Paramedic transferred 350KM to punish bullying behaviour
To punish bullies is a necessary skill employers must occasionally engage in to maintain workplace harmony. They simply cannote ignore this behaviour.
A paramedic who was transferred 350km away for bullying a colleague has had his Fair Work Commission unfair dismissal claim rejected. The disciplinary action against the bully was deemed reasonable by the Fair Work Commission, which found the paramedic had regularly ignored the colleague.
This goes to show how seriously the commission regards workplace bullying, even if the abuse seems less severe, and the type of punish bullies can face. Let’s look at the events of this Fair Work Commission unfair dismissal case – Mr Mark Frost v Ambulance Victoria [2024].
“Socially inept” paramedic found to have bullied colleague
In early 2024, Ambulance Victoria paramedic Mark Frost lodged an application to deal with a dispute with the Fair Work Commission. The application was in response to a disciplinary action imposed on him by Ambulance Victoria. In December 2023, his employer transferred him from Bright, in northeastern Victoria, to Dandenong in Melbourne.
Ambulance Victoria claimed the reason for the disciplinary action was that Mr Frost had bullied a female colleague over several years. However, Mr Frost argued that his behaviour did not amount to serious misconduct or bullying. He also took issue with the 350km transfer, deeming it unreasonable.
Fair Work launches investigation into punishing bullying
An investigation by the Fair Work Commission determined the paramedic’s behaviour was characterised by a lack of “courtesy, civility, respect and dignity.” The investigation, which examined the period from 2019 to 2021, highlighted a pattern of behaviour that included:
- Ignoring greetings and attempts at conversation.
- Failing to acknowledge the colleague’s work or offer any form of professional recognition.
- Exhibiting a general lack of respect, which extended beyond interactions with the colleague in question.
The report described the paramedic as “generally rude” and that he “has always been like that.” It also noted that he “treats everybody the same way.” However, the Fair Work Commission said that this did not excuse his behaviour.
The report also found that Mr Frost “does not respect women very much” and that he is “simply socially inept.” The investigation recognised that the paramedic’s behaviour was not merely a series of isolated incidents but rather part of a pattern of inappropriate conduct. It confirmed that the behaviour amounted to bullying.
The Fair Work Commission noted that his treatment failed to foster a “safe, encouraging, supportive and respectful environment.” It was therefore deemed a significant risk to the health and safety of the workplace. Thus punishing bullies was an appropriate reaction.
Paramedic argues case
The paramedic contested the severity of the transfer, arguing that it was disproportionate to his actions. He claimed that his behaviour did not meet the criteria for serious misconduct under Ambulance Victoria’s enterprise agreement. Mr Frost argued that under his enterprise agreement, a disciplinary transfer could only be activated if an employee has committed serious misconduct.
He also contended that his behaviour did not meet the definition of bullying and harassment under the Fair Work Act 2009 or Victoria’s Equal Opportunity Act. Mr Frost noted that bullying was defined as “repeated, unreasonable conduct towards the same individual or group of individuals that created a risk to health and safety” under the Fair Work Act.
He pointed out that the investigation found him to be “socially inept and may have treated everyone badly.” He argued that therefore his behaviour was not wilful nor deliberate. Mr Frost also challenged the notion that his behaviour posed a serious and imminent risk to health and safety. Essentially arguing against receiving any punishment bullies would receive.
Fair Work Commission confirms serious misconduct
The Fair Work Commission agreed with Mr Frost that his behaviour towards the female colleague was not wilful and deliberate. However, the commission stated that serious misconduct does not have to be wilful. Rather, serious misconduct can be based on an objective assessment of the conduct.
“To suggest that bullying, objectively viewed, does not amount to serious misconduct is implausible in my view,” said Fair Work Commissioner Scott Connolly.
“On this basis alone, I am satisfied the [Ambulance Victoria] was entitled to considered Mr Frost had engaged in serious misconduct and move to consider the appropriate disciplinary sanction for this conduct, including transfer.”
Action to punish bullies deemed “reasonable”
The Fair Work Commission backed Ambulance Victoria’s decision to relocate Mr Frost 350km away due to his bullying. It said that Ambulance Victoria had not acted “unreasonably or unjustly” by imposing the disciplinary action.
The commission acknowledged Ambulance Victoria’s need to place distance between Mr Frost and the female colleague. It also accepted that the only comparable role he could fill at the time was in Dandenong. As a result, Mr Frost’s dispute over the disciplinary action was dismissed by the Fair Work Commission.
Bank worker fired for bullying after sending over 50 texts to manager
Another recent Fair Work Commission case that involved bullying is Daniel Pawelczyk v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [2024]. Daniel Pawelczyk began his role as a customer engagement specialist at the Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA) in May 2023. He initially had a “positive and friendly” working relationship with his manager, according to Fair Work Commission records.
However, the relationship soon soured. It all started when Mr Pawelczyk requested to work from his friend’s house to accommodate his evening comedy gigs. This request was denied by the Commonwealth Bank management, who insisted that Mr Pawelczyk either work from the head office or take annual leave.
The refusal was met with frustration from Mr Pawelczyk. He felt that the decision “would harm his reputation with the gig promoter.” He was also angry that he lost income from the comedy gig.
