(a) On an occasion when Mr Cowell rearranged the furniture, the plaintiff was annoyed and upset because it made her feel ignored. That feeling arose because she had suggested that particular rearrangement at some earlier time, and the suggestion was refused without reason. Subsequently when the plaintiff wasn't there, Mr Cowell moved the furniture. The plaintiff felt put down that he'd done it in a way that showed he didn't give her any credit whatsoever for any ideas or suggestions. The plaintiff felt encouraged by the board to make constructive suggestions about such matters.
(b) The arrangement of the book stock in the bookroom on the shelves was a source of conflict. There were disputes over the location of stock, particularly how stock was sorted, and about labelling. Books were placed on the shelves with their spines facing the wall. The plaintiff accepted that Mr Cowell had the last word about such matters, but it was his manner of expressing it that dominated and stressed her. Not only did Mr Cowell tell the plaintiff he didn't like her questioning his decisions but he would tell her so with a raised voice and a red face. He did not conversationally explain his reasons. The plaintiff could not understand why he would want to exercise power over her in this way. When she raised the books with spines towards the wall, Mr Cowell sneered, 'I like it that way, that's how we should stock the shelves ... That's the way it's going to be.' When cross-examined, Mr Cowell denied deliberately arranging books with the spine facing inwards, but later he said that when he did arrange the books in that manner, it was to ensure the books would not be lopsided, because some had much thicker spines than others. This reasoning was never provided to the plaintiff, Mr Cowell simply snapped, "Because I want it that way".
(c) With no explanation for Mr Cowell's preferences, the plaintiff became uncertain about the 'correct' way to do things. The disrespect shown to the plaintiff in innocuous everyday interactions was another method of exerting control. The plaintiff described getting 'teary', unable to understand how something so insignificant could become such a major issue. The plaintiff's suggestions that stock might be arranged on the shelves in a different configuration drew the rebuke, 'For fuck's sake, will you put them where I want them'. I was not satisfied that Mr Cowell was exasperated by the plaintiff's comments. He was expressing his intolerance of her insubordination. There was a deal of evidence about the arrangement of stock on the shelves. I am not persuaded that his rejection of the plaintiff's suggestions as to how it should be arranged was, of itself, inappropriate. It was the manner in which Mr Cowell delivered his instruction, not the instruction itself, that was contributing to a harmful environment for the plaintiff.
(d) Mr Cowell was regularly unnecessarily sarcastic towards her in conversation. An example concerned eating bananas. Whenever she ate a banana, Mr Cowell said, 'do you have to eat that in here'. He didn't like the smell of bananas, which he expressed as 'that smells good, doesn't it.' So she would make sure that even the peel was put in a bin outside of the bookroom to avoid arguing over it. Another example concerned 'post-it' notes. The plaintiff liked to use them, particularly to leave messages, which she posted on his desk in the order of receipt. Mr Cowell, when he saw them, sneered 'you've left me messages, haven't you. I see all these post-it notes are sitting here'. He stopped purchasing 'post-it' notes for the bookroom, saying that he didn't like them or the way the plaintiff used them. The plaintiff told Mr Cowell that she would still like to use them for her own purposes, even if he didn't like them used on his desk to leave notes. Mr Cowell indicated that she should get money out of petty cash to buy her own, refusing to order them on her behalf. Although such behaviours are obvious evidence of personality conflict, their significance is their place in the wider pattern of Mr Cowell's treatment of, and pursuit of control over, the plaintiff.
(e) Mr Cowell made offensive remarks in the plaintiff's presence. Examples that emerged from the evidence included observations that vilified staff of Asian appearance employed by the bank - they're all stupid - or dark-skinned students employed in the bookstore as casuals, whom he reduced to tears. Mr Swan recounted that the plaintiff told him Mr Cowell appeared to get on well with male casuals but 'seemed to have an issue with' female casuals, but there were no specific particulars given in evidence. The plaintiff said Mr Cowell asked her to train temporary staff that he did not like and it appears, from histories given to professionals, that the plaintiff was mostly asked to train and work with female casuals, particularly those who were not Anglo Australians.
