the Applicant v Southern Cross Centre
At a glance
- 1
What happened
the Applicant appealed a decision made on January 2, 2025, by Deputy President O’Keeffe. The original decision dismissed the Applicant's application for anti-bullying orders against Southern Cross Centre (SCC). Deputy President O’Keeffe found SCC was not a constitutionally covered business and that the Applicant no longer attended the workplace, meaning the application lacked reasonable prospects of success. the Applicant argued SCC *was* a constitutionally covered business, his physical presence wasn't relevant to bullying risk, and he continued to experience bullying.
What was decided
the Fair Work Commission refused the Applicant permission to appeal the earlier decision. The Full Bench found that the Applicant did not present an arguable case of appealable error. They also noted the Deputy President’s finding regarding the lack of bullying risk was well-founded, meaning no anti-bullying order could be made. Crucially, the appeal was filed almost a year and a half late, making it noncompliant with Fair Work Commission Rules. The application was dismissed.
What it means for employers
Employers should ensure they understand their constitutional coverage under Fair Work legislation. This case highlights that an employee’s physical presence at a workplace is a factor in bullying applications. Employers must also be aware of strict time limits for appeals and lodging documents with the Fair Work Commission.
What it means for employees
Employees seeking to appeal Fair Work decisions need to adhere to strict timelines, as delays can result in the application being dismissed. The decision emphasizes that physical presence at a workplace is relevant when considering bullying applications.
Want this applied to your situation?
Reading the decision is free. FairWork Mate goes further — it reads the full case library and applies precedents like this one to your specific facts, citing the cases as it reasons. General information, not a guaranteed outcome or legal advice.
Send your details to Liquid Employment Lawyers
Liquid Employment Lawyers is a paid legal service and our referral partner, not free Fair Work advice. FairWork Mate may receive a referral fee from Liquid Legal. Tell them what has happened and a member of their team will call you back. For free general guidance, use our tools or call the Fair Work Ombudsman on 13 13 94.
Prefer to read first? About Liquid Employment Lawyers · Not sure if you need a lawyer? Read the legal help guides
Want more cases like this?
FairWork Mate tracks Fair Work Ombudsman, Fair Work Commission and Federal Court decisions across Australia. The AI advisor answers plain-English questions grounded on the full corpus — awards cited, industry, penalty amounts and affected employee counts — with a citation to the underlying decision on every answer.
FairWork Mate AI
This is one decision. Pro reads all of them.
Free case pages cite the top 250 decisions. Pro opens the full Fair Work Commission and Federal Court library, cross-references your own situation against it, and cites the decision behind every answer — plus document upload, so it can read your letter or contract line by line. 150 questions a month, cancel anytime.
Renews monthly at A$29.99 until you cancel. By continuing you agree to our Terms.
Get notified on new Fair Work cases
Free email alerts when we publish new underpayment decisions, penalty orders, and workplace law updates.