GM accused of ‘relentless’ bullying against CFO

An application was recently made to the Fair Work Commission from a chief financial officer who alleged that her general manager bullied her and caused significant risks to her health and safety.

A CFO made an application to the FWC for an order to stop bullying at work after she alleged her general manager repeatedly exerted behaviours and tendencies that caused a risk to her health and safety.

Bullying allegations

Beginning as a payroll officer for a safety and security company in 2018, the worker who filed the application was promoted in 2020, earning the title of CFO, a position she still holds. In 2023, a company-wide shake-up occurred when her organisation acquired another company and absorbed that company’s entire workforce, which included her eventual general manager.

The CFO alleged that ever since the new general manager's arrival, she was constantly subjected to relentless bullying and harassment. She alleged that the general manager behaved unreasonably in how he dealt with her throughout their short tenure together.

She claimed that he constantly questioned her abilities, undermined her authority and dominated discussions. She also alleged that he made repeated attempts to change the business's organisational structure by removing staff she managed and her duties and responsibilities and gave her demanding work with unachievable deadlines.

In the allegations, she claimed that “the tone of emails and telephone calls were hostile and demanding, causing a great deal of unwarranted stress.”

Among these allegations, the CFO also claimed that the general manager's behaviour affected others, as he treated staff poorly who she alleged were constructively terminated by feeling they had no choice but to resign due to his conduct.

The result of this conduct allegedly caused her severe anxiety, inability to sleep, and deep distress about her job security and future with the business, left her feeling deeply unhappy, and on a pathway towards severe depression.

Numerous documents were supplied to the courts which provided evidence for this alleged conduct, including copies of multiple emails, a letter of appreciation from her director, screenshots of payslip records (which the general manager claimed hadn’t been completed), and charts that highlight the reporting structure that the general manager altered.

In her filed outline of the argument, the CFO claimed that the general manager completely altered her reporting structure that had been in place for her entire tenure before he arrived. Including the allegations listed above, she also added that while the general manager was on stress leave, he sent numerous emails expressing concerns regarding her attitude. She believed that his constant applied pressure was with the end goal of forcing her to resign.

Overall, the CFO requested a formal investigation, a letter of apology, clear policies and consequences, reinforced reporting structure, role and responsibility protection, disciplinary action, support and counselling, regular monitoring and check-ins, and training and awareness programs as a result of this application.

General manager's rebuttal to these allegations

The general manager said that “due to the merger between the Employer and [the new company] and the significant size of these companies, he was appointed as Group General Manager to oversee all departments, facilitate a smooth operation and handle the company’s day-to-day operations.”

By overseeing these departments, he claimed that the CFO reached out to him and said words to the effect that the merger had increased the payroll tasks, thus detracting from her ability to address critical cash flow management and planning tasks. For this reason, he changed the CFO tasks to instead primarily fixate on cash flow and outstanding debts, which amounted to several million dollars.

He alleged that the CFO often failed to reply to emails and communicate efficiently, which led him to give repeated requests for information, which he claimed she constituted as harassment. He asserted there was no attempt to undermine her role but a genuine concern about her ability to cope with the increased workload.

The general manager refuted all claims that he demonstrated any behaviours that mirror bullying or harassment and claimed she had not provided “any evidence of workplace bullying or harassment in her submissions and has only provided correspondence of her being unhappy with being performance managed, the restructure and his appointment to the role of Group General Manager.”

No show

This matter was slated for a conference with the FWC and deputy president Theresa Dobson on 31 July 2024, however, the general manager could not attend, claiming he was “too unwell to attend.” An amended hearing date was confirmed by Dobson for 17 September 2024.

On the morning of the hearing at approximately 5:00am, the general manager contacted Dobson's chambers and said he would not be able to attend the hearing as he had “very little sleep due to anxiety throughout the night” and that he did “not feel mentally capable of driving a 7hr round trip to Brisbane,” where the hearing was being held.

Importantly, he also signed off the message stating that once his WorkCover (which he said he took due to stress) concluded and he was fit for work, he would “not be returning to the toxic work environment of [the company].”

Dobson called upon him to attend the hearing or else the police would be contacted, to which he replied that he was on “WorkCover from the stress and anxiety from working at [the company] caused by [his boss] and [the CFO].” He also clarified that he was “unable to resign due to being on WorkCover.”

The hearing proceeded and the general manager did not attend. Dobson referred his non-compliance to the general manager of the Fair Work Commission to be forwarded to the relevant authorities to determine if any breach occurred.

Consideration

Due to the general manager being a no-show on the day of the hearing, it was uncontested.

Deputy President Dobson found that the general manager did in fact “unreasonably restructure the business, removing staff, duties, and responsibilities from the … Chief Financial Officer. I do not accept that this was done to lighten the [CFO's] load particularly given that her duties were narrowed to work that was already being performed by a full-time employee.”

“On that basis, I have concluded that a reasonable person would reach the same assessment that the [CFO] has, that such conduct was unreasonable management action,” Dobson said.

It was also found that due to the documented repetitiveness of the emails and correspondence from the general manager to the CFO; by pressing an issue over and over, it is consistent with the “repeated” element required to establish that bullying has or is occurring.

More importantly, or “disturbingly”, as Dobson claimed, the general manager continued to contact the CFO with the same sentiment during his stress leave, which he copied other senior members into. Dobson said: “I am therefore satisfied that the [CFO] has been bullied at work by [the general manager].

Through the orders of Dobson, the employer would be required to implement a comprehensive anti-bullying policy requiring all staff to undergo training.

If the general manager did return to work at said company, he would not be permitted to communicate with the CFO, would be required to always behave civilly and professionally towards the CFO, and would not be permitted to disparage her in any way.