Wang Lu [2025] FWC 3129 (17 October 2025)

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

Application for an order to stop bullying at work - whether reasonable belief of bullying at work - whether bullied at work - application dismissed

• [1] This decision deals with Mr Wang Lu's application for stop bullying orders. Mr Lu was employed at McDonald's Cannonvale as a part time Crew Member on 2 December 2024. Following leave of absence from 17 January 2025 to 6 March 2025, Mr Lu requested a move to a full-time position and subsequently commenced in a full-time role on 5 May 2025.[1] Mr Lu has not been at work since 19 June 2025.

• [2] On 22 June 2025, Mr Lu applied to the Fair Work Commission (FWC) for an order to stop bullying at work by one of the owners of the business, Mr Andrew Paranomos, and by Mr Lu's manager, Ms Emily Sandell. Mr Lu alleges that he experienced "not only unreasonable, but targeted and repeated" "serious psychological bullying and coercion by his employers during forced conversations". Mr Lu submits that these behaviours have caused him significant physical and mental distress and related medical symptoms, directly impacting his "mental health, daily functioning, and future work capacity".

• [3] The Commission may make an anti-bullying order if it is satisfied that a "worker has been bullied at work", and that "there is a risk that the worker will continue to be bullied at work".[2] A worker is "bullied at work" if, while the worker is at work in a constitutionally-covered business, an individual or group of individuals "repeatedly behaves unreasonably towards the worker" and "that behaviour creates a risk to health and safety".[3]

• [4] In essence the questions to be determined are whether:

1. Mr Lu was bullied at work and/or whether the alleged conduct amounted to reasonable management action carried out in a reasonable manner, and

1. there is a risk that he will continue to be bullied at work by the individuals named in his application.

• [5] Mr Lu submits that the Respondents have behaved unreasonably towards him in various ways, including the following:

• 1. on 13 May 2025, when he slipped and injured his wrist on a wet floor in the staff hallway at work, the Respondents failed to assist him or follow any workplace injury procedure.[4] Further, Mr Lu submits that when he was driven to hospital by a management employee of the Respondents, that person did not disclose to the hospital that his injury was a consequence of a workplace accident;[5]

• 2. on 29 May 2025, Mr Paranomos blamed him for the injury, accused him of wearing the wrong shoes and stated that he "could not afford [Mr Lu's] injury".[6] Further, Mr Lu alleges he was not informed of the purpose of this meeting beforehand, and that, at this meeting, he was pressured to return to work early, and no HR representative was provided to be present;[7]

• 3. on 19 June 2025, he was questioned about spending too long in the bathroom, confronted with CCTV footage and accused of not being productive. He alleges he was forced into this conversation after his shift had finished and consequently suffered a severe emotional collapse requiring him to call 000 for transport to hospital;[8]

• 4. he was yelled at in front of others about another employee's mistake;[9]

• 5. he was intimidated and angrily told he was drinking too much water;[10] and

• 6. he was subjected to unspecified unjustified accusations, verbal aggressions and unreasonable restrictions.[11]

• 1. that following Mr Lu's injury on 13 May 2025, they showed Mr Lu proper care, reported the incident to WorkCover and took Mr Lu to the hospital from his home following his injury. Further, the Respondents submit that they purchased Ice Gel, Tiger Balm, Nurofen and Panadol to assist the Applicant, and that it was a matter for to Mr Lu to tell the doctor what happened to cause his injury, respecting the patient/doctor relationship;[12]

• 2. that in respect of the meeting on 29 May 2025, they did not blame Mr Lu for the injury, but that they had previously spoken to Mr Lu about wearing incorrect footwear and advised him that he should wear footwear with non-slip soles. The Respondents submit that this was reasonable management action, and it had been carried out respectfully and they denied that they had pressured Mr Lu to return to work early;[13]

1. that the meeting on the 19 June 2025 constituted reasonable management action and it was carried out respectfully. In respect of this meeting they also submitted:

1. that the meeting started prior to Mr Lu's shift ending and that he was paid overtime for the 28 minutes it extended beyond his finishing hours. They submit that Mr Lu asked to go home at 8.14pm and Mr Paranomos tried to wind up the meeting but Mr Lu proceeded to ask more questions and it took until 8.28pm for the meeting to end;

1. a statement from the Whitsunday Police responding to a request from Mr Paranomos to assess Mr Lu's complaint that he had been illegally detained. The statement indicates that police conducted an investigation and concluded that they did not believe the conduct alleged constituted any form of criminal conduct;

1. WorkCover conducted an inquiry into Mr Lu's allegations about the meeting and concluded that the meeting constituted reasonable management action carried out in a reasonable manner and had rejected the WorkCover claim made by Mr Lu in respect of the 19 June 25 meeting.

