NBN LOSE APPEAL AGAINST OUR BULLYING WIN

A Full Bench of the Fair Work Commission has rejected the appeal by NBN of the Decision in Re Camilleri. This was a case we won in May this year when we represented our member. We repeat our earlier reports below The Full Bench rejected the arguments of NBN that the original decision was wrong. The Full Bench reviewed the decision and findings and held that permission to appeal was refused. See the Appeal Decision.

REPRINT 18 MAY - NBN BULLYING CASE DECISION

In a Decision handed down this week, the FWC found that our member has been bullied at work. This followed a 3 day hearing over the past weeks. The FWC considered several remedies and decided to refer both parties to mediation in an attempt to resolve the otherwise ongoing problem. The case was run by our Branch Secretary and NBN used internal lawyers.
The full decision is publicly available on the FWC webpage at Application by Mr Adam Camilleri - [2025] FWC 1349 | Fair Work Commission. More next week.

REPRINT 18 MAY - NBN BULLYING KEY FINDING

We will highlight several important issues below and next week. Extract from Decision:

[69] I am satisfied that Mr Fitzpatrick has repeatedly behaved unreasonably towards Mr Camilleri while at work and that Mr Fitzpatrick's behaviour has created a risk to Mr Camilleri's health and safety. I am satisfied Mr Camilleri has been "bullied at work" by Mr Fitzpatrick within the meaning of s.789FD(1) of the FW Act.
[72] Mr Camilleri remains employed by NBN Co and is being managed by Mr Fitzpatrick. I have found that Mr Fitzpatrick has behaved unreasonably towards Mr Camilleri on two occasions. I have also found that there were shortcomings in relation to Mr Fitzpatrick's management of Mr Camilleri in relation to other allegations. I consider the requirement for Mr Fitzpatrick to continue managing Mr Camilleri means there is a risk Mr Camilleri will continue to be bullied by Mr Fitzpatrick.

REPRINT 18 MAY - NBN BULLYING: NOT ALL MATTERS PROVED

We had raised a number of issues before the Commissioner. The FWC found two proven and expressed concern at other actions. The Commission noted that some of these were incidents where allegations were made but no action resulted. The Commission appeared concerned with that situation. The FWC said:

[61] I consider in most cases raising an allegation against an employee and then taking no further action against the employee after receiving their response would constitute reasonable management action carried out in a reasonable manner. The point of difference in this case is the range of issues Mr Fitzpatrick had been raising with Mr Camilleri's conduct in mid-to-late 2024
I consider this is an example of Mr Fitzpatrick unreasonably deciding to raise an issue with Mr Camilleri that Mr Fitzpatrick would not have raised with other employees in comparable circumstances. I consider Mr Fitzpatrick was actively looking for issues to raise with Mr Camilleri's conduct because of his ongoing frustration.

NBN APPEAL EXTRACTS

[42] Read as a whole, which in this matter involves the totality of the decision, and not simply the two instance of bullying found to exist, NBN and Mr Fitzpatrick were on notice of the case they had to meet.
[43] The Commissioner heard extensive evidence of the methodology used by Mr Fitzpatrick when dealing with issues generally, and in particular the spreadsheet matter (the First Issue in the Decision in which failures by Mr Fitzpatrick were noted at [17]). Based on those findings, and the conclusions regarding the "missed call" issue, it was clearly open to the Commissioner to judge Mr Fitzpatrick as a person who needs to make more inquiries before raising allegations.
[44] It was unremarkable that the Commissioner found Mr Fitzpatrick raised an issue with Mr Camilleri that he would not have raised with other employees in comparable circumstances when that was a specific complaint of Mr Camilleri in his response to Mr Fitzpatrick on 26 February 2025. Conclusion
[45] For these reasons, we are not persuaded that permission to appeal should be granted. We do not consider that an arguable case has been advanced that the decision of the Commissioner was attended by appealable error. We are not satisfied it is in the public interest 12 (1996)185 CLR259 at [24]. 12 [2025] FWCFB 226 that permission to appeal be granted for the purposes of s 604(2) of the Act or that there is any other basis upon which permission to appeal should be granted.
[46] Permission to appeal is refused.

TELSTRA CFW5 OPTICAL FIBRE WORK

We have written to Telstra again seeking clarification of their position. Their last response did not disclose its position. Our letter stated (in part):

We refer to your letter of 5 September 2025. We note that:
The assessments undertaken by Telstra covered only a 13-month period;
Assessments were conducted against proposed (and not agreed) CFW5 Job Descriptions, which have no legal effect;
Employees were required to meet "all key aspects" of the proposed CFW5 JD, but those key aspects were never identified; and
Employees were required to complete "appropriate" training, which was not defined.
At no point does Telstra claim to have assessed Optical Fibre workers against the current agreed CJDs. As you are aware, these are the only valid classification instruments under Telstra's enterprise agreements.
The Jayawardana decision confirmed that reliance on instruments other than the agreed CJDs can amount to a failure to comply with the enterprise agreement, and therefore to contraventions of s.45 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (i.e. a wage theft matter). Telstra has previously accepted the correctness of that decision.
In these circumstances, it was incumbent on Telstra to conduct a proper review of all Optical Fibre staff against the current agreed CJDs, and to remedy any misclassification and underpayment. We assume such a review has been undertaken.
We therefore seek Telstra's confirmation that, in light of Jayawardana, it has reviewed all Optical Fibre staff against the current agreed CJDs, and determined:
1. no Optical Fibre employee is presently performing CFW5 work; and
2. no Optical Fibre employee has performed CFW5 work at any point in the last six years.

THEY PROFIT, YOU PAY: SERVICE STREAM WALKS AWAY FROM FAIRNESS

Negotiations between the Union and Service Stream Limited (SSL) have now reached a critical impasse.
Despite multiple rounds of bargaining and further attempts to shift their position, SSL continues to reject key claims that would deliver fair pay and conditions for CWU members. Their latest offer includes minor improvements, but remains well below what's needed, and they now intend to put their proposal to a vote of employees without Union endorsement.
Here's a snapshot of what SSL's position: