield: "Hi Seema, Can you please advise what that actually means"

"Are you taking extended time off, can you please share the Certificate with me"

Applicant: "for now I extended the leave until 18th Dec"

"the certificate for that is shared with Lisa as it needs to go to her"

Ms Schofield: "Thanks Seema, I have shared with Janet who is requesting the certificate from Lisa."

Applicant: "also, I will be cancelling my AL if I extend my current leave as it covers that and not AL"

"will update you later when I visit my doctor again in the next follow up"

Ms Schofield: "No problems at all, will you be submitting the personal leave until the 18 /12? We can work through the cancelling of AL once you have your follow up visit to the Doctor."

"it covers another leave category which HR may work on"

"I actually should have taken it for the last 2 weeks as well"

Ms Schofield: "Perhaps HR Can assist with reconciling that for you and making sure it goes under the correct leave and then restore that Personal leave. I'm sure Lisa will provide the support you require and Janet and I will be advised of next steps as they are worked through."

• [243] Ms Schofield gave evidence that she was aware from her application that the Applicant accused her of pressuring her to submit medical certificates directly to Ms Schofield.[415] Ms Schofield denied pressuring the Applicant and said she simply requested copies of the Applicant's medical certificates when she took period of leave so she was aware of how much time she was taking off and to ensure she was fit to attend work.[416]

Other events in December 2025 and alleged threat of replacement

• [244] On 13 December 2025 the Applicant submitted a complaint to Safe Work NSW.[417]

• [245] On 17 December 2025 the Applicant participated in an investigation with EML.[418]

• [246] On 18 December 2025 the Applicant attended her doctor who assessed her as unfit to work until 17 January 2025.[419] The Applicant's Diary Notes indicate that later that the following exchange of text messages between the Applicant and Ms Schofield took place:[420]

Applicant: "Hi Dee, I would be extending my leave until 17th of Jan as of now"

"for me to apply PL for the coming days, I have cancelled my AL between 23 Dec to 3 Jan"

"could you please clear the AL or delete it for me to apply the new PL"

"the respective team at Woolworths is in touch with me for all these"

Ms Schofield: "Hi Seema, I will cancel the AL, so you can add in PL. May I ask who you are providing the doctor's certificate to please as normally that would need to come to myself."

"I will look to start training up someone to replace you in the new year."

Applicant: "it was submitted to HR or the respective team here as it is for them"

"like the last time it is with them and Lisa would be aware of it"

Ms Schofield: "No worries as you can appreciate it is important for me to see it as your team leader it is one of my responsibilities"

Applicant: "sorry, I have been asked by the doctor to provide it to HR"

Ms Schofield: "I am heading out now, I will delete the AL when I return this evening"

Ms Schofield: "No Seema, I have no idea of your plans in regards to your job"

Applicant: "I thought someone from HR all the respective team would be in touch with you for that"

"unfortunately I can not share that with you as per the process"

Ms Schofield: "No problems, not your fault, I will follow up."

Applicant: "but I thought they have shared the information or plan about me with

"I will let them know about that when they contact me next time"

• [247] The Applicant said Ms Schofield's remarks felt like a threat and an expression of desire to be rid of the Applicant at a time when she was already vulnerable and recovering from the trauma of workplace bullying.[421]

• [248] Ms Schofield did not deny telling the Applicant she would be training someone up to replace her in the new year but said she said this in the context of needing to train someone to cover for the Applicant while she was on personal leave in the new year.[422] In this regard Ms Schofield gave evidence that the Applicant's role is very specialised, a replacement requires training, January is a very busy period in the retail sector and the team could not afford to not fill the gap.[423]

Consideration of the submissions and evidence - context

• [249] As I will detail below it is apparent that this matter has largely resulted from a regrettable escalation, which I consider to be a result of both differing communication styles and expectations between the Applicant and Ms Schofield about workplace behaviours and outcomes. The primary catalyst for the chain of events that led to this dispute appears to be a performance rating given to the Applicant in respect of FY 24 that she did not agree with, however the surrounding context is important.

• [250] The Employer measures the performance of its employees in two areas being their Business Performance and their 'Ways of Working'. At a very high level it appears that Business Performance relates to what an employee delivers for the business and 'Ways of Working' relates to how they deliver it, including the employee's behaviours. There are three performance ratings that can be assigned to an employee, 'Expecting More', 'Achieving' and 'Exceeding'. Employees are assigned a rating for each of their Business Performance and 'Ways of Working' performance areas as well as an overall rating. Both the 'Achieving' and 'Exceeding' ratings reflect good performance.

• [251] It is not in contest that the Applicant has been a good performer for the Employer, and this is reflected in the performance ratings she has received historically. At no stage has the Applicant received any formal warnings about her conduct or performance and nor has she been subjected to any performance management measures due to poor performance. It strikes me that the Applicant has historically been a hard worker who takes pride in her work, considers herself to be a top performer within her team and has a strong desire to succeed. The Applicant is a part of an eBusiness team of five employees.

Consideration of the submissions and evidence - Ms Schofield's behaviour toward the Applicant

• [252] Ms Schofield became the Applicant's manager in May 2024. As such, Ms Schofield did not have the benefit of observing the Applicant's performance over the full financial year and in respect of the evaluation of the Applicant's performance for FY 24, she relied on Mr Yang who was acting as the leader of the eBusiness team prior to Ms Schofield's appointment.

• [253] Ms Schofield leads three teams and outside of the performance review process, Ms Schofield held one-on-one meetings with her individual team members. Many of the Applicant's allegations of bullying concern Ms Schofield's conduct during these one-on-one meetings. As set out earlier in this decision the Applicant alleged that despite consistently delivering high performance and contributing positively to the team, Ms Schofield repeatedly targeted her in one-on-one meetings with destructive personal feedback.[424] I consider this allegation below.

Ms Schofield's conduct during the first one-on-one meeting on 23 May 2024

• [254] Ms Schofield had not previously dealt with the Applicant before becoming her manager on 13 May 2024, and I accept that Ms Schofield was seeking to get to know the Applicant in their initial one-on-one meeting on 23 May 2024. Ms Schofield had approached the meeting in a considered way, preparing questions for the Applicant to address during the meeting.

• [255] It is apparent that there was a turning point in the meeting when the following question was discussed:

"Would you like to see something change, what is it and why? What can I do to help influence the change?"

• [256] It is very clear that the Applicant holds long standing and unresolved concerns about the performance of her team member Faye which she has ventilated with multiple managers. This can be seen in the lengthy email sent to Ms Stoffels about Faye on 31 May 2023. The Applicant was likely frustrated that her concerns about Faye had not been resolved to her satisfaction and saw the appointment of her new manager as an opportunity to have something done to address her concern.

