When does “Tough Management” Become Bullying?
A recent Fair Work Commission decision is a useful reminder that there is a line between firm management and workplace bullying, and once that line is crossed, an employee’s long service and a clean disciplinary record may not be enough to save an employee’s job.
In this case, the Commission dismissed the employee’s unfair dismissal application after finding that her employer had a valid reason to terminate her employment for bullying, harassment and inappropriate management conduct.
Background
The employee, Ms Foster, had worked for her employer for about 12 years and was employed as a Sales and Service Operations Manager, responsible for managing the organisation’s call centre.
Concerns about her management style first surfaced through a staff engagement survey in 2024. At that stage, the employer did not commence a formal investigation. Later, Ms Foster was spoken to about her communication style, however, the Commission characterized this as more of a coaching conversation than a formal warning.
The situation escalated when two employees made complaints about Ms Foster in October 2025. The employer suspended Ms Foster, engaged an external investigator, and put eight allegations of bullying and inappropriate behaviour to her.
The allegations included that Ms Foster had:
Discouraged an employee from going to HR as she had “HR in her back pocket”
Made inappropriate comments about an employee’s anxiety diagnosis
Sent manipulative text messages about redundancy
Belittled staff when they asked questions
Used an overly strict and inappropriate management style
Responded inappropriately when an employee raised concerns that appeared to involve sexual harassment
Following the investigation, the employer found most of the allegations substantiated. Ms Foster was invited to show cause, provide a written response and was then dismissed with payment in lieu of notice.
The Commission’s Decision
The Commission found that Ms Foster was not unfairly dismissed.
Importantly, the Commission did not accept every allegation made against Ms Foster. A number of allegations were found not to be made out, but that did not matter in the end as the Commission found that enough serious conduct had been proven to justify dismissal.
The strongest findings concerned Ms Foster’s conduct towards Ms Moltoni, including comments about HR, mental health, redundancy and workplace complaints.
On the allegation that Ms Foster told Ms Moltoni she had HR in her “back pocket”, the Commission found that Ms Foster said this on multiple occasions and that the purpose was to discourage Ms Moltoni from going to HR with workplace issues.
That finding was particularly damaging. For employers, it shows how serious it can be when a manager undermines trust in HR or gives employees the impression that complaints will not be treated independently.
The Commission also criticised Ms Foster’s redundancy-related text messages. Ms Foster had told Ms Moltoni that she was “safe” from redundancy, but warned her not to tell anyone. The Commission found that this conduct was not about reducing Ms Moltoni’s anxiety. Instead, it was described as “controlling, manipulative and intended to make Ms Moltoni feel like she owed her job to Ms Foster”.
Firm Management is not the Problem, Misuse of Power Is
One of the most useful parts of the decision is the Commission’s distinction between inappropriate management style and more serious misconduct.
Ms Foster described herself as someone who ran a “tight ship”. The Commission was not persuaded by that characterisation, stating that this was a “generous and sanitised description” of her management style.
The Commission accepted that a call centre environment requires monitoring, structure and performance management. But it made the point that staff are “humans and not robots”, and that there should be a reasonable degree of tolerance for ordinary workplace “chit chat”.
This does not mean employers cannot require productivity, discipline or professionalism. They can. But managers need to enforce expectations in a way that is respectful, proportionate and appropriate.
The Commission noted that if Ms Foster had been dismissed only for her inappropriate management style, dismissal may have been disproportionate, especially given her 12 years of service and lack of previous disciplinary action.
However, Ms Foster was not dismissed only for being an overly strict manager. The Commission found that her conduct also involved bullying and harassment. That was the difference.
Process Matters
MSWA’s process was also important.
The employer suspended Ms Foster, set out the allegations in writing, used an external investigator, invited her to attend an investigation interview, gave her a support person option, provided the findings, and invited her to show cause before dismissal.
Ms Foster argued that the process was rushed and that she did not have a proper opportunity to respond. The Commission rejected that argument, finding that she had been notified of the reasons for dismissal and given a real opportunity to respond.
That procedural fairness helped MSWA defend the claim.
This article is general in nature and is not legal advice. If you need help dealing with unfair dismissal matters or require assistance with updating your workplace contracts, procedures and policies, or other employment law matters, Voice Lawyers can assist you.
We help people and businesses navigate the complexities of the Fair Work Act and workplace laws with confident and practical advice. You can contact us at office@voicelawyers, give us a call at 02 9261 1954 or use the link on our website to book a consultation to speak with one of our lawyers.