Stop bullying order: when workers misuse the system

The stop bullying order process is meant to protect workers from real bullying, not to give difficult employees a way to block ordinary performance management. The recent case of Re Kristan Heidel v University of Notre Dame Australia ( FWC 893) shows how the Fair Work Commission reacts when an under‑performing worker tries to use a stop bullying order to fend off scrutiny.

In this case, Ms Heidel was a program manager responsible for a rural health grant. Over time, her acting line manager, Ms Maloney, became concerned about her performance. Emails showed repeated issues: incomplete tasks, confusion over responsibilities, poor follow‑through, and complaints from internal stakeholders about lack of support. When questioned, Ms Heidel often claimed she did not understand deadlines or that certain tasks were not really hers. The Commission later described her as a challenging employee to manage and noted a pattern of her delegating work then blaming others when it was not done.

As concerns mounted, the manager started to document expectations and raise issues more directly. She sent emails listing overdue work, asked for explanations, and flagged broader worries about engagement and proactivity. At one point, she warned that if performance did not improve, they might need more frequent meetings and might reconsider the existing remote work arrangement. She then issued a letter inviting Ms Heidel to a formal performance meeting, clearly stating that a performance improvement plan could be an outcome and that Ms Heidel could bring a support person.

Rather than addressing the substance of the performance concerns, Ms Heidel lodged a stop bullying order application the same evening she received the performance meeting letter. She pointed to the emails, the copying‑in of senior executives, the proposed meeting and the PIP as examples of bullying. She also relied on the fact that her confidential enquiry to HR about how to make a bullying complaint had been improperly relayed back to her manager. She argued that she was being targeted and that the performance process itself was bullying.

The Commission disagreed. It accepted that some things were not ideal – for example, the HR partner should not have disclosed her confidential enquiry. But that error was not misconduct by the manager and did not convert the situation into bullying. Looking at the full trail of documents, the Commission found that the manager’s behaviour was reasonable management action carried out in a reasonable manner. The emails were professional, focused on work issues rather than personal attacks, and proportionate to the concerns. The suggestion that remote work might be revisited was seen as a legitimate attempt to better support performance, not a threat.

Crucially, the Commission found that Ms Heidel’s claims largely lacked merit. It preferred the documentary evidence which showed she repeatedly shifted responsibility, claimed not to understand expectations after the fact, and resisted acknowledging any performance problems. The decision makes it clear that a worker cannot simply label performance conversations as “bullying” to avoid answering questions about their work. Discomfort, stress and disagreement with feedback are not enough on their own to justify a stop bullying order.

For employers and WHS professionals, the message is blunt: you should not let the fear of a stop bullying order stop you from managing poor performance, provided your actions are fair, documented and respectful. Workers who misuse the process to escape accountability may still have their applications knocked back once the evidence is tested. In Re Heidel, that is exactly what happened -the Commission was not satisfied she had been bullied at work, and her application for a stop bullying order was dismissed.