• [257] However, it seems likely that the Applicant's focus on the topic of Faye, including her disclosure that she had been keeping detailed notes about Faye's performance issues, may have raised some questions for Ms Schofield about the Applicant's motivations. I accept that Ms Schofield asked the Applicant why she had raised the issues about Faye. While the Applicant's evidence was that she felt Ms Schofield did not like that she had raised the issues, I consider Ms Schofield's question to be a reasonable one so she could understand why Faye's performance was of concern to the Applicant, for example, whether it was an issue of workload, fairness or something else.

• [258] Ms Schofield did tell the Applicant that it was unprofessional to use the term "dodgy" when referring to Faye. The word "dodgy" connotes dishonesty and I consider that Ms Schofield's comment about use of the term to be reasonable given the context in which the Applicant used that term in respect of her colleague's work, i.e. in her first one-on-one meeting with Ms Schofield and during a period in which Ms Schofield was getting to know her team members. Ms Schofield clearly did not want to be seen to be acquiescing to any such labels when she was still familiarising herself with the team and forming her own views about the performance and conduct of team members.

• [259] I accept Ms Schofield's evidence that she did not ask the Applicant for further "evidence". Rather, in circumstances where the meeting had already run over time and the meeting direction had diverted away from its holistic purpose, it seems more likely that Ms Schofield was looking for a way to 'wrap up' the conversation about Faye and invited the Applicant to send any concerns through to her so she could consider them.

• [260] It also seems likely that the Applicant raised concerns about her former manager Derong with Ms Schofield during this meeting and this was likely in the context of Ms Schofield asking questions about turnover within team, noting the Applicant's evidence that Ms Schofield had asked why employees had left the team.

• [261] I accept that Ms Schofield perceived the Applicant was distressed when discussing her concerns about Derong and Faye and that she raised her voice, spoke quickly, jumped between and repeated stories.[425] It is unlikely that Ms Schofield would have expected the Applicant's enthusiastic disclosures about Faye and her former manager at an initial meeting to have put Ms Schofield on alert as a new leader joining the team that the Applicant's relationships and interactions with team members required observation as she familiarised herself with the team dynamics.

• [262] It seems likely that from the outset of their initial meeting, the Applicant and Ms Schofield had differing communication styles and perspectives and perceived the communications of the other person in a way that it was not intended. From the Applicant's perspective, it is likely that she held pent up frustration about the performance of her colleague Faye and her former manager's inaction and communicated her concerns about this with intensity as she had initially seen an opportunity for change following Ms Schofield's appointment, particularly given the nature of the questions asked by Ms Schofield. However it is likely that the Applicant also had some preconceived suspicions about Ms Schofield that may have been unhelpfully influenced by the comments of her colleagues, including a description of Ms Schofield as "very tough and difficult to work with" and/or that she was "was racist and tough". When Ms Schofield took issue with the use of the word "dodgy" and did not respond in an affirmative way to the concerns the Applicant had raised about Faye, this likely made the Applicant wary of Ms Schofield.

• [263] It is likely that the dynamics of the meeting had become awkward, and this cannot have helped the first impressions Ms Schofield and the Applicant had of each other at its conclusion. However, the evidence does not establish that Ms Schofield behaved unreasonably towards the Applicant at this meeting.

Ms Schofield's conduct during the second one-on-one meeting 12 June 2024 and comments concerning the social contract

• [264] The concept of a social contract came up during the second one-on-one meeting on 12 June 2024. It is apparent that this resulted from another discussion about Faye in which the Applicant again raised concerns about Faye's performance, and I note the Applicant and Ms Schofield have competing evidence about who initiated the discussion of this topic. The Applicant had taken up Ms Schofield's invitation to send through concerns about Faye following the first one-on-one meeting and on 6 June 2024 sent Ms Schofield a screenshot of the support queue. Ms Schofield's evidence was that she had not considered this to be a significant issue in isolation.[426] In this context it seems likely that the Applicant initiated the discussion about Faye, again seeking that Ms Schofield act on her concerns in some way.

• [265] It is important to note that at this stage, Ms Schofield had been managing the team for less than a month. Ms Schofield gave evidence that in her brief time in the team she had not observed any significant performance issues with Faye.[427] Despite this she acknowledged that she may need to take some action related to Faye's performance if it was the case that she was not completing tasks and told the Applicant that these things take time and are of a sensitive nature.[428] It is unlikely that Ms Schofield had formed a conclusive view about Faye's performance and its drivers at this early stage or whether the Applicant's concerns about Faye were warranted. However, Ms Schofield's observations from speaking with both the Applicant and Faye were that they had a very strained work relationship and were both keeping detailed notes on each other. Such a dynamic is hardly conducive to harmonious workplace relationships, and it is likely that Ms Schofield wanted to do something to address these issues so they did not escalate and raised the concept of a social contract in that context.

• [266] I accept that the concept of a 'social contract' was unknown to the Applicant and may have given rise to confusion. In the workplace context, and in very simple terms, a social contract generally refers to a compact between two people that defines or describes their obligations towards each other.

• [267] I accept that the Applicant had indicated that her issues with Faye were not personal and her concern was about Faye's performance. While the Applicant had raised her concerns about Faye with multiple managers the Applicant's evidence was that she had always maintained a civil working relationship with Faye. It seems likely that the Applicant had not raised her concerns with Faye directly and nor did she desire to do so. The Applicant was unlikely to have embraced the concept of a social contract in these circumstances, and her evidence suggests she formed the view that she was being forced into a direct confrontation with Faye.

• [268] I do not accept that Ms Schofield was seeking to force the Applicant into a direct confrontation with Faye. To the contrary, her likely intention was to reset the relationship in a positive way and this is consistent with her evidence during the hearing.[429] I note that in the context of the Major Supplier Meeting Incident the Applicant alleged that Ms Schofield's practice of asking other team members to write about work related issues and then passing those messages on to the respective teams on their behalf was a departure from the previous practice where managers would connect employees directly with the relevant individuals. It appears that the Applicant herself had understood that it may be appropriate to raise concerns with an individual directly as a means to resolving a grievance or interpersonal conflict. While Ms Schofield could have better explained to the Applicant what she meant by the term 'social contract' and her intention in raising it, I do not consider her raising the concept of a social contract to be unreasonable in the circumstances.

