‘I am a ball being kicked around’: SkyCity employee alleges he was bullied for not doing a ‘favour’ 

A SkyCity employee has made allegations that he was a victim of workplace bullying, claiming that his employer “abused its managerial power”, causing a risk to his health and safety.

Allegations of workplace bullying were made against SkyCity Adelaide and two of its staff for “abusing their managerial power”. The applicant, Ming Kei (Frank) Wong, a chef at the establishment, filed an application to the Fair Work Commission for an order to stop bullying.

However, deputy president Peter Anderson could not find any evidence that would reinforce the allegations made by Wong towards SkyCity and its management team, although he admitted that the way the situation was handled offers “learnings on all sides”.

“I have not found that [Wong] was bullied, as defined, by SkyCity or [management],” said Anderson.

Wong alleged that the executive sous chef, Sebastian Popp, and SkyCity’s HR business partner, Katherine Quaziz, required him to take additional steps to notify his absence to a person who was not his official manager.

The incident Wong refers to took place on 7 August 2024, when Wong was scheduled to commence his shift but injured his back during a recreational walk that morning, to which he deemed himself unfit to work his shift that afternoon. With his shift starting at 3pm, Wong, at 1pm, contacted SkyCity’s wellness at work system to notify management that he would not be working his shift.

Head chef Kel Delaney was unaware that Wong wouldn’t appear for his shift as the wellness at work system still had Popp listed as his manager; therefore, the system notified Popp of Wong’s non-attendance. This, of course, fostered a communication delay within the kitchen department.

Due to this delay, Popp sent Wong a text message to let him know that he should correspond with Delaney if he was going to be absent.

“Hey there. Do me a favour and let Kel know when your [sic] sick,” Popp said.

To which Wong replied with seven consecutive text messages, expressing frustration regarding his working situation in the kitchen department and with Delaney. The messages said:

“Oh sorry, not wanna open an communication [sic] channels there to get more nuisance.” (3.54pm)

“Being placed there is already very disturbing. I just want to be there, do the work, and go. Not wanna [sic] anything more. Sorry.” (3.55pm)

“Also, I only say yes to anything there. I don’t wanna argue on anything [sic], or any opinions, especially she’s [sic] going through the treatment.” (3.56pm)

“I will be back there tomorrow anyway for the week.” (3.56pm)

“Thank you pls inform her. I don’t want her to have my contact.” (3.57pm)

“She can speak to me in the kitchen.” (3.57pm)

“I mean I am a ball being kicked around. I don’t needed [sic] to be contacted.” (3.59pm)

Popp did not reply to any of Wong’s text messages. From this, SkyCity’s HR department was made aware of Wong’s refusal to contact Delaney when he was sick. An email was then scheduled with Wong “regarding concerns in relation to not following reasonable management instructions”.

During the meeting, frustrations boiled over, as Wong reiterated that he “followed the correct protocol” by using the wellness at work system, claiming that it is “not his job to perform [Popp’s] duties”.

Wong also claimed that Delaney was a co-worker and that she has a practice of contacting team members outside of work hours, which he finds a nuisance. He stated he does not have Delaney’s contact number and does not want it.

The meeting ended with both sides failing to come to a resolution as Wong refused to comply with their directives to contact Delaney in the future. Wong indicated that what they were asking was expressed as a discretionary “favour“, which he was entitled to refuse. Although no agreement was found, the HR BP, Quaziz, decided that no disciplinary action would be taken against Wong.

There was a delay in relaying this information to Wong, who took two weeks of personal leave due to the situation.

According to section 789FD (1) of the Fair Work Act, a worker is bullied at work if an individual or group repeatedly behaves unreasonably towards the worker, creating a risk to health and safety.

In this case, Andeson said: “There being no workplace bullying as defined, I am not required to consider whether there is a risk of continued bullying at work.” In his closing statement, Anderson mentioned that there may be a basis for “rebuilding the workplace relationship”.