“That’s just bullying!” It’s one of the most common things we hear when an employee is unhappy about being managed. But under Australian law, there’s a clear and important line between genuine workplace bullying and a manager simply doing their job. That line is called reasonable management action carried out in a reasonable manner — and understanding it is one of the most valuable things a business owner or manager can learn.
Get it right, and you can manage performance and conduct confidently, fairly, and without fear of a claim. Get it wrong, and even a legitimate issue can turn into a bullying complaint. This article breaks down exactly what “reasonable” means, with a clear side-by-side comparison and a real case study.
The legal foundation
Section 789FD(2) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) states that a worker is not bullied at work if the behaviour was reasonable management action carried out in a reasonable manner. The Fair Work Ombudsman puts it plainly: reasonable management action that’s carried out in a reasonable way is not bullying.
The Fair Work Commission breaks this down into three elements. For the exclusion to apply:
- the behaviour must be management action;
- it must be reasonable for that management action to be taken; and
- the management action must be carried out in a manner that is reasonable.
What counts as “management action”?
The Commission and the Explanatory Memorandum to the Act give clear examples of legitimate management action, including:
- performance appraisals and reviews
- ongoing meetings to address underperformance
- counselling or disciplining a worker for misconduct
- modifying a worker’s duties, including transferring or redeploying them
- investigating alleged misconduct
- allocating work and giving fair, constructive feedback
- denying a worker a benefit in relation to their employment
As the Explanatory Memorandum notes, employers and managers need to be able to make these decisions — to respond to poor performance, take disciplinary action where necessary, and direct and control how work is carried out. These actions are not bullying when carried out reasonably and in a way that takes the circumstances into account and does not leave the individual feeling victimised or humiliated.
When is management action “reasonable”?
Whether action is reasonable is an objective question of fact — judged by what a reasonable person would think, not by how the employee personally felt about it. The Commission looks at the circumstances that created the need for the action, the circumstances while it was being taken, and the consequences that followed. Importantly:
- management action does not need to be perfect or ideal to be reasonable;
- a course of action can still be reasonable even if particular steps were not;
- any “unreasonableness” must arise from the actual action, not the worker’s perception of it; and
- at a minimum, the action must be lawful and not “irrational, absurd or ridiculous.”
A key practical point: a significant, unexplained departure from your own established policies and procedures can tip an action into “unreasonable” territory. This is exactly why having good policies — and following them — protects you.
Reasonable vs. NOT reasonable: a clear side-by-side
Here’s the practical heart of it. The same underlying issue — say, managing an underperforming employee — can be handled in a way that is perfectly reasonable, or in a way that crosses the line. The difference is usually in the manner.
| ✓ REASONABLE MANAGEMENT ACTION |
| Raising performance concerns privately and respectfully |
| Giving the employee clear, specific examples of the issue |
| Explaining the reason for a meeting in advance so they can prepare |
| Offering the employee the chance to bring a support person |
| Setting realistic, achievable goals and a fair timeframe to improve |
| Providing genuine support, training or resources to help them improve |
| Following your own policies and procedures consistently |
| Putting warnings and outcomes in writing, with reasons |
| Keeping calm, professional and focused on the conduct, not the person |
| Documenting each step fairly and accurately |
| ✗ NOT REASONABLE (RISK OF BULLYING) |
| Shouting, belittling or humiliating an employee, especially in front of others |
| Criticising someone personally rather than addressing the work |
| “Ambushing” an employee with a disciplinary meeting and no notice |
| Refusing a reasonable request for a support person |
| Setting impossible deadlines or workloads designed to make someone fail |
| Singling out one employee while ignoring the same conduct in others |
| Ignoring your own policies or grievance procedures without good reason |
| Sending a barrage of sarcastic or aggressive emails about non-urgent matters |
| Continuing to “manage” someone in a way that is clearly excessive or vindictive |
| Failing to investigate or respond to legitimate complaints |
The lesson: it’s rarely the decision itself that creates a bullying claim — it’s the way the decision is carried out.
Every situation is different — and a quick conversation before you act can save you a world of trouble. If you’d like a second opinion before your next performance or conduct discussion, book a free 30-minute discovery call and we’ll help you get the process right from the start.