• [269] The second one-on-one meeting again demonstrates how the Applicant and Ms Schofield approached things from very different perspectives. It is likely that the Applicant became frustrated by Ms Schofield's response as her concerns about Faye had not been validated by Ms Schofield and I accept Ms Schofield's evidence that the nature of the discussion was such that she found it very hard to get a word in. It is likely that the Applicant remained adamant about her concerns, and it is also likely that Ms Schofield wanted the Applicant to pause and listen to what she was saying about the potential way forward. In her efforts to have the Applicant listen to her, it is likely that Ms Schofield made some direct interventions which the Applicant perceived as bossy or rude, including seeking that the Applicant repeat what she had said out of a legitimate concern that the Applicant was not listening. This would have again resulted in some awkward meeting dynamics between the Applicant and Ms Schofield however I am not persuaded that Ms Schofield's conduct during the meeting was unreasonable.

• [270] The next significant interaction between the Applicant and Ms Schofield occurred during a meeting between the Applicant, Ms Schofield and Mr Yang in which the Applicant's performance rating in respect of FY 24 was communicated to her.

• [271] Ms Schofield had been the Applicant's manager for less than two months at this point. The evidence of both Ms Schofield and Mr Yang is that it was Mr Yang who reviewed the Applicant's performance as he had been her manager for most of the year, and I accept this was the case. Mr Yang had initially rated the Applicant as 'Exceeding' expectations and I accept Mr Yang's evidence that he did so on the basis that the Applicant's technical skills were excellent.[430] However this was not the final rating that was communicated to the Applicant.

• [272] I accept that Mr Yang led the meeting on 27 June 2024, or at least that was the intention, however the Applicant's evidence was that after Mr Yang read out his review and told the Applicant she was outstanding/exceeding performance expectations he deferred to Ms Schofield to provide the rating. Mr Yang's evidence contradicts this and he says that he explained that the Applicant's work product was 'Exceeding' expectations, but as a result of calibration and the Applicant's ways of working, the Applicant's overall rating had been set as 'Achieving'.

• [273] I observe from the messages exchanged between the Applicant and Mr Yang that the way the Applicant communicates to Mr Yang via electronic communications is very pointed and can involve multiple messages in quick succession and I accept that it can Mr Yang feel uncomfortable. Mr Yang was not ordinarily the Applicant's manager and needed to continue working with the Applicant as a peer post rating. It seems likely that Mr Yang knew the Applicant would not receive the rating well, did not want a confrontation with the Applicant and relied heavily on Ms Schofield during the meeting as a more experienced leader. Regardless as to whether it was Mr Yang or Ms Schofield who communicated the rating, it is very clear that the Applicant was dissatisfied with the rating and it was Ms Schofield who stepped in to deal with the Applicant's response. It is likely that either Mr Yang or Ms Schofield explained to the Applicant that the reason for her 'Achieving' rating, rather than an 'Exceeding' rating, was attributable to her rating in respect of 'Ways of Working'. This prompted the Applicant to seek an example and Ms Schofield, although not being the person who made the decision about the Applicant's rating, likely raised the first example that came to mind during her very short period of time in which she had personally worked with the Applicant, being the Major Supplier Meeting Incident. I do not consider Ms Schofield's conduct to be unreasonable in doing so. In my view, the Applicant's interactions with her peers on 25 June 2024 in a group chat setting about another employee do indicate an opportunity for the Applicant to improve her 'Ways of Working'.

• [274] The Applicant's own evidence was that she "lost patience" at this point and said:

"No, I don't agree with my rating or your feedback. I believe I did an exceeding performance last year and my work numbers and stakeholder feedback and survey ratings clearly shows it, and I always maintained the highest level in my ways of working. You are attacking me personally, on the other day you said I am emotional, unprofessional and ordered me to not use the word dodgy anymore. In another meeting, you ordered me to have a social contract with Faye when I have no personal issue with her and asked me to repeat that. Now you are saying my ways of working is bad and hence you reduced my performance rating as well. It is unfair. It shows there is an issue here with the work culture".

• [275] Although Ms Schofield was not the decision maker, it is apparent that the Applicant was upset and was directing her anger toward Ms Schofield. I accept Mr Yang's evidence that Ms Schofield did not raise her voice and was very calm and polite when talking to the Applicant and ended the meeting by telling the Applicant that she shouldn't let her disappointment with her rating detract from all the outstanding work she had done and that her contribution was appreciated.[431] I find that Ms Schofield did not act unreasonably at any stage during the meeting on 27 June 2025.

• [276] The Major Supplier Meeting Incident was a very tangible example of an opportunity for the Applicant to improve her behaviour, including in relation to the way in which she raises concerns with and about colleagues and uses group chat. It is unfortunate that the Applicant did not acknowledge that she could have handed the Major Supplier Meeting Incident issue differently during her discussions with Ms Schofield. This indicates the Applicant was not receptive to constructive feedback and I accept that this made communication with the Applicant about her development area, 'Ways of Working', challenging for her leaders.

• [277] On 31 July 2024 Ms Schofield raised a request with People Services in relation to the Applicant and it is likely that there were two events that ultimately led her to do so.

• [278] Firstly, Ms Schofield's evidence suggests that the Applicant's concerns about Faye came up again in the one-on-one meeting she had with the Applicant on 10 July 2024 and that despite the Applicant acknowledging she had seen some improvement in Faye's performance she continued to raise concerns.

• [279] Ms Schofield's evidence was that when she explained that Faye had some hearing challenges in an attempt to provide some context as to why Faye may not have been performing to the level expected by the Applicant, the Applicant cut her off and said she was fed up with hearing this and that Faye's hearing issues were not an "excuse" for her not clearing emails.

• [280] While the Applicant clearly had concerns about Faye's performance and wanted managers to take action to address this, it is unclear what specific measures she wished to see implemented and, if performance management measures were implemented, what level of communication she expected her managers to have with her about this. It was likely apparent to Ms Schofield at this time that even if Faye did show improvement or if there was some sound explanation for her not performing to the level expected, this was not going to appease the Applicant.

• [281] Further, on 11 July 2024 the Applicant emailed Ms Schofield. In that email the Applicant said that Ms Schofield had 'hinted' that Faye had accused the Applicant of 'spreading bad things about her', suggested that this was the reason that she had attracted some criticism for her 'Ways of Working' and requested an investigation and action against the person who wrongly accused her.

• [282] It is clear from the People Services request that Ms Schofield had become concerned with the Applicant persistently raising concerns about Faye, considered this was bullying, considered that the working relationship between Faye and the Applicant was toxic and was having difficulty managing the Applicant, who did not take on her feedback or acknowledge that she had "poor ways of working". It was also apparent that issues concerning the Applicant were escalating. In these circumstances I consider it was reasonable for Ms Schofield to reach out to the Employer's human resources team for help by making the request.

