FWC Confirms Confronting Workplace Emails Do Not Necessarily Constitute Bullying

A recent Fair Work Commission (‘Commission’) decision Banfield and Stolz [2026] FWC 717 has reinforced the distinction between unreasonable workplace bullying and legitimate management action, confirming that direct or confronting workplace communications will not necessarily breach the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

The application arose from a series of emails and workplace interactions alleged to be intimidating, aggressive and psychologically harmful. The employee argued that the tone and manner of the communications amounted to workplace bullying. However, the Commission rejected the claim, finding that the conduct occurred in the context of legitimate workplace management and did not meet the statutory threshold for bullying.

In doing so, the Commission reaffirmed a well-established principle in workplace law: bullying requires repeated unreasonable behaviour that creates a risk to health and safety. Importantly, the Fair Work Act expressly excludes reasonable management action carried out in a reasonable manner.

While the communications in question may have been uncomfortable or confronting, the Commission considered them to be connected to operational and performance-related issues rather than personal victimisation or inappropriate conduct. The decision reflects the Commission’s continued reluctance to characterise robust management exchanges or performance discussions as bullying merely because they are perceived negatively by an employee.

The ruling will provide some reassurance to employers navigating increasingly sensitive workplace complaints, particularly in circumstances where managers are required to address performance concerns, compliance issues or workplace conduct. Employers remain entitled to communicate expectations, seek accountability and raise concerns directly, provided those interactions remain proportionate, professional and objectively reasonable.

At the same time, the decision should not be interpreted as diminishing the importance of appropriate workplace communication. Even where conduct falls short of bullying, poorly managed interactions can still contribute to workplace tension, employee disengagement and psychosocial risks. With psychosocial hazards now a significant focus of workplace health and safety regulators across Australia, employers are under increasing scrutiny in relation to workplace culture, communication practices and managerial behaviour.

The practical challenge for employers is balancing legitimate management prerogatives with the obligation to maintain psychologically safe workplaces. This requires more than simply avoiding unlawful conduct. Organisations should ensure managers are trained to conduct difficult conversations appropriately, communicate performance concerns clearly and professionally, and avoid unnecessarily inflammatory or reactive language in communications.

For employees, the decision serves as a reminder that not every unpleasant or stressful workplace interaction will satisfy the legal definition of bullying. The Commission continues to apply an objective assessment, distinguishing between conduct that is genuinely unreasonable and conduct that forms part of ordinary workplace management, even where that management is firm or confronting.

Ultimately, the case highlights the importance of context in workplace bullying disputes. The existence of tension, disagreement or strongly worded communications will not, without more, establish unlawful bullying. However, employers should remain conscious that the manner in which concerns are communicated can significantly affect both legal risk and its broader workplace culture.

If you have questions about how this decision may affect you as an employee or employer, please contact Nick Stevens, Evelyn Rivera, Ayla Hutchison or Dragana Prtenjak.