Wirtten by Australian Business Lawyers & Advisors

A recent decision of the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) in Anthony Lipari v Transit Systems West Services Pty Ltd [2025] FWC 1430, has put the spotlight on employees who make false or unfounded bullying allegations, finding that doing so can amount to misconduct leading to serious consequences including dismissal.

 

Facts of the case

Mr Anthony Lipari (Mr Lipari) was a bus driver (and Transport Workers Union (TWU) delegate) at the Tempe Bus Depot operated by Transit Systems West Services. 

On 18 September 2024, Mr Lipari attended a TWU meeting, during which another union delegate announced that he was now the sole union delegate for the Depot, effectively removing Mr Lipari from his delegate role. 

After Mr Lipari was informed that he had been removed, he began disclosing details about an injury and workers compensation claim related to the other delegate. He made several inappropriate remarks including that the other delegate was the reason why the Depot was a “problem child”, referring to him as a “kid” who needed to “put his balls on the line”.

Mr Lipari then escalated matters further by publicly accusing the other delegate of “bullying, intimidation, and harassment”. He stated to the room that he had “evidence left, right and centre” of the delegate bullying him and declared that he would be filing a stop bullying application with the Commission as he had “more than enough evidence.” He went so far as to name the Commission Member he claimed would hear the case, asserting that the delegate would be “caned” in the Commission and that he had “taken seven cases to the Fair Work Commission and I’ve won every single one”.

Following the meeting, the other delegate made a formal complaint about Mr Lipari’s behaviour. He was formally investigated and ultimately dismissed by Transit System’s West Services for misconduct. 

Mr Lipari challenged his dismissal on the basis that it was unfair. He argued that his comments were made in the context of a union meeting, were not intended to intimidate, and that the information he disclosed about the other delegate was already commonly known within the depot. He maintained that he did not engage in bullying or harassment and denied any breach of workplace policy. 

 

The Commission’s findings 

The Commission accepted that the information Mr Lipari disclosed about the other delegate’s injury and workers compensation status was already known among employees and therefore did not amount to a breach of confidentiality. However, it took a very different view of his public bullying allegations.

Although Mr Lipari had told the room he would be filing a stop bullying application in the Commission, he never did. Under cross-examination, he admitted he had no intention of making the application.

Accordingly, Commissioner Ryan found that Mr Lipari’s bullying allegations were made with the intent to intimidate and discredit a colleague, and without any genuine intention to pursue a formal complaint. His conduct was described as “unreasonable and intimidatory” and in clear breach of Transit Systems’ Respectful Workplace Behaviours Policy. With Commissioner Ryan concluding that the public nature of the false allegations, combined with the lack of remorse and the aggressive tone used, provided a valid and sufficient reason for dismissal.

Importantly, in reaching this decision Commissioner Ryan also noted that making false bullying allegations in a public setting, particularly where there is no genuine intention to pursue the matter added to the seriousness of the misconduct: 

“The public way in which the Applicant falsely accused Mr Pagalis of bullying, intimidation and harassment [was] more serious than had he made those allegations quietly in a complaint to management”.

The Commission found that Transit Systems had failed to notify Mr Lipari of the specific allegation regarding his false bullying claims as part of the show-cause process. However, despite not giving him an opportunity to respond, these “procedural deficiencies [were] outweighed by the valid reason for dismissal and the gravity of [the Applicant’s] conduct.”

 

Key takeaways 

The Lipari decision is a cautionary tale for those who seek to throw around bullying allegations without cause in the workplace and offers several key takeaways for employers when managing employee conduct and bullying complaints. 

  • Intent behind bullying allegations in the workplace matter
    • Employers should be vigilant where bullying allegations appear retaliatory, intimidatory or are used to undermine or discredit colleagues, as this may form a valid reason for dismissal.
    • Having clear workplace policies, applying them consistently and documenting investigations will further support defensible decisions in such cases.
  • False public allegations can cross the line into workplace harassment 
    • Unsubstantiated bullying claims made in front of colleagues can themselves be a form of bullying or harassment. With the case of Mr Lipari confirming that allegations made in public, with a threatening or aggressive tone, may heighten the seriousness of inappropriate conduct in the workplace. 
  • Union meetings in the workplace are not a ‘free for all’ 
    • Whilst Mr Lipari had argued that his conduct occurred in the “heat of the battle” during a union meeting and should be excused as “bluff and bluster”, it is clear that union-related meetings are not a free pass for inappropriate behaviour. As Commissioner Ryan stated in his decision, a union yard meeting “does not provide a ‘magic cloak’ conferring immunity from accountability for conduct when interacting with other employees in the workplace.”

 

Employers should not forget that employees remain subject to workplace standards and codes of conduct, even in the context of union activity in the workplace. Regularly reviewing and communicating to all employees your company policies on acceptable behaviour is a key step in being able to address situations as they arise.