Further one-on-one meetings between Ms Schofield and the Applicant on 24 July 2024, 7 August 2024 and 21 August 2024

• [283] Further one-on-one meetings between Ms Schofield and the Applicant took place on 24 July 2024, 7 August 2024 and 21 August 2024. In one of the August meetings, discussion took place between the Applicant and Ms Schofield about India. The evidence of Ms Schofield and the Applicant is conflicting in this regard.

• [284] It seems likely that the conversation about India came up in the context of the Applicant advising that her husband was going to India and asking if she could work from home to enable her to do the school drop off and pick up in respect of her son on the day she would normally be in the office. Ms Schofield said the Applicant talked a lot about India and how the schooling system worked in India ad described the meeting as 'nice'.

• [285] However the Applicant gave evidence that Ms Schofield had said that she heard from another person in her team, via his presentation about India in a team bonding meeting, that in India government jobs are low paid and there are bribes and corruption everywhere in government jobs.[432] Ms Schofield did not recall making any comment about people in India being low paid or India having a corrupt government and said these were not her beliefs.[433]

• [286] However the Applicant said the comments were made and left her with the impression that Ms Schofield might perceive her as someone who came from an inferior or corrupt environment.[434] The Applicant's Diary Notes also indicate that Ms Schofield said that her locality has a lot of Indian migrants and that the schools have a lot of Indian children.[435] The Applicant perceived these comments to be negative.[436]

• [287] I accept that Ms Schofield and the Applicant had a discussion about India. I also accept that the Applicant may have perceived some of the comments that Ms Schofield made about India to be negative. The Applicant's perception needs to be considered in context. In particular, the Applicant had been told by colleagues that Ms Schofield was tough and racist before the Applicant and Ms Schofield had commenced working together. When the Applicant's concerns about Faye were not validated by Ms Schofield and Ms Schofield provided feedback to the Applicant that she did not agree with or receive well, the Applicant likely became wary of Ms Schofield. This was likely exacerbated when Ms Schofield provided feedback regarding the Applicant's 'Ways of Working' in the performance review meeting. None of these actions were unreasonable but I accept that the Applicant perceived them to be so and this likely impacted her frame of reference in respect of other comments made by Ms Schofield about India.

• [288] I recommend that Ms Schofield refrain from making any comments to the Applicant about India as it is clear that the Applicant had not received these comments positively and such discussion is not necessary in a workplace context. However, I am not satisfied that the comments made by Ms Schofield amount to racism or were otherwise unreasonable. Rather, Ms Schofield was most likely trying to make a personal connection with the Applicant given the challenging dynamics in the initial meetings and that things seemed to be turning around in a positive way in more recent one-on-one meetings.

Seventh one-on-one meeting between Ms Schofield and the Applicant on 4 September 2024

• [289] While the Applicant and Ms Schofield provided different accounts and perspectives about the meeting on 4 September 2024, it is apparent that this meeting did not proceed constructively. During this meeting it seems likely that there was discussion about People Services dealing with concerns that the Applicant had raised and that Ms Schofield showed the Applicant copies of the Code of Conduct and Respectful Workplace Behaviour policy and indicated to the Applicant that complaints of bullying were taken seriously. It seems likely that she did this because she wanted the Applicant to understand the implications of making accusations in respect of Faye and seeking a workplace investigation about them. It is also likely that Ms Schofield was concerned about the Applicant's overall conduct in respect of Faye, as reflected in her People Services request on 31 July 2024. Given the Applicant's persistence in relation to Faye, I do not consider such concern to be misplaced.

• [290] Discussion also took place between the Applicant and Ms Schofield about praise that Ms Stoffels had given the team without singling the Applicant out for praise. It seems likely that the Applicant expressed her disappointment at this, indicated that she felt her effort was not valued and her work was not appreciated and expressed the view that some of the others who had been called out had not contributed to the project that they were being praised for.

• [291] I accept that in responding to this Ms Schofield likely told the Applicant words to the effect that:

• she understood from the Applicant that praise and being called out was important to her;
• she did not consider the Applicant had humility or was humble;
• the Applicant felt a need to be telling Ms Schofield and others of the great work that she did;
• the Applicant did not place a lot of importance on the team compared to the importance of her individual contribution.

• [292] It seems likely that the discussion then moved on to the Applicant's dissatisfaction with her performance rating and that the Applicant again sought to explain why she felt she was exceeding expectations. I accept that Ms Schofield said words to the effect that:

• working on the project was part of her role and was not going above and beyond;
• being allocated projects was business as usual, it was the company's expectations that employees performed the role they were paid to do and if they did not, other conversations about that were had;
• the Applicant had been doing her job, but that Ms Schofield had not been in her role long enough to comment on whether she was doing so at an 'Exceeding' level;
• "murky waters" arise when people think they are 'Exceeding' expectations when they are doing what is expected of them and what they are paid to do;
• the Applicant's 'Ways of Working' were bringing her down;
• the Applicant could not take feedback, Ms Schofield found this extremely frustrating, felt underappreciated and did not feel respected,
• her observations over the last few months were that the Applicant could not take feedback and every time Ms Schofield would talk she would cut her off and not listen to her;
• the Applicant believed she was "absolutely nailing" everything and was telling Ms Schofield that she was perfect and did not have any challenges in her work;
• everybody, including Ms Schofield, had multiple things they should be improving on but she had never heard the Applicant saying that she had a development opportunity;
• the Applicant had a different perception of herself than what Ms Schofield saw having worked with her for a few months.

• [293] It is important to consider the way in which comments to this effect were delivered. The Applicant alleges these things were said in a way that was "unprofessional" as well as "teasing and belittling". However, Ms Schofield's evidence was that she spoke to the Applicant in a "calm and measured voice". It is difficult to reconcile these competing views, and it seems likely that both parties genuinely held differing perceptions about the way in which the feedback was delivered. While I do not accept that Ms Schofield delivered her message in a "teasing and belittling" way it seems likely that Ms Schofield was getting frustrated with the Applicant at this point who had now repeatedly raised concerns about her colleague Faye, did not agree with her performance rating or feedback and was clearly unhappy about this and was now raising concerns about not being singled out for praise by Ms Stoffels. This would have added to an already challenging situation for Ms Schofield to manage. I accept that this frustration may have started to have an impact on Ms Schofield's tone and that she likely became more direct in her feedback to the Applicant.

• [294] I accept that the Applicant did not agree with any of the feedback that she received and perceived it negatively, however I do not consider that Ms Schofield's conduct in providing such feedback was unreasonable in the circumstances. While Ms Schofield could have delivered her feedback in a more pleasant tone, it is apparent from the evidence that Ms Schofield wanted the Applicant to be more team oriented, wanted the Applicant to be open to feedback and wanted the Applicant to reflect on her 'Ways of Working' as a development area. However, Ms Schofield's feedback was simply not cutting through to the Applicant and the directness of Ms Schofield's comments was likely a response to this. I do not consider that Ms Schofield acted unreasonably in these circumstances.

• [295] Regardless of whether the Applicant called Ms Schofield racist in the meeting or, as the Applicant describes things, expressed her feeling that she was being treated in a manner that she perceived as racist or discriminatory, I do not consider there to be a sound basis for this accusation or perception, having considered all the evidence.

• [296] The evidence does not establish that Ms Schofield sought to exclude the Applicant from Big W work. It was Mr Yang who assisted Ms Schofield with the allocation of work and there is no evidence that he was given a directive from Ms Schofield or sought to exclude the Applicant from that work.

• [297] While the Applicant alleged that repeated negative comments, exclusionary behaviour, and personal attacks by Ms Schofield isolated her professionally and turned her teammates against her[437] she also said she did not know what specific conversations or comments were made by Ms Schofield to team members such as Catherine. While I accept the Applicant may have perceived that the behaviour of her colleagues changed after Ms Schofield assumed leadership of the team,[438] there may have been many reasons for this. The evidence does not establish conduct on the part of Ms Schofield to 'turn [the Applicant's] teammates against her'. Rather, Ms Schofield was concerned about the Applicant's relationship with Faye and suggested measures to improve this and it is apparent that she wanted a greater team focus from the Applicant. This is inconsistent with actions intended to isolate. It does however seem likely that Catherine had been spoken to as a part of the investigation, including into Catherine's alleged comments that she had told the Applicant that Faye had said the Applicant bullied her. I accept that this, together with the Applicant's ventilation of her unhappiness with Ms Schofield in the group chat, may have given rise to some awkwardness in the workplace, particularly given the eBusiness team is small. I also accept Mr Yang's evidence that the Applicant's use of the group chat made him uncomfortable and this was likely the case in respect of other members of the small team who received the same or similar communications.

• [298] On 1 October 2024 Ms Stoffels advised Ms Schofield to cease meeting with the Applicant for one-on-one meetings and I consider that this was a sensible measure in the circumstances. However, this clearly limited the interaction that Ms Schofield and the Applicant had yet Ms Schofield remained her manager. The Applicant was a key part of her team of five and when the Applicant commenced her leave Ms Schofield understandably needed to know about the expected duration of leave and manage the impacts. It seems that the internal communication about the Applicant's leave and work capacity between the human resources team and Ms Schofield was poor, and that in reaching out to the Applicant Ms Schofield was simply trying to get better visibility about this. While it may have been more appropriate for Ms Schofield to communicate directly with human resources about these matters, I do not consider that Ms Schofield acted unreasonably in asking the Applicant for medical certificates in circumstances where she did not already have access to this information. I recommend that Ms Schofield obtain this information from human resources in the future and that the human resources team better communicate with Ms Schofield about this.

• [299] I do however have concern about Ms Schofield's communication with the Applicant on 18 December 2025:

"I will look to start training up someone to replace you in the new year."

• [300] I accept that Ms Schofield may have intended this as a reference to someone to cover the Applicant's personal leave, given it was raised in the context of a discussion about leave. However, Ms Schofield should have been aware that the Applicant may have perceived this as a threat of replacement and the comment was unnecessary.

• [301] Notwithstanding this, when all of the conduct of Ms Schofield is considered at the individual level, I do not consider that Ms Schofield has repeatedly behaved unreasonably towards the Applicant while she was at work. I go on to consider the conduct of Ms Schofield and Ms Stoffels as a part of a 'group' further in my consideration below.

Consideration of the submissions and evidence - Ms Stoffels' behaviour toward the Applicant

• [302] While the Applicant has filed a significant amount of material in relation to her concerns, the Applicant's concerns regarding Ms Stoffels are summarised earlier in this decision and may be further summarised as follows:

• that Ms Stoffels dismissed her concerns and defended Ms Schofield;
• that Ms Stoffels enabled and endorsed Ms Schofield's bullying;
• that Ms Stoffels said that the Applicant's 'Ways of Working' were not good without justification and without providing examples;
• that Ms Stoffels unfairly reduced the Applicant's performance rating.

• [303] I have given extensive consideration to the evidence concerning the behaviour of Ms Schofield earlier in this decision and did not consider that Ms Schofield's behaviour, considered at the individual level, resulted in the Applicant being 'bullied at work' as defined in the Act. In those circumstances, I find that Ms Stoffels did not 'enable' or 'endorse' bullying by Ms Schofield. However, the way in which Ms Stoffels handled the concerns the Applicant raised, and the allegations made by the Applicant concerning Ms Stoffels' assessment of her performance warrants further consideration.

• [304] Once managers rate their team members' performance those ratings are subject to a calibration process in which leaders come together and compare results against an agreed benchmark. It was Ms Stoffels who made the decision to adjust the Applicant's rating from 'Exceeding' to 'Achieving' as a part of the calibration process. Ms Stoffels gave evidence that she did not believe that the Applicant was demonstrating everything expected for an 'Exceeding' rating including because:

• the Applicant was not always proactively looking for ways to support the wider team and assisting with the development of others;
• she understood the Applicant was always willing to assist if asked and would provide feedback to others on work they completed but would do so in a very direct way;
• she did not see evidence of the Applicant showing enough initiative;

• • the Applicant's approach appeared more focused on her individual work.[439]

• [305] It is not entirely clear as to the information that Ms Stoffels relied on to form that belief, including whether it was direct observation or feedback from others given Ms Stoffels' own evidence that prior to June/July 2024 she did not have day to day contact with the Applicant, although she did receive a lengthy email complaint from the Applicant about Faye a year earlier on 31 May 2023. Ms Stoffels did however say that she would hear the Applicant's name through liaising with Mr Yang and Derong and it seems likely that Ms Stoffels would have relied on information from people who worked more closely with the Applicant such as Derong, Mr Yang and potentially Ms Schofield to form her view that the Applicant was not demonstrating everything expected for an exceeding rating. The feedback recorded in Success Factors regarding the Applicant was very positive although I also observe that the measures of both an 'Achieving' and 'Exceeding Performance' rating both indicate good performance.