Worker blames pay errors on manager
A few days later, Mr Pawelczyk noticed that he had been overpaid. He raised the issue with his manager and the HR department, who both gave him different directions on resolving it. Mr Pawelczyk told the Fair Work Commission that he felt his manager and the HR department were “pointing the finger at each other rather than taking responsibility for the error.
He said that it was “pressure he did not want in his life and felt the Commonwealth Bank did not take the matter as seriously as [he did].”
Worker sends series of “extremely disrespectful texts” to manager
By November 2023, Mr Pawelczyk’s dissatisfaction had escalated into severe misconduct. Mr Pawelczyk told the Fair Work Commission that he felt let down by his manager and blamed her for his concerns about his flexible work request. He was frustrated with the perceived lack of support from his manager and felt “let down” by the internal decision-making processes.
Over three days in November and three days in December 2023, Mr Pawelczyk sent over 50 text messages to his manager. The messages, which began as relatively benign communications, quickly deteriorated into a pattern of harassment. Mr Pawelczyk’s texts included disparaging remarks about his manager’s performance. He also suggested that she had deliberately undermined his career prospects.
In one text, Mr Pawelczyk mentioned the “f*ck up” regarding his flexible work request. He told her he could not “work like this” and said that he wanted to transfer out of her team. His manager was taken aback by the texts, replying: “Daniel where is this all coming from, please call me.”
At Mr Pawelczyk’s unfair dismissal hearing, the Fair Work Commission deemed these texts “extremely disrespectful” and “at times threatening.” It was characterised as workplace bullying, reflecting a deliberate attempt to harass and intimidate his manager. Therefore, to punish bullying behaviour would not be inappropriate.
Worker “humiliated” by rejection for internal role
In an effort to “get away” from his manager, Mr Pawelczyk applied for an internal role within the Commonwealth Bank in December 2023. He was informed that the new team was “struggling to find someone, was desperate and would take anyone.” This led him to believe he had a strong chance of securing the position.
However, his application was unsuccessful, which he perceived as a significant personal and professional setback. Mr Pawelczyk felt “humiliated” by the rejection, and his frustration intensified. He publicly disparaged his manager and alleged that she had “torpedoed” his application.
Worker sent laughing emoji when told to stop texts
Despite multiple requests from his manager to cease sending harassing messages, Mr Pawelczyk persisted. His manager’s attempts to address the situation professionally were met with continued disrespect. In response to a request to stop the harassment, Mr Pawelczyk replied with a laughing emoji and sent an additional 31 messages.
This persistent and deliberate harassment saw Mr Pawelczyk dismissed for serious misconduct, The Commonwealth Bank said that he breached various policies, including its workplace bullying policy.
Employee makes argument to Fair Work
In his unfair dismissal claim, Mr Pawelczyk said that he had no intention of harming his manager by sending the texts. He claimed that the messages were factual rather than personal, and that his manager did not express concern about them.
He also claimed that his conduct which led to the dismissal occurred outside working hours. Furthermore, he alleged that his manager sabotaged his internal job application and that his complaint against her was mishandled. Mr Pawelczyk suggested that his dismissal was retaliatory following his complaint.
Did the texts amount to bullying? Fair Work decides.
The Fair Work Commission found that Mr Pawelczyk’s texts “fell within the ambit of unacceptable workplace conduct” as outlined in the Commonwealth Banks policy. It rejected his argument that the texts weren’t personal and that “part of the moitvation” for them was “his desire for [his manager] to lose her job.”
The matter of Mr Pawelczyk’s internal job application was also examined. The Fair Work Commission acknowledged that he had spoken ill of other candidates vying for the position. Also, that he had questioned the integrity of the person who provided him feedback on his unsuccessful application.
This, together with the texts to his manager, was “part of a pattern of conduct by Mr Pawelczyk that indicated he was no longer prepared to cooperate with the CBA or to follow its reasonable and lawful instructions.”
Fair Work finds texts constituted bullying and harassment
Regarding the text messages, the Fair Work Commission stated that Mr Pawelczyk did not show any “genuine remorse” for sending them. It said that his view “glosses over the serious nature of the messages, his motivation in sending them, and their frequency.” It highlighted that the manager had dealt with the situation with “professionalism and politeness” despite the ongoing harassment.
The commission acknowledged that the manager had “effectively begged” Mr Pawelczyk to stop sending the texts. It rejected his argument that they were “just factual” or sent “without thinking.” The commission deemed them to be “deliberate” and “targeted.”
Based on these observations, the Fair Work Commission determined that the Commonwealth Bank had a valid reason for the termination. It also deemed that it was not harsh, unjust or unreasonable. Mr Pawelczyk unfair dismissal claim was therefore rejected. It was fair for the large bank to punish bullies and follow disciplinary action.
Need to take Fair Work action?
We are the expert’s in workplace related matters. When you need to make a successful unfair dismissal or general protections claim call us. Our team works with employees all over Australia to help them make the best case at the Fair Work Commission or state based discrimination tribunals.
If you need assistance making a claim, call us today. Time is of the essence, as you only have 21 days from the date of your dismissal to lodge a claim. ( a year to lodge a discrimination claim). Call us on 1800 333 666 for a free and private discussion about your situation.
Similar articles to: Punishing bullies: paramedic bully forced to work 350KM away
Workplace bullying by the “mean girls”
Dismissed due to false accusations
