Skip to content

Not Every Tough Boss is a Bully – FWC Dismisses Micromanagement Claim

Not Every Tough Boss Is a Bully - FWC Dismisses Micromanagement Claim

An employee said the boss’s micromanagement drove him to quit.

The FWC said otherwise and HR teams should take note.

What happened – Mr Cooper Lynch v Mcpherson Window Cleaning Pty. Ltd. & Mr Paul McIntyre [2025] FWC 2684

Mr Lynch was a window cleaner who became a supervisor reporting to an operations manager. Tensions built around job allocation, notice of rosters, and how work was overseen.

Mr Lynch alleged there was a high level of ‘micromanagement’ citing:

  • Close oversight and site attendance: The operations manager regularly attended job sites to oversee work, often positioning himself to watch the team’s activities. Mr Lynch said this made him feel constantly monitored and under pressure.
  • Frequent check-ins: The manager frequently called and messaged Mr Lynch for updates throughout the day. Mr Lynch considered this unnecessary and intrusive, while the manager saw it as part of ensuring job quality and meeting client expectations.
  • Critical feedback: Mr Lynch alleged that the manager was overly critical and that feedback was sometimes delivered in a way that felt belittling. He said the constant scrutiny undermined his confidence and made the work environment stressful.
  • Rostering frustrations: Jobs were often assigned with short notice, making it difficult for staff to plan ahead. Mr Lynch complained about the lack of structure and late communication. In response, the company later introduced a system to give more advance notice of jobs.
  • The phone call incident: The final flashpoint came during a phone call about a late-scheduled job that conflicted with a personal appointment. Mr Lynch said the manager’s tone was aggressive and coarse. The manager said he was direct but firm, explaining the business reasons for the scheduling.

What led to the Employee’s resignation?

  • March meeting about “micromanagement.” After complaints about overtime calculations and rostering, Mr Lynch and a colleague also raised concerns about Mr McIntyre’s supervision style. The Commission found the exchange did not indicate any intention to end employment, nor conduct likely to force a resignation. Management said they would try to improve notice for jobs.
  • Mornington Peninsula job. The operations manager attended the site, watched work and repositioned himself to observe the crew. The Commission found he was entitled to supervise closely for an important client, had an active style and strict tone, but did not act unreasonably and did not engage in conduct aimed at ending employment or likely to compel resignation.
  • 27 May phone call about Torquay. There was a tense call about a late rostered job. Mr Lynch said the manager’s tone was aggressive and that he used a coarse phrase; the manager said he was direct, not aggressive, and explained the late scheduling. The Commission accepted the interaction was tense on both sides and did not treat it as conduct forcing resignation. Rostering practices changed soon after to provide midday notice for the next day’s jobs.
  • The resignation. On 28 May, Mr Lynch sent a resignation letter giving two weeks’ notice and referring to late notice, last-minute planning and internal communication issues, as well as a new job offer he wished to accept. The Commission treated this as a voluntary resignation.

The Decision

  • The matter was a general protections application involving dismissal under s 365 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).
  • The Commission upheld the employer’s jurisdictional objection, finding the employment ended by voluntary resignation, not dismissal, and dismissed the application.

Reasonable management action – the Commission’s lens

In terms of reasonable management action where does “close supervision” end and “unreasonable conduct” begins.

This decision helps:

  • Supervision can be close and still be reasonable. The Commission accepted the ops manager could attend the site daily, observe work closely and speak in a strict tone to meet client standards. That approach, on the evidence, was not unreasonable.
  • Context matters. The same conduct was assessed against job importance, safety, client expectations and the manager’s role. The Commission looked for intent to end employment or conduct likely to leave the worker with no real choice but to resign, and did not find it.
  • A tense exchange is not automatically coercion. The May phone call was firm and frustrated on both sides, but it did not convert supervision into conduct that forced a resignation.

We do know that reasonable management action does not need to be perfect or even more reasonable or more acceptable.

In the case of Khan v Workers Compensation Regulator [2023] ICQ 002 some key points goes further:

  • Management actions do not need to be perfect or ideal to be considered reasonable;
  • A course of action may still be ‘reasonable action’ even if particular steps are not;
  • To be considered reasonable, the action must also be lawful and not be ‘irrational, absurd or ridiculous’;
  • Any ‘unreasonableness’ must arise from the actual management action in question, rather than the employee’s perception of it; and
  • Consideration may be given as to whether the management action involved a significant departure from established policies or procedures, and if so, whether the departure was reasonable in the circumstances

Practical takeaways for HR and People Leaders

  1. Even though being direct and a tough management style can still be reasonable there is value in training leaders on tone, frequency and clarity (and maybe as well what is personal liability in the context of General Protections claims) In saying this, close oversight can be lawful and necessary. Document why oversight is needed and keep language professional.
  2. Respond to concerns about workload and notice. If workers raise issues about short notice or planning, record the issue and show what you changed. In this case, midday next-day rostering was introduced.
  3. Separate style issues from adverse action risk. A strict style is not, by itself, adverse action. The legal line is crossed when conduct is intended to end employment or is likely to leave the employee with no real choice but to resign.
  4. If someone resigns, capture the reasons in writing. A clear, voluntary resignation letter undercuts later arguments that the employer “dismissed” the employee.

Our Employment Lawyers at South Geldard Lawyers have essential expertise in advising on workplace bullying claims, training for management teams and dealing with General Protections Claims.

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.