• [306] Notwithstanding the lack of clarity about the basis for Ms Stoffels' belief about the Applicant's performance, I am satisfied that she discussed her decision to downgrade the Applicant's 'Ways of Working' rating with Mr Yang and Ms Schofield after the benchmarking exercise[440] and that Mr Yang agreed with the decision, admitting he had not focused as much on 'Ways of Working'.[441] This is supported by the evidence of Mr Yang who said that when he provided the Applicant with an initial rating of 'Exceeding' he had not given equal weight to her 'Ways of Working' and agreed to downgrade the Applicant's rating to 'Achieving' on this basis.[442] Mr Yang gave evidence that while the Applicant would help someone in the team when asked, he did not always see the Applicant proactively supporting the rest of the team and did not always think she was helping others to achieve their goals.

• [307] There is no doubt that the Applicant has very strong technical skills, is highly capable and has demonstrated that across her tenure. While the descriptors of 'Ways of Working' are detailed, I understand they are directed toward the way people deliver and not what they deliver. Having considered the evidence of Mr Yang as well as having the opportunity to see the way in which the Applicant used workplace communication methods such as group chats, the Applicant's manner of communication with her colleagues and the Applicant's response to situations where she does not agree with feedback, I do consider the Applicant's 'Ways of Working' are a development area for her. I also note that the Applicant's 'Ways of Working' were rated as 'Achieved' in 2021 and 2023, which is not inconsistent with her rating for this aspect in 2024.

• [308] The Applicant's Diary Notes indicate that the Applicant's rating related information became accessible to her via the Respondent's people portal, SuccessFactors and this recorded that she had also been rated as 'Achieved' in respect of her business goals.[443] The Applicant appears to have understood that if her rating in respect of her business goals was 'Exceeding' she would have received the top rating even if her 'ways of working' were rated as 'Achieved'.[444] The Applicant's Diary Notes indicate that she asked Mr Duncan to look into this.[445]

• [309] During the hearing the Respondents clarified that there was an error in the system in that Applicant's Business Performance rating stated 'Achieved' but should have stated 'Exceeding' and this has since been corrected.[446]

• [310] The difference in Applicant's 'overall' rating for FY 24 compared to FY 21 and FY 23 appears to be because there is now a greater emphasis attached to 'Ways of Working' than there has been previously. A stronger emphasis on 'Ways of Working' would likely support an improved workplace culture in that it is not just outputs and operational outcomes that matter but how a person achieves these. I do not consider that the Applicant's performance rating was unfair in these circumstances and note that an 'Achieved' rating would still appear to be a good performance outcome, considering the descriptors that attach to that rating. As such, I am unable to conclude that Ms Stoffels unfairly reduced the Applicant's performance rating.

• [311] As noted above, the Applicant alleged that between July and October 2024 Ms Stoffels made certain comments, with many of them alleged to have been made in the meeting with the Applicant on 1 July, including:

• "oh you say Dee gave that rating to you? It is not Dee, it is my rating, your ways of working is not good so your work numbers don't matter for me and hence I gave you an achieved rating"
• "Your previous leader is not your manager anymore, Dee is your manager. Dee can give any feedback as she is your manager and just being in the leader role for less than a months is enough for Dee to give you a rating for your last year's performance. Also, your manager is not going to change, it is going to be Dee"
• "Dee would have mentioned the BSS social contract that she can tell you to have with your colleague"
• "I saw that email you wrote to Dee on your meeting with [the Major Supplier], it is a blunt email".

• [312] The context in which comments are made and tone in delivery is important. I accept that Ms Stoffels likely said words to the same or similar effect as those described above however when many these comments are considered objectively in context, it likely that Ms Stoffels:

• was clarifying that it was her that assigned her rating and this was on the basis of the Applicant's 'Ways of Working';
• detected that the Applicant had concerns about Ms Schofield communicating the rating and providing feedback and sought to clarify that she saw no concern with this because Ms Schofield was now her manager and this was not going to change;
• made the Applicant aware that she knew that Ms Schofield had suggested a social contract with Faye and did not see anything wrong with that;
• made the Applicant aware that she was across the Major Supplier Meeting Incident and that she considered that the Applicant's communication about this to be 'blunt'.

• [313] Having regard to the context in which these comments were provided, I do not consider that they were unreasonable.

• [314] Ms Stoffels denied saying "I heard from Dee that you are doing dirty laundry washing", stating these were not words that she would use, however I do consider it likely that she has said "I heard from Dee you are airing dirty laundry" and the Applicant may have misunderstood this. This expression makes more sense and generally means discussing private matters in a public setting or with many people. It seems likely that Ms Stoffels became aware that the Applicant was airing her grievances about Ms Schofield to her colleagues and the evidence suggests that this was a practice that the Applicant engaged in, as evident through her use of the group chat. A comment that the Applicant was "airing dirty laundry" is also congruous with a statement that "I heard you were giving running commentary to your colleagues" and I accept the Applicant's evidence that Ms Stoffels said this. The colloquial expression may not have been familiar to the Applicant and Ms Stoffels should have used a different descriptor. However I do not consider the comments amount to unreasonable behaviour

• [315] Other comments that the Applicant alleged Ms Stoffels made include:

• "What you say is your version and there is no evidence for that."
• "What Dee did is reasonable management".
• "Your allegation against Dee on discrimination and racism put her down."

• [316] I accept that Ms Stoffels likely made these comments because at this stage it is apparent she had heard from both Ms Schofield and the Applicant about the meeting in which only the Applicant and Ms Schofield were present and had enough information to form a view about what had happened. From the comments above, that view appears to be that Ms Schofield's conduct toward the Applicant constituted reasonable management action, that she did not consider that the allegations of discrimination had merit and that in making the allegations the Applicant had 'put down' Ms Schofield.

• [317] Given my earlier findings about Ms Schofield's behaviour and that I do not consider there to be a sound basis for the accusation or perception that Ms Schofield has treated the Applicant in a way that was racist or discriminatory, I do not consider the above comments to amount to unreasonable behaviour. However, Ms Stoffels could have delivered the feedback in a more sensitive way as it should have been apparent to her that even though she held different views to the Applicant, the Applicant genuinely felt the way that she did and hearing this from Ms Stoffels was unlikely to change the Applicant's views.

• [318] Indeed, the Applicant's evidence was that she said, "I didn't get justice from you and I feel more victimised" and I consider it likely the Applicant said words to this effect. The Applicant gave evidence that Ms Stoffels replied "oh, so you say you didn't get justice from me and you are a victim and you want to go to HR" in a way the Applicant felt to be a "teasing tone". Ms Stoffels denies making this statement and if she said words to this effect, I consider it unlikely that Ms Stoffels used a teasing tone in her delivery.

