When a Bullying Application Fails on the EvidenceWhy Representation Matters in Fair Work Commission ProceedingsWang v Taylor, Li, Wilkins & Skyline Strata Management [2026] FWC 15

The Fair Work Commission’s decision in Wang v Taylor & Ors [2026] FWC 15 is a detailed and cautionary example of how complex workplace disputes—particularly bullying applications—can unravel without structured representation.

While the applicant raised extensive allegations and filed voluminous material, the Commission ultimately dismissed the application, finding that the conduct complained of did not constitute bullying under the Fair Work Act 2009. Central to the outcome were issues of evidence, characterisation of conduct, reasonable management action, and credibility—all areas where professional advocacy is critical.

Background: A Non-Traditional Working Relationship

Mrs Yan (Shirley) Wang lodged an application under section 789FC of the Fair Work Act 2009 seeking orders to stop bullying.

Although this was not a conventional employment relationship, the Commission was satisfied that:

• Mrs Wang performed work in a constitutionally covered business; and

• the anti-bullying jurisdiction applied.

Mrs Wang and her husband operated a caretaking and letting business (ProAgent) under a commercial Management Agreement with a residential body corporate in Sunnybank, Queensland. They also lived onsite as owners, creating a dual commercial and residential relationship with the alleged perpetrators.

This factual matrix made the case inherently complex.

When a Bullying Application Fails on the EvidenceWhy Representation Matters in Fair Work Commission Proceedings Wang v Taylor, Li, Wilkins & Skyline Strata Management [2026] FWC 15

The Allegations

Mrs Wang alleged that she was subjected to repeated unreasonable behaviour by:

• the Body Corporate Chairperson;

• the Treasurer;

• a resident closely connected to committee members.

The allegations included:

• excessive emails sent outside business hours;

• repeated breach notices;

• exclusion from meetings;

• withholding of payments;

• criticism of performance; and

• abusive and defamatory communications via social media groups.

  
  

She filed more than 900 pages of material, including screenshots, emails, photographs, and videos.

The Hearing: A Key Imbalance

A critical feature of the case was representation:

• Mrs Wang was self-represented.

• The Body Corporate and committee members were legally represented.

• An interpreter was required, adding further complexity.

The Commission afforded Mrs Wang considerable latitude, but the decision makes clear that procedural flexibility cannot substitute for forensic discipline.

The Commissioner repeatedly observed difficulties in:

• separating contractual disputes from bullying allegations;

• focusing on legally relevant issues;

• conducting effective cross-examination; and

• presenting evidence in a structured and probative way.

  
  

The Legal Test for Bullying

The Commission restated the statutory definition under section 789FD:

A worker is bullied if:

1. a person or group repeatedly behaves unreasonably towards the worker; and

2. the behaviour creates a risk to health and safety.

Critically, reasonable management action carried out in a reasonable manner is excluded.

Key Case Authorities Applied

Ms SB [2014] FWC 2104

The Commission relied heavily on the principles articulated in Ms SB, which clarify that:

• management action need not be perfect to be reasonable;

• unreasonableness must arise from the action itself, not the worker’s perception; and

• lawful, rational, and proportionate actions may still be reasonable even if upsetting.

This authority framed the entire analysis of the Body Corporate’s conduct.

Bropho v HREOC (2004) 135 FCR 105

Cited for the proposition that reasonableness is an objective assessment, not one based on subjective offence or distress.

Von Stieglitz and Comcare [2010] AATA 263 and Department of Education & Training v Sinclair [2005] NSWCA 465

These authorities reinforced that:

• imperfect processes do not automatically become unreasonable; and

• departures from ideal practice must be material and unjustifiable.

  
  

Why the Application Failed

After an exhaustive review, the Commission concluded:

• The disputes were predominantly contractual and managerial, not bullying.

• Performance management, breach notices, and communications were reasonable management action.

• Emails sent after hours did not constitute bullying, particularly where no expectation of immediate response existed.

• Payment delays and reimbursements were linked to legitimate financial and governance concerns.

• Social media exchanges, while at times inappropriate, occurred in a broader context involving mutual hostility, not one-sided bullying.

Importantly, the Commission found that Mrs Wang’s own conduct contributed significantly to the breakdown in relationships and that her narrow interpretation of contractual obligations was unreasonable.

The application was dismissed in full.

The Role Representation Would Have Played

This decision is not simply about bullying law. It is about how cases are run.

With representation, this matter would likely have:

• narrowed the issues to legally relevant conduct;

• filtered inadmissible or irrelevant material;

• framed allegations consistently with statutory elements;

• managed witness examination strategically; and

• avoided conflating contractual grievances with bullying claims.

Instead, the Commission was left to sift through an enormous body of material, much of which ultimately undermined the applicant’s own case.

A Broader Lesson for Workers

Bullying applications are among the most complex matters before the Fair Work Commission. They require:

• precise characterisation of conduct;

• careful evidentiary thresholds; and

• a clear understanding of what the Commission can—and cannot—do.

This case demonstrates that volume of material is no substitute for legal relevance, and that credibility, structure, and focus are decisive.

MYUNION’s Perspective

At MYUNION, we regularly see workers with genuine concerns fail to obtain relief because their cases are overwhelmed by:

• mischaracterised grievances;

• unfocused evidence; and

• procedural missteps.

This decision is a powerful reminder that representation is not about formality—it is about survival of the case.

When the stakes involve reputation, livelihood, and mental health, going it alone can be a costly mistake.

MYUNION continues to publish plain-English analysis of Fair Work Commission decisions so workers understand not just their rights, but the realities of enforcing them.