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

[1] On 17 July 2025, Ms Lilianna Holden applied for an order to stop bullying against G4S Custodial Services Pty Ltd trading as G4S (G4S). Ms Holden alleges that she was bullied at work and the persons named in her application were two members of the Human Resources team and a Corrections Officer. G4S submits Ms Holden's application cannot proceed as she is no longer an employee, the persons named are no longer employed or working and therefore there is no utility in granting the orders sought.

[2] The background to Ms Holden's application and procedural history is set out below.

[3] On 20 August 2025, the parties attended a conference held before Deputy President Millhouse. On 2 September 2025, Ms Holden informed the Commission that the matter remained unresolved and further assistance from the Commission was required.

[4] On 3 October 2025, a Notice of Listing was issued for a conference to be held on 13 November 2025 before Deputy President Millhouse.

[5] On 31 October 2025, the parties were informed the matter was now allocated to me noting that the current listing for a conference on 13 November 2025 would remain. An amended Notice of Listing was issued to the parties to this effect.

[6] On 3 November 2025, the Respondent sent correspondence advising that two of the persons named were no longer employed by G4S and that the third person named was on secondment to another site operated by G4S.

[7] On 10 November 2025, Ms Holden requested the 13 November 2025 conference be adjourned, because she was unable to participate fairly and safely, her support person was unavailable, and she was still seeking key information from G4S.

[8] On 11 November 2025, Ms Holden's correspondence was acknowledged. The parties were subsequently informed the 13 November 2025 conference was to be adjourned due to emergent circumstances related to the Commissioner.

[9] On 26 November 2025, a Notice of Listing was issued for a conference to be held on 2 December 2025. Later that same day, Ms Holden sent an adjournment request stating she had not been provided with sufficient notice to prepare and secure appropriate emotional and organisational support, clarify the status of her unresolved WorkCover matter, review correspondence and organise her documents.

[10] On 27 November 2025, correspondence was sent from my Chambers denying the adjournment request because Ms Holden has had since the 17 July 2025 to prepare and I was of the view that the unresolved WorkCover claim was not relevant to the purpose of the proceedings. The correspondence from my Chambers outlined the purpose of the conference as follows:

"The purpose of the conference is to discuss the current status of the matter and how it will progress. Please note the merits of your application will not be assessed at the conference and no further evidence needs to be provided prior to or at the conference. You may bring a support person to the conference if you wish."

[11] Later that same day, Ms Holden pressed the adjournment on the basis that she was scheduled to work at Corrections Victoria and that she was unable to secure the appropriate emotional support she required. My Chambers sought evidence of Ms Holdens work schedule, and she provided a copy of her roster.

[12] In my view it is difficult to reconcile Ms Holdens stated incapacity from her original request for an adjournment made on 26 November 2025 and the reasons she later relies on which disclose that she was not so incapacitated that it prevented her from working. However, on 28 November 2025, Ms Holden's request for an adjournment was granted and a Notice of Listing for a conference to be held on 9 January 2026 was issued.

[13] On 8 January 2026, Ms Holden wrote to my Chambers again seeking an adjournment. Ms Holden submitted that due to a recent death in her family and her inability to prepare or secure a support person she was unable to attend the conference listed for 9 January 2026.

[14] Correspondence was sent to the parties from my Chambers advising that I was inclined to grant the adjournment, however I sought the views of the Respondent. The Respondent informed my Chambers that Ms Holden was no longer employed by G4S and questioned the utility of further listings before the Commission.

[15] The conference was vacated and I informed the parties that as Ms Holden was no longer employed at G4S Custodial Services Pty Ltd, she was no longer 'at work'. Therefore, considering the types of orders that could be made pursuant to s.789FC, I had formed a preliminary view that there would be no utility in granting the orders sought. Ms Holden was directed to advise by 4:00pm on 12 January 2026 if she wished to proceed with her application.

[16] Ms Holden emailed my Chambers at 9:06am on 13 January 2026 to advise that she wished to proceed with her application requesting that the Commission accept her late response. That same day at 2:36pm my Chambers issued a Notice of Listing for a Conference/Mention to be held at 9:00am Thursday 15 January 2026. Parties were advised that in light of Ms Holden's request to proceed with her application, her application would be programmed to deal with the matter of jurisdiction.

[17] On the evening of 13 January 2026, Ms Holden wrote to my Chambers seeking to further adjourn the matter due to work commitments, recent bereavement in her family and the need for fair preparation and representation. On 14 January 2026 at 9:53am, my Chambers advised Ms Holden that her adjournment request was declined. I formed the view that Ms Holden had been provided with sufficient time to prepare considering that the first conference in this matter was held in August 2025 and the subsequent adjournments that followed. To advance her application and noting the jurisdictional issues, Ms Holden was subsequently advised that I was not inclined to grant any further adjournment requests.

[18] On 14 January 2026 at 4:11pm, Ms Holden wrote to my Chambers advising she would not be attending the Conference/Mention and requested that due to her unavailability the mention proceed on the papers.

[19] On 14 January 2026 at 4:26pm, a response was sent from my Chambers informing Ms Holden that she was being directed to attend the Conference/Mention and reiterating that her adjournment request had been denied. Ms Holden was informed that if she failed to attend the listed proceedings before this Commission, I would proceed to consider dismissing her application for lack of jurisdiction.

[20] On 14 January 2026 at 6:09pm, Ms Holden advised that due to work obligations and lack of representation she would not attend the scheduled proceedings however she remained committed to pursuing her matter. Once again it was clear from Ms Holden's correspondence that she had no intention of making any attempt to alter her affairs and attend the scheduled proceedings.

[21] On 15 January 2026 at 8:49am, my Chambers sent correspondence to Ms Holden reiterating that she had been directed to attend the scheduled proceeding before this Commission and that complying with a direction of the Commission is not optional. However, as Ms Holden had made it clear that she had no intention of complying with a direction of this Commission, she was informed that I intended on determining whether I had the jurisdiction to make the orders sought pursuant to s.789FF(1)(b)(ii). Ms Holden was informed that if she did not attend the scheduled proceedings, I would proceed to determine the matter in her absence pursuant to s.600 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act) and she risked having her application dismissed.

[22] The matter proceeded to Conference/Mention during which G4S sought to make submissions as to whether I had jurisdiction to deal with Ms Holden's application taking into consideration that she was no longer employed by G4S. G4S also submitted that two of the persons named by Ms Holden in her application were no longer employed and the remaining person named was on a long period of leave. G4S submits that even if Ms Holden was still employed it could not reasonably be said that Ms Holden would be at any future risk of being bullied by any of the persons named in her application.

[23] On 15 January 2026, Ms Holden wrote to my Chambers submitting amongst other things that her actions were not intended on delaying proceedings. Regardless, having considered the materials filed by the parties and the submissions made by G4S at the Conference/Mention on 15 January 2026, which Ms Holden did not attend, I have decided to exercise my discretion under s.587 of the Act to dismiss Ms Holden's application. This is because the employment relationship has come to an end and Ms Holden is no longer a "worker" within the meaning of Part 6-4B of the Act. She is not "at work" in the sense required to enliven the Commission's jurisdiction under Part 6-4B.

[24] As Ms Holden is no longer a "worker" it is not necessary to decide whether she has been bullied at work. I cannot make an order to stop bullying at work unless I am satisfied that there is a risk the bullying will continue. I am not satisfied that in this case there is an ongoing risk to Ms Holden because she is no longer employed by G4S and therefore the application has no reasonable prospects of success.

[25] Ms Holden's application is dismissed pursuant to s.587(1)(c) of the Act.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer