A former public school teacher has failed in his attempt to keep an anti-bullying application alive after the Fair Work Commission found it no longer had the power to make stop-bullying orders once his employment ended. The claims surrounded gender-based harassment and racial profiling and said the teacher should be protected against potential future interactions. This case highlights the limits on stop-bullying orders and the need for early intervention into complaints of workplace jokes. 

Bullying claim and dismissal 

The teacher, who worked at a school in the ACT, lodged an application under the Fair Work Act in April 2026 seeking anti-bullying orders against the ACT Education Directorate and three colleagues. He was dismissed from his employment approximately two months later.

Following his termination, the Education Directorate applied to have the matter dismissed, arguing that because the teacher was no longer employed, there was no ongoing risk that he could be bullied at work.

The teacher opposed the application and argued that his claim included allegations of sexual harassment, which he submitted prevented the Commission from dismissing the matter under the Fair Work Act. 

Gender-based harassment relating to male-pattern baldness

Among other things, the teacher alleged that a female colleague had referred to him using insults relating to his baldness. He argued these comments were gender-based because they related to male-pattern baldness and therefore constituted sexual harassment. He also relied on comments contained in a departmental letter as gender-based harassment. He was alleged to have joked with colleagues that he intended to use gender affirmation leave to work on his car, and the investigation into his comments perpetuated stereotypes about men and cars.

The teacher also raised concerns that he might encounter the individuals named in his application again if he were reinstated through separate proceedings challenging his dismissal. He further argued that a departmental document containing information about his racial heritage exposed him to the risk of racial profiling and potential harm in future employment. 

Fair Work Commission finds no ongoing risk 

Commissioner Damian Sloan rejected the teacher’s reliance on the Fair Work Act, finding that the provision preventing dismissal of the matter only applied to certain types of applications and not to anti-bullying under the section he’d sought orders. 

The Commissioner stated that, regardless of whether the alleged comments could properly be characterised as sexual harassment, the teacher had misconstrued the operation of the provision. 

Turning to the broader arguments advanced by the teacher, Commissioner Sloan described submissions about future interactions with alleged bullies and possible future racial profiling as speculative and hypothetical. He found those matters were not relevant to determining whether the Commission retained the power to make stop-bullying orders.

The Commissioner ultimately concluded that, because the teacher was no longer employed by the Education Directorate or the ACT public service, there was no risk that he could continue to be bullied at work by the individuals named in the application.

As a result, the Commission found it no longer had jurisdiction to make an order to stop bullying and dismissed the application.

Anti-bullying lessons for employers

The most significant takeaway from this case is the Fair Work Commission’s anti-bullying jurisdiction is directed at preventing future bullying at work. Once the employment relationship ends, the Commission will generally have no power to make orders because there is no ongoing risk of workplace bullying.

This case demonstrates that an employee who has lodged a bullying application does not automatically retain access to the stop-bullying jurisdiction after termination. Employers should, however, be careful not to view dismissal as a litigation strategy. The Commission did not endorse the dismissal itself, and terminated employees may still pursue other claims such as unfair dismissal, general protections, discrimination or workers’ compensation matters.

This case is also a useful reminder that workplace jokes about personal characteristics can quickly escalate into complex legal allegations, making early intervention and appropriate workplace conduct standards essential. 

How Business Chamber Queensland can help

While this case turned on a jurisdictional issue, it highlights how everyday workplace interactions can quickly escalate into bullying, harassment and discrimination complaints.

Business Chamber Queensland’s Workplace Relations team assists employers to:

• assess and respond to bullying, harassment and sexual harassment complaints; 
• conduct workplace investigations and fact-finding processes; 
• manage employee grievances before they escalate into formal proceedings; 
• develop and review workplace behaviour, bullying and harassment policies; 
• provide practical advice on disciplinary processes and procedural fairness; and 
• represent and support employers in Fair Work Commission matters. 

For assistance with bullying complaints, workplace investigations or Fair Work Commission applications, members with HR services can contact Business Chamber Queensland’s Workplace Relations team for advice and support. Consultancy fees apply for non-members. 

Case: Timb Hoswell v The Australian Capital Territory (as represented by the Education Directorate)