• d. In relation to the subject of the meeting, Mr Paranomos submits that Mr Lu was observed by another manager to be missing for lengthy periods and when Mr Paranomos subsequently noticed Mr Lu coming out of the disabled toilet, he went into the disabled toilet himself and noticed the room was not cleaned. Mr Paranomos submits that he reviewed the CCV footage and noted that Mr Lu remained in the disabled toilet for 16 minutes, yet the sink and mirror had not been cleaned, nor had the male or female toilets been cleaned. Mr Paranomos alleges he raised these issues with Mr Lu to give him feedback and not for the purposes of disciplinary discussions;[14]

• 4. Mr Lu was not yelled at about another employee's mistake;[15]

• 5. Mr Lu was not restricted in his water intake but instead that they had repeatedly requested Mr Lu advise the Respondents when he left his workstation so that he could be replaced with someone else;[16] and

• 6. Mr Lu was not subjected to unspecified unjustified accusations, verbal aggressions and/or unreasonable restrictions.[17]

• [7] Mr Lu gave evidence at hearing that he had no plans to return to work, was seeking psychological treatment and did not know if he might return to work in the future.[18]

Whether Lu was bullied at work and/or whether the alleged conduct amounted to reasonable management action carried out in a reasonable manner

• [8] Mr Lu made six allegations of bullying. Having considered the evidence, I make the following findings:

1. I accept that the Respondent took all reasonable action to support Mr Lu in relation to his injury. However, even if the Respondent did not, the Respondent's failure to provide proactive support to Mr Lu in obtaining medical attention, in circumstances where Mr Lu decided to drive himself home after the incident occurred, does not of itself constitute bullying behaviour.

When Mr Lu's housemate called his employer after he got home to ask for assistance, Mrs Paranomos drove immediately to Mr Lu's home and took Mr Lu to the hospital. Mrs Paranomos stayed with Mr Lu until he was finished and then drove him home. Mrs Paranomos did not accompany Mr Lu into the treatment room. Mr Lu's expectations of his employer were that Mrs Paranomos should have come in to see the doctor with him and that she should have communicated to the doctor for him was not a reasonable expectation. Mrs Paranomos' actions- purchasing items for Mr Lu on his way home and lodging his claim with WorkCover - were demonstrable of further support. Mr Lu's expectations of his employer were not strict obligations on his employer and his employer's failure to meet his high expectations does not constitute workplace bullying.

1. In respect of the meeting of 29 May 2025, on the evidence, I find that the Respondent raised with Mr Lu that he should wear shoes with non-slip soles to prevent future trips. An employer is obligated to take all relevant steps to prevent a recurrence of a work-related injury, and these steps must be taken in a reasonable manner. I am satisfied that the meeting amounted to reasonable management action carried out in a reasonable manner.

1. In respect of the meeting of 19 June 2025, I find the evidence demonstrates that Mr Paranomos took reasonable management action in raising work concerns with Mr Lu in a reasonable manner. Mr Lu's reaction to the meeting was disproportionate to what had occurred in the meeting. I am satisfied that Mr Lu was not subjected to workplace bullying conduct at that meeting.

1. There was insufficient evidence before me to support a finding that these non-specific allegations amounted to workplace bullying.

1. In respect of Mr Lu's water intake, I accept the evidence of Ms Sandell that she was asking Mr Lu to let her know if she left her workstation rather than restricting his water intake. I accept that perhaps there was a misunderstanding by Mr Lu of what Ms Sandell had requested of him and it is possible that Ms Sandell demonstrated an element of frustration when Mr Lu did not comply with her request. I am not satisfied, however, that this met the threshold of constituting repeated conduct carried out in an unreasonable manner.

1. There was insufficient evidence before me to support a finding that these non-specific allegations amounted to workplace bullying.

• [9] On the evidence before me, I conclude that Mr Lu had unreasonable expectations of his employer, and further, that his reaction to his employer's reasonable management of him was extreme. Mr Lu was relatively new to the workplace, and I conclude that his reactions may well have stemmed from a lack of experience or understanding of the world of work rather than any ill-intended motivation.

Whether there is a risk that Lu will continue to be bullied at work by the individuals named in his application

• [10] Mr Lu has been absent from work since 19 June 2025 and on his own evidence he has no plans to return to work and does not know if he will, even if I make the orders he seeks.

• [11] For this reason, I am not satisfied that there is any future risk of Mr Lu being bullied at work. If these circumstances change and Mr Lu does decide to return to work, it is open to him to file a further application for orders at that time.

• [12] For these reasons, the Commission cannot be satisfied that Mr Lu was bullied at work for the purposes of the Act. There is also no future risk of Mr Lu continuing to be bullied at work.

• [13] The application is dismissed. I order accordingly.

[1] Digital Court Book (DCB) p.102 at [3]. Exhibit R2.

[2] Fair Work Act (Cth) s.789FF(1)(b)(i).

[3] Ibid s.789FD(1).

[8] Ibid p.19, Exhibit A2; See also pp.21-22, Exhibit A2.

[12] Under cross examination of Mr Paranomos, Mrs Paranomos, and Ms Sandell at hearing, 9 September 2025.

[13] Under cross examination of Mr Paranomos, at hearing, 9 September 2025.

[14] Under cross examination of Mr Paranomos at hearing, 9 September 2025.

[15] Under cross examination of Mr Paranomos and Ms Sandell at hearing, 9 September 2025.

[16] Under cross examination of Ms Sandell at hearing, 9 September 2025.

[17] Under cross examination of Mr Paranomos and Ms Sandell at hearing, 9 September 2025.

[18] Under cross examination of Mr Lu at hearing, 9 September 2025.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer