The Modern Workplace Bullying Dilemma
Workplace bullying isn’t new but how we perceive it is changing fast.
In an era of hybrid work, constant performance pressure and a sharper awareness of psychological safety, even routine feedback or direction can now be interpreted as bullying.
There is a lot of research and data that points to a significant number of employees saying they have experienced workplace bullying or harassment at some point. Many incidents go unreported but so too do the misunderstandings, where firm management action is mistaken for mistreatment.
The real challenge for HR and leaders? Knowing where the line is.
What Counts as Workplace Bullying
Workplace bullying is repeated, unreasonable behaviour that creates a risk to health and safety. It can come from one individual or a group and can include:
- Excluding someone from team events or communications
- Persistent teasing or practical jokes
- Deliberately overloading (or underloading) someone with work
- Withholding information they need to perform their role
- Setting constantly changing or unrealistic deadlines
- Belittling or humiliating remarks
- Verbal abuse, aggression or intimidation
These behaviours erode trust, damage morale, and can have serious mental health and legal consequences.
But and this is critical not everything that causes stress or offence is bullying.
When It’s Not Bullying: Reasonable Management Action
The Fair Work Commission and other commissions such as the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission has consistently drawn a clear boundary between bullying and legitimate management action.
A manager is allowed to enforce policies, give performance feedback, and address conduct issues provided it’s done reasonably.
A good example – Trainor v Council for Christian Education in Schools [2023] FWC 1272
In Trainor v Council for Christian Education in Schools [2023] FWC 1272, an employee alleged bullying after a series of firm interactions with management, including comments on her work, delayed leave approvals and a directive to stop discussing a four-day week in the open-plan office.
What Happened: Key Allegations and Context
Mrs Trainor worked as a Communications Coordinator for a Christian education body. She brought forward a number of incidents she claimed amounted to bullying her case focused around five principal areas of conduct:
- Remark about “poor theology”
In November 2022, during an informal conversation, a colleague expressed a wish to visit some countries. Mrs Trainor replied that she should simply believe, and then the colleague responded, “Oh Maggie, that is poor theology.” Mrs Trainor found that comment offensive and said it amounted to religious discrimination. - Leave request dispute
In December 2022, Mrs Trainor asked for six days of annual leave. Her manager initially declined, citing an upcoming trip. Mrs Trainor complained to senior management, and later the leave was granted. - Directive to “drop it” about four-day week discussion
On 6 March 2023, Mrs Trainor participated in a discussion with colleagues about a potential four-day working week in an open-plan environment shared with a tenant organisation. The manager chastised her for taking part, insisting the issue be dropped, and allegedly did so in a raised, aggressive tone. Mrs Trainor claimed she felt humiliated. - Handling of her bullying complaint
After lodging a formal complaint about the earlier incidents, Mrs Trainor said the CEO refused her request to handle the matter via confidential internal processes, instead involving the board chair. She asserted management had not followed the organisation’s bullying policy in dealing with her grievance. - Alleged micro-management and performance oversight
She also claimed management had followed up repeatedly on tasks “slipping off the radar” even when deadlines were remote, and that after lodging her complaint, her manager began copying the CEO on all communications with her which she viewed as punitive or intrusive.
Mrs Trainor argued these cumulative acts were aggressive, belittling, and created unreasonable expectations and that they had health and safety implications. She sought remedies including reimbursement of medical costs, reinstatement of sick leave, and removal of the CEO until the internal complaint was resolved.
Commission’s Findings: What Was Held
Deputy President Colman (the decision-maker) reviewed the evidence and made several findings:
- “Poor theology” remark: He found that remark was made in the context of theological disagreement, not in a mocking or discriminatory way. The comment was frank, but reasonable in the context.
- Leave dispute: The disagreement and its resolution were considered reasonable differences of opinion over leave do not necessarily equate to bullying.
- “Drop it” directive and tone: He did not accept Mrs Trainor’s version of aggressive shouting or humiliating behaviour. The evidence supported that the directive was firm but not unreasonable. He emphasised that “an instruction is not the same thing as a disciplinary measure, and firmness does not equate to harshness.”
- Complaint handling: Referring a complaint against the CEO to the board chair was in fact required by their policy. The communications about how the complaint would be handled were respectful and consistent with that.
- Copying CEO in correspondence: He accepted that the CEO’s involvement in communications was reasonable given the strained relationship, it was a prudent measure, not a bullying tactic.
- Risk to health and safety: Mrs Trainor did not bring credible evidence of health injury directly resulting from the conduct. Without that, the Commission could not conclude a risk to health was shown.
- Bullying threshold not met: Overall, the Commission concluded that the respondents’ behaviour did not amount to repeated unreasonable conduct creating a health and safety risk. The application was dismissed.
In summary, Mrs Trainor’s perceptions were understandable; but the Commission must weigh objective evidence and apply legal standards. On that basis, it found the conduct complained of did not cross the line into bullying.
The Commission found the communications were firm but respectful, and that involving senior leadership in correspondence was appropriate given the number of issues being managed.
Deputy President Alan Colman summed it up neatly:
“An instruction is not the same thing as a disciplinary measure, and firmness does not equate to harshness.”
What Reasonable Management Action Looks Like
According to the Commission’s approach, actions that are generally considered reasonable include:
- Providing feedback even negative feedback in a professional way
- Holding employees accountable for their performance or conduct
- Enforcing policies and procedures consistently
- Giving lawful and reasonable directions
- Taking disciplinary action where appropriate
- Involving senior managers in sensitive discussions
- Expressing differing views or making difficult decisions
In general terms the case of Khan v Workers Compensation Regulator [2023] ICQ 002 provides some much needed guidance on reasonable management action, this is likely to mean that:
- 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
However, reasonable becomes unreasonable when the action is carried out in a harsh, aggressive or humiliating manner, or when there is no procedural fairness.
Also to test reasonable management action fully it is likely required to be reviewed by a Commission or Tribunal.
Why HR Needs to Lead This Conversation
For HR teams, this distinction is not just theoretical it’s a daily challenge.
Leaders need clarity and confidence to manage staff effectively without fear of being accused of bullying. Employees, on the other hand, need to feel safe raising concerns about genuine mistreatment.
That’s where training, policies and culture come together. A clear understanding of what constitutes reasonable management action allows both sides to communicate better, de-escalate conflict earlier, and maintain psychological safety at work.
The Takeaway
Workplace bullying remains a live and complex issue intertwined with general protections, workers’ compensation and psychosocial hazard obligations.
But it’s equally important to remember that strong management is not automatically bullying.
- Subjectivity vs Objectivity
Employees’ feelings are valid, but a claim of bullying must be tested against objective standards: was the behaviour repeated, unreasonable, and did it create a risk to health or safety? Perception alone is not enough.
- Reasonable management action protects space for leadership
These cases reaffirm that action taken in a firm, transparent, policy compliant and respectful manner can be lawful even if the recipient dislikes it. Managers must be able to set direction, enforce standards, and manage performance provided they are careful about tone and consistency.
- Process and policy are key anchors in disputes
When internal policy is followed (e.g. complaint escalation rules), and communications are respectful and documented, the employer gains a stronger footing. Decisions that comply with organisational rules and are defensible in context are more likely to be shielded from bullying claims.
Firm, fair and transparent leadership delivered respectfully is not only lawful, it’s essential to a healthy and productive workplace.
Firmness does not equate to harshness…….
Our Employment Lawyers at South Geldard Lawyers have essential expertise in advising on workplace bullying claims and training for management teams on reasonable management action.
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.
