A recent Fair Work anti-bullying claim ruling has confirmed that a stop bullying order can be made not only against a worker or employer, but also any member of the public. This came after the Commission dismissed the objection of a Northern Territory town councillor. She argued that she couldn’t be subject to a stop bullying order as she was an elected public official, and not a worker as defined by the Fair Work Act 2009.
The Commission clarified that there is no requirement for the alleged bully to be a worker. Rather, a Fair Work stop bullying claim can be made against any “individual.” In this article we’ll cover the events of this stop bullying order Application by Mrs. Ingrid Stonhill [2025].
We’ll also look at another Fair Work case where an employee’s anti-bullying claim faced an unexpected scenario that rendered it invalid.
Fair Work rules stop bullying claims can be made against any member of the public
Ingrid Stonhill was the CEO of the Katherine Town Council in the Northern Territory. She lodged a Fair Work stop bullying claim in November 2024. The claim was in regards to the alleged bullying she experienced from an elected Councillor, Amanda Kingdon. A few months prior to the claim, media reported that Councillor Kingdon had been issued a 12-month no-trespass order for the Council’s offices. This was due to a Facebook comment she made in February 2024 that criticised NT Local Government Minister Chansey Paech.
In response, her colleagues sanctioned her by ordering her to delete her public-facing Facebook page and stripping her of her committee roles. The dispute escalated when Cr. Kingdon refused to leave a council meeting after being told she had a conflict of interest, leading to the mayor postponing the meeting. She was then issued a no-trespass order for her non-compliance.
Credit: LinkedIn
Three-month stop bullying trial ordered
In her Fair Work stop bullying claim, Mrs. Stonhill said that Councillor Kingdon had bullied her during Council meetings and in official correspondence. She also said that it took place in relation to governance and performance management communications, and in decisions affecting her role.
Mrs. Stonhill’s Fair Work stop bullying claim was heard by the Fair Work Commission via a telephone conference in December 2024. This resulted in the Commission issuing a consensual recommendation that all communication between Mrs. Stonhill must henceforth be facilitated solely through the mayor for a three-month trial period.
Councillor argued Fair Work anti-bullying claim was not valid
However, at the end of the three months, Mrs. Stonhill told the Fair Work Commission that the arrangement had been unsuccessful. She then elected to press her original application for a stop bullying order. In response, Councillor Kingdon lodged a jurisdictional objection to the claim. Her objection centred on whether the Fair Work Commission had the power to issue orders against an elected member of a local government body in the Northern Territory.
Under the Fair Work Act 2009, a worker who reasonably believes that he or she has been bullied at work can lodge an anti-bullying claim. However, the bullying behaviour must be occurring in a constitutionally-covered business, for a person conducting a business or undertaking. Councillor Kingdon submitted that the Fair Work Commission lacked jurisdiction because of her status as an elected Councillor. Therefore, she contended that Mrs. Stonhill’s claim should be dismissed.
Argued councillors were outside scope of anti-bullying legislation
She argued that a Fair Work anti-bullying claim relies on definitions within the Work Health and Safety Act 2011, which contains an explicit exclusion. Specifically, section 5(5) of the Act and the corresponding Northern Territory legislation states that “an elected member of a local authority” does not in that capacity conduct a business or undertaking.
Councillor Kingdon maintained that she did not perform the role of a person conducting a business or undertaking. She said that all her interactions with Mrs. Stonhill were professional and performed as a ‘Councillor’ as defined in the Local Government Act 2019 (NT).
However, the Council, through its mayor, acknowledged its status as a constitutional corporation to the Fair Work Commission. But it did not submit to the Commission whether Councillor Kingdon met the statutory definition of an individual under the Fair Work Act.
Victim argued councillor was fair game for Fair Work anti-bullying claim
In response to the objection, Mrs. Stonhill argued to the Fair Work Commission that Councillor Kingdon’s status did not determine if her Fair Work stop bullying claim could proceed or not. She asserted that the Katherine Town Council was a body corporate incorporated in a Territory. It therefore qualified as a constitutionally-covered business under the Fair Work Act 2009.
Mrs. Stonhill drew the analogy between an elected Councillor and a non-executive director of a company, noting that individuals in governance roles can be valid respondents. She highlighted that Councillors wield “employer-like powers over the CEO.” If Councillor Kingdon was not subject to an anti-bullying claim, Mrs. Stonhill argued it would “undermine the protective purpose” of the Fair Work Act 2009. She claimed that this would leave senior employees vulnerable to a hostile work environment.
Fair Work stop bullying claim can be made against any member of the public
The Fair Work Commission considered Councillor Kingdon’s jurisdictional objection in July 2025. It established that the Katherine Town Council met the definition of a constitutional corporation. The Commission also confirmed that Mrs. Stonhill, as the CEO/employee, was confirmed to be a worker for the purposes of the Fair Work Act 2009.
Next, it considered whether a Fair Work anti-bullying claim could be made against Councillor Kingdon. The Commission confirmed that there is no requirement for the alleged bully to be a “worker.” Under the Fair Work Act 2009, they only need to be an individual. The Commission stated that the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 exclusion for elected members was not applicable in this context. It said that it would only be relevant if Councillor Kingdon was being sued or prosecuted individually for a breach of the Fair Work Act 2009.
