employment law

Facebook comments ruled as workplace bullying

HomePrivate: BlogCommercial lawEmployment law for employersFacebook comments ruled as workplace bullying

by

reviewed by

Malcolm Burrows

Reading Time:

2–3 minutes

A recent test case decision handed down by the Full Bench of the Fair Work Commission (Commission) has ruled that comments posted on social media can amount to workplace bullying even if neither the person who posted them or their target were at work at the time.  The case highlights the importance of employers having a strong social media policy in place.

The Full Bench held that the posted comments constitute ‘bullying at work’ if the worker reads them later while at work.

Background facts

In Bowker et al v DP World Melbourne Limited T/A DP World; Maritime Union of Australia, The Victorian Branch and Others three employees of DP World Melbourne Limited each made an application to the Commission under section 789FC of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) for a declaration that they had been bullied at work and for an order to stop the bullying.

The allegations of bullying were made against employees of DP World who were members of the MUA, and by MUA officials.

It was alleged these employees had posted various unreasonable and insulting allegations about the applicants on Facebook.

It was also alleged the applicants were threatened and excluded.

The respondents claimed that the alleged conduct was not made ‘at work’ within the meaning of s.789FD of the Act.  This is relevant as the Commission only has jurisdiction to make orders to stop bullying if, among other things, the Commission is satisfied that ‘the worker has been bullied at work’ (s.789FF(1)(b)(i) of the Act).

Meaning of ‘at work’?

The Full Bench stated that the concept of being ‘at work’ encompasses both the performance of work (at any time or location) and when the worker is engaged in some other activity which is authorised or permitted by their employer.  This might include being on a meal break or accessing social media while performing work.

Therefore a worker could be considered to be ‘at work’ at any time the worker performs work, regardless of his or her location or the time of day.

As a result, the Full Bench found that the worker need not be ‘at work’ at the time the comments were posted on Facebook.  It would suffice if they accessed the comments later while ‘at work’.

Summary

The Full Bench ruling highlights the need for companies to have clear social media policies.  These policies must make it clear that posting inappropriate material on social media sites about the company, managers or employees is unacceptable.

Further information

If you are an employer and need advice on issues arising from alleged workplace bullying, please contact us for an obligation free and confidential discussion.


Related insights about employment law for employers

  • Mere puffery vs misleading and deceptive conduct – where is the line

    Mere puffery vs misleading and deceptive conduct – where is the line

    In the case of Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v TPG Internet Pty Ltd [2013] HCA 54 (ACCC v TPG), the High Court of Australia (High Court) drew a distinction between mere puffery and representations with the intention of marketing.  This article explores the decision in ACCC v TPG and the distinction between puffery and…

    Read more …

  • Contractual and equitable obligations of confidence

    Contractual and equitable obligations of confidence

    This is an update to the article “Full Court clarifies confidentiality of supplier and contact info” published by Dundas Lawyers on 24 February 2026. On 20 April 2026, the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia (Court) allowed an appeal in the case of New Aim Pty Ltd v Leung (No 4) [2026] FCAFC…

    Read more …

  • AI evidence misleading Court:  Ba v Sterling Parts Australia

    AI evidence misleading Court: Ba v Sterling Parts Australia

    On 17 June 2026, Symons J delivered judgment in the case of Ba v Sterling Parts Australia Pty Ltd [2026] FedCFamC2G 1245 (Ba v Sterling Parts).  Ba v Sterling Parts was a proceeding brought by Weiman Ba (Applicant) in the second division of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Court).  Symons J dismissed…

    Read more …

  • Individual Flexibility Arrangements: an overview

    Individual Flexibility Arrangements: an overview

    Modern awards and enterprise agreements set out the minimum terms and conditions of employment for most Australian workers performing different roles.  The Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Act) provides a mechanism by which an employer and an individual employee may, by agreement, adjust the operation of certain terms in their Award to better suit theircircumstances. …

    Read more …

  • White-Anting: An employer’s lawful termination guide

    White-Anting: An employer’s lawful termination guide

    Employees who use White Anting tactics to deliberately undermine management or disrupt workplace harmony may be summarily dismissed, provided the relevant legal conditions are met and a proper process is followed.  Following our 28 April 2026 article “White Anting: serious misconduct?“, this article provides practical “how to” steps for employers to lawfully dismiss employees who…

    Read more …

Send this to a friend