Performance Pressure or Bullying? Fair Work Clarifies the Line in Equifax Dispute 

| July 1, 2025

A Corporate Bullying Allegation under Scrutiny

In Amanda Jane Eales v Equifax Australasia Group Services Pty Ltd & Ors [2025] FWC 621, the Fair Work Commission dealt with a bullying claim in a professional services context. The applicant, Ms Eales, lodged a stop bullying application under section 789FC of the Fair Work Act 2009, naming multiple senior managers from Equifax as respondents. 

She alleged that over a period of years, she was micromanaged, excluded from communications, subjected to excessive performance pressure, and treated differently from colleagues. She also claimed her managers mishandled an external complaint and unfairly placed her on a performance improvement plan, leading to significant stress and anxiety. 

What the Commission Found

After hearing evidence from both sides, the Commission dismissed the application. It found that while the applicant had genuine concerns, the conduct complained of did not meet the legal threshold for bullying. 

Critically, the Commission concluded that: 

• The actions taken by the managers were reasonable management actions, and 
• These actions were carried out in a reasonable manner. 

The evidence showed the employer had responded to a formal complaint against the applicant by initiating performance management processes consistent with internal procedures. The managers provided opportunities to respond, support was offered during times of personal difficulty, and communication remained professional. 

Therefore, no stop bullying order was issued. 

What Does the Law Say About Bullying?

Under the Fair Work Act, bullying occurs when an individual or group of individuals: 

1. Repeatedly behaves unreasonably towards a worker, and 
2. The behaviour creates a risk to health and safety. 

However, reasonable management action carried out in a reasonable manner is excluded from this definition.

This means that employers are legally permitted to: 

• Provide feedback 
• Investigate complaints 
• Implement performance plans 

— as long as they do so respectfully, consistently, and with due process. 

In this case, the Commission closely analysed both the why and the how of Equifax’s actions. It acknowledged the employee’s distress, but ruled that distress alone is not enough—especially when the employer has followed a reasonable process. 

Implications for Employers and Employees

This decision reinforces several important principles: 

For Employers 

• Substance and delivery matter: Performance management must be both justified and conducted respectfully. 
• Documentation is your shield: Accurate records of conversations, warnings, and support offered can demonstrate procedural fairness. 
• Support counts: Offering help during stressful periods (such as wellbeing check-ins or adjustments) can reduce perceptions of hostility. 

For Employees 

• Not all unpleasant experiences at work will meet the legal standard of bullying. 
• Workers should expect professionalism and fairness, but also understand that structured performance management is a lawful part of employment. 
• Early communication and use of internal resolution processes can prevent escalation. 

Key Takeaways

Final Thoughts

The Equifax decision reinforces that while performance management can be stressful, it does not automatically constitute bullying. The law draws a clear distinction between reasonable management action and conduct that crosses the line into unlawful behaviour. For employers, the key takeaway is to ensure that performance processes are fair, transparent, and carried out with respect.

At IRiQ Law, we help businesses design fair performance management processes, deliver practical management training, and conduct independent workplace investigations. Let us help you build a compliant, confident team ready to navigate these complex workplace challenges.

Contact us to discuss how we can support your organisation in managing performance issues lawfully and effectively.