Case study: the same issue, two very different outcomes
To see how this plays out in real life, consider two contrasting Fair Work Commission decisions about managers raising performance concers.
| ✓ FOUND TO BE REASONABLE |
| Application by E.K. [2017] FWC 3907 |
| An employee claimed her supervisor’s repeated conduct in raising issues with her — including, she alleged, raising his voice — amounted to bullying. |
| The Commission examined the facts from both sides and found that, while the employee genuinely believed she was being bullied, the evidence didn’t bear that out. The supervisor had legitimate cause to address the issues, and the conduct was reasonable management action carried out in a reasonable manner. |
| Result: Application dismissed. The manager’s documented, justified approach held up. |
|
✗ FOUND TO BE UNREASONABLE |
|
The employer took several pieces of management action — but the Commission found some of them were unreasonable. |
|
The employer had failed to deal with grievances the employee had lodged, and a manager’s failure to properly check a leave balance led to annual leave being unreasonably refused. |
|
Result: Orders made (including anti-bullying and positive-communication training). Legitimate authority isn’t enough — the process and manner have to be reasonable too. |
The contrast is instructive. In E.K., the manager raised genuine issues and could show a fair, justified process — so even repeated, firm management was not bullying. In Burbeck, the employer had legitimate concerns too, but ignored grievances and departed from fair process — and that’s what created liability.
A simple test for managers
Before you act, ask yourself:
- Is this genuine management action? (Performance, conduct, work direction — not personal.)
- Is it reasonable to take this action? (Is there a real, evident and intelligible reason?)
- Am I carrying it out in a reasonable manner? (Fair process, advance notice, support person, calm and professional, consistent with policy, documented.)
If you can answer “yes” to all three and back it up with documentation, you are acting reasonably — and you’re well protected. The fact that an employee finds the process uncomfortable, or even feels some degree of humiliation, does not by itself make it unreasonable; the Commission has acknowledged that some discomfort can be a natural consequence of a manager exercising legitimate authority.
How Fresh HR Insights helps you manage with confidence
Most managers don’t get into trouble because they’re acting in bad faith — they get into trouble because they’re unsure of the process and they’re doing it alone. That’s exactly what we fix.
- On-call HR Support Packages — from $295+GST per month, with no lock-in contracts. Pick up the phone before the difficult conversation and we’ll guide you through it the right way.
- Workplace policies and procedures — including bullying, harassment, discrimination, performance and discipline policies tailored to your business, so you always have a fair process to follow.
- Performance Management Guide — a practical, step-by-step resource for managing performance the Fair Work–compliant way.
- HR Audit — check your processes and documentation are claim-ready before you ever need them.
Manage with clarity, not fear
You have every right to manage your team — to set standards, address underperformance, and deal with conduct issues. Do it fairly, follow a sound process, document it, and treat people with respect, and you’ll be acting reasonably under the law.
If you’d like a second opinion before your next tricky conversation, book a free 30-minute discovery call. We’ll help you handle it the right way — for your employee and for your business.
What is “reasonable management action carried out in a reasonable manner”?
It’s the legal principle (in section 789FD(2) of the Fair Work Act 2009) that managing staff — performance reviews, addressing underperformance, discipline, allocating work and giving feedback — is not bullying when the action is reasonable and the way it’s carried out is also reasonable. The Fair Work Commission applies an objective test based on all the circumstances.
Can I performance-manage an employee without it being bullying?
Yes. Performance management is a legitimate management action. As long as you have a genuine reason, follow a fair process, and carry it out respectfully and consistently with your policies, it is not bullying — even if the employee finds it stressful or upsetting.
Does management action have to be perfect to be “reasonable”?
No. The Commission has made clear that management action doesn’t have to be perfect or ideal, and a course of action can still be reasonable even if particular steps weren’t. What matters is whether, overall and objectively, the action and the manner were reasonable in the circumstances.
What makes management action UNreasonable?
Common red flags include shouting or humiliating someone, ignoring your own policies or grievance procedures, refusing a reasonable support-person request, setting people up to fail, singling someone out, ambushing them without notice, or acting in a way that’s excessive, vindictive or unlawful. Unreasonableness usually lies in the manner, not the decision.
If an employee feels humiliated, does that make it bullying?
Not on its own. The Commission has recognised that some degree of discomfort or even humiliation can be a natural consequence of a manager legitimately exercising authority. The test is objective — any unreasonableness must come from the actual management action, not simply from how the employee perceived it.
How can I prove my management action was reasonable?
Documentation is everything. Keep records of the performance or conduct issue, the reasons for your action, meeting invitations and notes, the support offered, and the outcomes. Following a clear, written policy consistently is one of the strongest protections you can have.
Should I get advice before a difficult conversation?
It’s well worth it. A quick call before you act can mean the difference between a clean, defensible process and an avoidable claim. Fresh HR Insights offers on-call HR support from $295+GST per month with no lock-in contracts — book a free discovery call to learn more.
The difference between a clean, defensible process and a costly bullying claim often comes down to one conversation. Book your FREE 30-minute discovery call now — before the difficult conversation, not after. No lock-in, no obligation, just expert guidance when it matters most.
Facing a tricky conversation? Book your FREE 30-minute discovery call today — and manage with clarity, not fear.