• [319] The Applicant appears to have formed the view that Ms Stoffels was protecting her "friend" Ms Schofield. I do not accept that this was what Ms Stoffels was doing or that Ms Schofield is her "friend". Rather, Ms Stoffels was simply communicating her views about the merits of the Applicant's complaint about Ms Schofield which were reasonable based on the information available to her and likely did so in a direct way because of the Applicant's resistance to feedback.

• [320] Having considered the Applicant's allegations and the evidence in this matter concerning the behaviour of Ms Stoffels, I do not consider that Ms Stoffels repeatedly behaved unreasonably towards the Applicant.

Consideration of the submissions and evidence - Ms Schofield's and Ms Stoffels' behaviour toward the Applicant if they are considered as a 'group'

• [321] Having considered the Applicant's allegations and the evidence in this matter concerning the behaviour of both Ms Schofield and Ms Stoffels individually and as a group, I do not consider that Ms Schofield and/or Ms Stoffels repeatedly behaved unreasonably towards the Applicant. To the extent that Ms Schofield and Ms Stoffels provided feedback to the Applicant I consider that the feedback was reasonable and carried out in a reasonable manner.

• [322] As such I cannot be satisfied that the Applicant was 'bullied at work' as defined in section 789FD of the Act and in these circumstances, I am unable to make orders to stop bullying.

• [323] Despite this finding, this does not mean that there are not areas for improvement for the Employer and parties in this matter to consider and I deal with these below.

Observations and recommendations for a constructive pathway forward

• [324] I consider that the communication of the Applicant's performance outcome could have been handled in a better way. In particular, during a meeting with the Applicant on 1 July 2024, it appears that Ms Stoffels explained that she was the one that assigned the 'Achieving' rating to the Applicant because of her ways of working but it is not apparent that Ms Stoffels explained why she had personally made this decision in a way that was clear to the Applicant. While I do not go so far to find that Ms Stoffels' conduct was 'unreasonable', in the meeting on 1 July 2024 she should have identified her own, tangible examples of the Applicant's 'Ways of Working' that did not meet the level of 'Exceeding' expectations and provided these to the Applicant. Having considered the evidence before the Commission, it is likely that are multiple examples that could have been provided that relate to the way the Applicant interacts with her colleagues.

• [325] It was also apparent that at the time of receiving her rating, the Applicant did not understand the calibration process and had not received feedback about her 'Ways of Working' across the year. It is understandable that an employee may be confused where the feedback of their line manager points towards a better performance rating, yet the rating does not reflect that rating on account of a calibration process that the employee is not engaged with. An explanation about the calibration process and regular feedback throughout the course of the performance year would have helped to manage expectations about the process and likely outcomes. While Mr Yang was frank about his views concerning the Applicant's behaviour during the hearing, it may have helped the Applicant if he had brought some of these concerns to the Applicant's attention earlier and given her an opportunity to correct it. It seems likely that Mr Yang sought to avoid confrontation with the Applicant and Mr Yang should be given some coaching in how to provide feedback and have difficult conversations if he has leadership aspirations.

• [326] While I am not satisfied that that the Applicant has been bullied at work and must therefore dismiss the Applicant's application in so far as she is seeking orders, the way in which the dispute has escalated, combined with the parties' participation in a contested legal setting, is unlikely to be conducive to a positive outcome unless some multi-faceted solutions are identified and the parties have an open mind in relation to their implementation. As such, I have identified some recommendations that the Employer may wish to consider.

• [327] In relation to performance management and in respect of future performance years I recommend that:

1. the relevant managers be given training on how to provide constructive feedback and how to handle difficult conversations;
2. the Employer better explain the performance review process, including explaining the metrics against which employees are assessed, how different combinations of ratings impact the overall rating, the rating process and calibration process;
3. the Applicant be provided with clearer metrics in relation to her 'Ways of Working' so she can understand what she needs to do to achieve an 'Exceeding' rating and what types of behaviour may see her falling short of this desired rating;
4. that the Applicant be provided with regular feedback across the performance year regarding her performance against these metrics, including provision of examples of her good 'Ways or Working' and, if they arise, poor 'Ways of Working' along with opportunities for improvement. This should mean there are no surprises in relation to the feedback provided at the end of the performance year;
5. that clearer rationale be provided if an employee's performance rating is to be changed following a calibration process. For example, if there is an agreed benchmark for 'Exceeding' performance and an employee is considered to fall short of that benchmark, tangible examples should be provided in relation to the employee's work outputs or behaviours to show why the line manager's rating was different to the final rating and what the employee can do differently in working toward the desired rating in the future.

• [328] The Employer may also wish to consider a better mechanism for reviewing performance ratings where these are challenged. Given Ms Stoffels was the person who reviewed the rating,

having someone else review the rating when it was challenged was a sensible way forward. However, Mr Shankar does not appear to have engaged with the Applicant herself in this process and nor is it apparent that he engaged with Mr Yang who was her manager for the bulk of the performance year. Mr Shankar appears to have formed his view based on feedback from Ms Schofield and Ms Stoffels alone. Having found that the Applicant's 'Ways of Working' are a development opportunity, a further review is unlikely to see the Applicant's rating changed from 'Achieving' to 'Exceeding' but I do accept why the Applicant may have perceived the review to be lacking in integrity when Mr Shankar did not speak to her to understand her perspective. In circumstances where an employee challenges their performance rating in the future, a better way forward may be to have human resources or an appropriate leader who did not deliver the rating conduct a review in a way that:

• considers the rating that was assigned at calibration and the reasons for this, including tangible examples or evidence demonstrating why the manager assigning the rating at calibration says the employee fell short of the benchmark;
• considers the line manager's rating and reasons for it along with feedback about the post calibration rating and rationale;
• ensures the employee has access the rationale for the rating assigned by their managers
• ensures the employee has an opportunity to provide their views about this and their rating to the reviewer.

• [329] It is apparent that at the conclusion of the meeting between the Applicant and Ms Stoffels on 1 July 2025, Ms Stoffels did not consider there were any meeting outcomes. It is difficult to see how this could have resulted in a constructive pathway forward for the relationship between the Applicant and Ms Schofield and workplace dynamics given how the meeting ended. The matter was bound to escalate and it did.

