Skip to content

Out of Office, Not Out of Bounds: Employer Responsibility for Virtual Workplace Bullying

Out of Office, Not Out of Bounds: Employer Responsibility for Virtual Workplace Bullying

The changing face of modern workplaces still requires management of people.  Managing remote teams creates complexities not really seen before.

An area on the rise in the context of remote work is Workplace Bullying claims.

Benjamin Peter Harrison v The Trustee for UBT Marketing Trust, Mathew Burzin and Peter Ireland [2024] FWC 1422

​In the case of Benjamin Peter Harrison v The Trustee for UBT Marketing Trust, Mathew Burzin and Peter Ireland [2024] FWC 1422, the Fair Work Commission (FWC) examined allegations of workplace bullying within a remote work environment. This case underscores how communication and miscommunication could be perceived as bullying.​

Background of the Case

Mr Harrison, an IT support agent working entirely remotely, filed for an order to stop bullying under section 789FC of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). He alleged that his direct manager engaged in bullying behaviour, including:​

  1. Micromanagement: Frequent questioning about his work performance, response times, and break periods.​
  2. Exclusion from Team Activities: Attempts to exclude him from team events conducted via Microsoft Teams.​
  3. Denial of Wage Increases and Bonuses: Not receiving expected financial rewards despite positive performance reviews.​
  4. Aggressive Communication: Being addressed in an aggressive and overbearing manner during a phone meeting after raising concerns with Human Resources.​

Additionally, Mr Harrison contended that the Human Resources manager failed to take his complaints seriously and warned him against making frivolous or vexatious complaints, suggesting potential disciplinary action. ​

FWC’s Findings

The FWC evaluated the claims and determined that while the manager’s communication was frequent and could be perceived as curt or abrupt, it did not constitute unreasonable behaviour amounting to workplace bullying. Key considerations included:​

  • Communication Medium: The reliance on text-based communication (e.g., SMS, Microsoft Teams messages) in a remote setting may lead to misinterpretations, as tone and nuance are often lost. ​
  • Managerial Intent: The manager’s inquiries were linked to concerns about Mr Harrison’s work performance, which had been identified as the lowest in the team. The manager felt compelled to follow up due to perceived avoidance by Mr. Harrison regarding workload discussions. ​
  • Reasonable Management Action: The FWC noted that management actions do not need to be perfect or ideal to be considered reasonable. In this context, the manager’s actions were deemed reasonable, albeit not exemplary. ​

Regarding the Human Resources manager’s response, the FWC acknowledged that while the remark about frivolous complaints was unhelpful, the overall handling of the investigation was appropriate and did not amount to bullying. ​

It was also noted by the FWC that the use of text messages might have also lost context because of the mode of communication.  A more ideal way to communicate might have been better and support for the manager was probably required.

Implications for Remote Work Management in the Face of Workplace Bullying

This case highlights the necessity for Employers to adapt their management practices to suit remote work environments. Recommendations for employers include:​

  1. Diverse Communication Channels: Utilise various forms of communication, including video calls and voice conversations, to ensure clarity and reduce the risk of misinterpretation inherent in text-based messages. ​
  2. Regular In-Person Interactions: Implement “Anchor Days,” where remote employees periodically work on-site to foster team cohesion and facilitate face-to-face communication. ​
  3. Management Training: Provide training for managers on effective remote supervision techniques, emphasising the importance of clear, empathetic communication and the potential pitfalls of digital interactions.  The South Geldard Lawyers team have been working with a number of Employers to build capability on managing staff effectively.
  4. Clear Performance Metrics: Establish transparent performance evaluation criteria to ensure employees understand expectations and receive feedback based on objective measures.​
  5. Robust Complaint Procedures: Develop and communicate clear procedures for employees to raise concerns, ensuring that complaints are handled seriously and without the threat of retaliation.

Our Employment Lawyers at South Geldard Lawyers have essential expertise in preventing these issues occurring in the first place and helping with the legal issues when they do occur. Feel free to reach out on (07) 4936 9100 or via email to Jonathan Mamaril, Director at jmamaril@southgeldard.com.au.  All Employers receive an obligation free consultation.