The Commission underscored the broad nature of the anti-bullying jurisdiction. It said that it “would not matter if” Councillor Kingdon was “just a member of the public.” If her conduct was determined to be bullying, then that behaviour could be the subject of a stop bullying order.
Fair Work anti-bullying claim backed by precedent
In making these findings, the Fair Work Commission cited previous cases where it found that the Fair Work Act 2009 covered the conduct of residents towards a resort employee. The Commission also relied on comments from Deputy President Peter Anderson in an analogous case. He had found that an elected councillor “is ‘an individual’ and, as such, capable of being the subject of a bullying complaint.”
The Commission concluded that the alleged bullying behaviour occurred while Mrs. Stonhill was at work. She was therefore entitled to the protections afforded to employees under the anti-bullying provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009. As a result, Councillor Kingdon’s jurisdictional objection was dismissed. This allowed Mrs. Stonhill’s Fair Work stop bullying claim to proceed to a substantive hearing where its merits would be considered.
Unexpected development upends worker’s Fair Work stop bullying claim
This story involves the Fair Work stop bullying claim Application by Gavin Butler [2025]. Perth-based Gavin Butler worked as a general manager for ACQ#2-BFE Pty Ltd, which trades as Busselton Egg Company. He initially lodged a Fair Work anti-bullying claim in February 2025, which was later resolved. However, Mr. Butler made a second application against the sole director of Busselton Egg Company, Mr. Hudson, on 8 April 2025.
The second application was made on the same day following a meeting between the duo, which concerned Mr. Butler’s Fair Work claim. He sought an order from the Fair Work Commission to prevent future bullying behaviour from Mr. Hudson, indicating that he was working in a hostile work environment. Mr. Hudson denied the claims of bullying in Mr. Butler’s application.
Alleged bully said sale of business made stop bullying claim moot
On 13 May 2025, the Fair Work Commission held a conference to consider Mr. Butler’s stop bullying claim. This was when Mr. Hudson disclosed information that drastically changed the context of the claim. He explained that Mr. Butler would be receiving a notice of termination of employment the following day. This was because he would be made redundant as Busselton Egg Company would be sold in about a month’s time. Mr. Hudson told the Commission that he would not be continuing with the business after the sale.
In addition to the impending termination of employment, Mr. Hudson told the Commission that Mr. Butler would be unfit for work for just under a month from 15 May 2025 due to scheduled surgery. This meant that the two men would have “limited to no contact” up until the date of the business sale. Nor would they have any contact after that date.
Speaking to the Commission, Mr. Butler agreed that Busselton Egg Company had been sold. He also accepted that he would “most probably” have nothing further to do with Mr. Hudson after the sale. However, he argued that the Commission should first determine whether bullying did occur, and only after that could the matter be closed.
Fair Work stop bullying claim did not meet crucial eligibility criterion
Mr. Butler’s second Fair Work anti-bullying claim was heard by the Fair Work Commission in June 2025. It had to work out if Mr. Butler met the three criteria required under the Fair Work Act 2009 for the Commission to make an anti-bullying order. These are: first, a worker must have made an application. Second, the Commission must be satisfied that the worker has been bullied at work. Third, the Commission must be satisfied that there is a risk that the worker will continue to be bullied at work by the individual or group.
The Commission formed a view that, based on the information provided regarding the sale and Mr. Butler’s leave, the third criterion could not be met. It said that it was not satisfied that Mr. Butler will continue to be bullied at work by Mr. Hudson. This conclusion was reached regardless of whether Mr. Butler had actually experienced any bullying or a hostile work environment due to Mr. Hudson’s actions.
Prospective nature of anti-bullying provisions meant claim did not make sense
The Fair Work Commission highlighted that the anti-bullying provisions within the Fair Work Act 2009 are prospective. This means that they are designed to prevent future conduct, not to make retrospective determinations about a hostile work environment in the past. It was noted that Mr. Butler’s termination of employment would take place on 17 June 2025 and that Mr. Hudson would no longer be involved with the new ownership. Therefore, the grounds for making a protective order vanished.
The Commission referenced the Full Bench decision in Carole Greenan v BBV Legal Pty Ltd. From this case, it adopted principles that allow the Commission to dismiss an application if the worker is no longer employed. This can be done on the basis that the application has no reasonable prospects of success.
Ultimately, the Commission was not satisfied that Mr. Butler was at risk of continued bullying and a hostile work environment at the hands of Mr. Hudson. It said that even if the bullying allegations were proven, the Commission still could not issue a stop-bullying order,
Read more: Bullying in the Workplace Needs To Stop
Support when bullying, harassment or victimisation happens at work
If you’re experiencing bullying, harassment or victimisation — whether it’s from managers, coworkers or even customers — A Whole New Approach can help you regain control. We assist workers with their options under the Fair Work system. This includes making stop bullying claims as well as unfair dismissal and general protections claims.
Our team helps you understand your rights, gather the evidence you need and avoid missteps that could weaken your case. Strict Fair Work Commission deadlines apply for claims, so you need to act fast. Reach out now on 1300 766 700 for your free and private consultation.