• [330] I consider that Ms Stoffels would have benefited from enhanced human resources support during her meeting with the Applicant on 1 July 2024 and beyond. This is because the Applicant clearly perceived Ms Stoffels as a person who had 'wronged her' in assigning the rating and in failing to validate the concerns that she held about Ms Schofield. In these circumstances Ms Stoffels should not have been asked nor expected to elect the person to conduct the review of the performance rating nor carry out the investigation into the Applicant's escalated concerns. It should have been apparent that the Applicant was unlikely to have perceived an outcome arising from these processes to be objective or fair. I have considered the Applicant's concerns in extensive detail and the Applicant has now had the opportunity to have her concerns considered by independent third parties including both the work health and safety regulator and the Commission. However, matters such as this may not escalate in such a way if a person more removed from the allegations is appointed to look into those allegations before they get to this stage.

• [331] I consider that human resources could have intervened more effectively by providing some support to Ms Stoffels in preparation for and during her meeting with the Applicant on 1 July 2025 to ensure the Applicant had a clearer explanation about the performance review process and reason for her rating. When the Applicant continued to escalate her concerns, human resources should have intervened to have her concerns investigated by a third party who was not Ms Stoffels, whether this be a person from within human resources or an appropriately qualified external person.

• [332] At this point in time there is some merit in the suggestion of a change in reporting line if this can be accommodated, at least in the near term while options are explored and measures to start rebuilding trust are put in motion. However, I am aware that the Applicant is an important part if the eBusiness team and if this cannot be accommodated and when the Applicant is well enough to return to the workplace, the Employer may also wish to consider:

• mediation between the Applicant and Ms Schofield as well as group mediation between the members of the eBusiness team, noting that four of the five team members have in some way been drawn into the dispute. This should be facilitated by a competent external person and ideally someone all parties agree to. Such mediation should enable the parties to safely share their perspective on how they can work together constructively in the future and see if the parties can reach a shared understanding about this;
• continuation of the practice that there be no one-on-one meetings between the Applicant and Ms Schofield;
• a directive there be no communication between the Applicant and Ms Schofield about the subject of India or other personal matters that are not work related;
• having another appropriate person review the Applicant's performance ratings in future years while Ms Schofield and Ms Stoffels remain as the Applicant's managers.

• circulation of clearer rules for use of 'group chats' to manage expectations of all employees in the Applicant's team, particularly as they mostly work in a remote environment, and appear to communicate regularly via group chats;
• assigning the Applicant a mentor who role models 'Ways of Working' that are considered to be 'Exceeding' expectations and who can help the Applicant work on this development area and achieve her performance goals;
• refresher training for all parties involved in this dispute about appropriate workplace behaviours and what to do in the event they observe or are impacted by behaviour that they perceive to be unacceptable;
• continuing to make external counselling services available to the parties involved directly or indirectly in this dispute and making them aware that these services are available.

• [334] Once there has been sufficient time to heal relationships and build trust, there may also be merit in the Employer exploring facilitated activities involving all members of the eBusiness team to build team cohesion and strengthen working relationships, particularly as team members only attend the office in person one day per week.

Ms. J. Tinsley of Kingston Reid for the Respondent.

[2] Applicant's Form F72 application, response to 11.

[3] Applicant's submissions, part 2(A).

[4] Applicant's submissions, part 2(B).

[5] Applicant's submissions, part 2(B).

[6] Applicant's submissions, part 2(F).

[7] Applicant's Form F72 application, response to 11; Applicant's submissions, part 2(f).

[8] Applicant's Form F72 application, response to 11; Applicant's submissions, part 2(f).

[9] Applicant's Form F72 application, response to 11.

[10] Applicant's submissions, part 2(F).

[11] Applicant's Form F72 application, response to 11.

[12] Applicant's submissions, part 2(F).

[13] Applicant's submissions, part 2(F).

[14] Applicant's Form F72 application, response to 11.

[15] Applicant's submissions, part 2(F).

[16] Applicant's submissions, part 2(F).

[17] Applicant's submissions, part 2(F).

[18] Applicant's Form F72 application, response to 11.

[19] Applicant's submissions, part 2(F).

[20] Applicant's submissions, part 2(F).

[21] Applicant's submissions, part 2(F).

[22] Applicant's Form F72 application, response to 11.

[23] Applicant's Form F72 application, response to 11.

[24] Applicant's submissions, part 2(C).

[25] Applicant's Form F72 application, response to 11.

[26] Applicant's submissions, part 2(F).

[27] Applicant's Form F72 application, response to 11.

[28] Applicant's Form F72 application, response to 11.

[29] Applicant's submissions, part 2(D).

[30] Applicant's submissions, part 2(D).

[31] Applicant's Form F72 application, response to 11; Applicant's submissions, part 2(E).

[32] Applicant's Form F72 application, response to 11.

[33] Applicant's submissions, part 2(C).

[34] Applicant's Form F72 application, response to 11.

[35] Applicant's submissions, part 2(B).

[36] Applicant's Statement in reply to Stoffels Statement at [8].

[37] Applicant's Submissions at [10].

[38] Applicant's Form F72 application, response to 11; Applicant's submissions, part 2(F).

[39] Applicant's submissions, part 2(B).

[40] Applicant's submissions, part 2(C).

[41] Applicant's submissions, part 2(B).

[42] Applicant's Form F72 application, response to 11.

[43] Applicant's Statement in Reply to Stoffels Statement, p.3.

[44] Applicant's Statement in Reply to Stoffels Statement, p. 2.

[45] Applicant's Statement in Reply to Stoffels Statement, p. 13.

[46] Applicant's Statement in Reply to Stoffels Statement, p. 3.

[47] Applicant's Statement in Reply to Stoffels Statement, p. 17.

[49] Applicant's Form F72 application, response to 11.

[50] Applicant's Form F72 application, response to 18.

[51] Applicant's Statement in reply to Schofields Statement, p.21 -22.

[52] Applicant's submissions, part 4.

[53] Employer's Form F73 response, response to q. 9.

[54] Employer's Form F73 response, response to q. 9.

[55] Employer's Form F73 response, response to q. 9.

[56] Employer's Form F73 response, response to q. 9.

[57] Employer's Form F73 response, response to q. 9.

[58] Employer's Form F73 response, response to q. 9.

[59] Applicant's Statement in reply to Stoffels Statement, Appendix.

[60] Applicant's Diary Notes, p. 100. Note the text is a direct extract from the email and any typographical errors are as they appear in the email.

[62] Applicant's Statement in Response to Stoffels Statement, p. 11.

[63] Schofield Statement at 3.2; Applicant's Diary Notes, p.3.

[67] Schofield Statement, Attachment DS1.

[72] Applicant's Statement in Reply to Schofield Statement, p. 8.

[73] Applicant's Statement in Reply to Schofield Statement, p. 8.