(f) Mr Cowell used offensive language both in conversation with the plaintiff and in her presence. Although it was not usual or even regular for Mr Cowell to swear directly at the plaintiff, he did so in the following ways, usually as an expression of anger or a bad mood; 'What the fuck did you do that for', 'For fuck's sake, go and put them where I tell you to put them' or 'Shit, I didn't want it like that'. Much more regularly, Mr Cowell swore in the plaintiff's presence, 'For fuck's sake, I want [this or that]', 'Oh, for fuck's sake this bloody program just doesn't work properly' or 'this fucking system is ...'
(g) There were numerous examples of rude, demeaning, hostile or sarcastic statements from Mr Cowell. I accept that he regularly spoke to the plaintiff using a loud voice, an angry tone, often accompanied by a red face or other expression and demeanour consistent with such a mood.
(h) There was also conflict over dealing with customers, usually associated either with book requests that were out of stock or refunds. I am not satisfied that Mr Cowell's attitude to refund requests is relevant, except in the sense that it provided occasions when the plaintiff saw him speak rudely or demeaningly to students or casuals, invoking a stress that she too might be about to receive a sharp word or an angry reaction. I accept that it was Mr Cowell's habit to intervene in the plaintiff's conversations with students, both in person and over the phone. Mr Cowell justified his interruptions as arising from a need to correct the plaintiff who was giving out misinformation about the availability of stock or the like. The plaintiff rejected that characterisation. Misinformation usually followed on from Mr Cowell's inability or refusal to keep the plaintiff informed of basic issues, for example that the text book being sought by students had arrived on the previous Friday in her absence. More significantly, the plaintiff complained that Mr Cowell was, when he interrupted a conversation that she was conducting with another person, disrespectful and demeaning in his tone and in the manner in which he presented the correcting information. In this way, he belittled and humiliated her in front of other people. Rather than say helpfully that the stock had just come in, Mr Cowell interrupted conversations not just with corrections about the stock availability but also with the suggestion that she ought to have known that fact, carrying the implication for all listening that only stupid or ignorant persons would be so unaware or that the student was being misled. The plaintiff was made to feel that she didn't know her job, that others would consider her incompetent, when she knew that she was competent. I accept that the plaintiff felt belittled, stressed and hurt in these circumstances, which regularly occurred. I am satisfied that Mr Cowell either intended that she feel that way, hoping she might seek alternative employment, or just didn't care how she reacted to the way that he treated her.
(i) Mr Cowell was nit picking of the plaintiff's work, by an approach of constant observation and correction about insignificant or irrelevant matters. The plaintiff gave evidence of Mr Cowell's close observation of her in the book shop. She described his frequent interruption and 'correction' of her during telephone conversations and discussions with customers in the book shop, and his requests that she cease doing a certain thing at the time she was performing that act. Mr Cowell, for example, curtly requested that she not rearrange the books while the plaintiff was in the act of moving the books, 'Don't touch that book. I've got that there for a reason'. He also told her not to use a certain coat hanger while she was hanging her coat, 'Re-hang your coat because I use that wooden coat hanger'. Use and cleaning up of tea cups was also fraught. Mr Cowell disapproved of how the plaintiff answered the phone. She would say 'Legibook, Wendy speaking', and he preferred her to answer simply, 'Legibook'. Mr Cowell expressed his disapproval to the plaintiff about the way she answered the phone over a period of time, building to a heated exchange when he said to her, 'Why do you always have to fucking well answer the phone via your name? You don't need to do that. There's only two of us working here'. These examples make out the plaintiff's concern that Mr Cowell was listening and watching her closely. Cumulatively, these corrective and disrespectful interactions led the plaintiff feel that she was constantly being watched by Mr Cowell, whom she described as being 'ready to attack at any stage':