Nunes v Verinder

Industrial Relations Commission New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Nunes v Verinder [2026] NSWIRComm 1084 Hearing dates: 28-30 April, 4 May 2026 Date of orders: 1 September 2026 Decision date: 01 September 2026 Jurisdiction: Industrial Relations Commission Before: Commissioner Muir Decision: The application of Pedro Nunes is dismissed. Catchwords: EMPLOYMENT AND INDUSTRIAL LAW — Bullying EMPLOYMENT AND INDUSTRIAL LAW — Public sector — Teachers Legislation Cited: Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) Industrial Relations Act 1996, ss 144C, 144G Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) Cases Cited: Corney v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2024] QIRC 226 Re SB [2014] FWC 2104 Willis v Gibson (2015) 249 IR 1 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Pedro Nunes (Applicant) Katrina Verinder (First Respondent) Emma Blake (Second Respondent) Shaun Michaeil (Third Respondent) Lawrence Yu (Fourth Respondent) Kirsten Stroak (Fifth Respondent) Sharon Sands (Sixth Respondent) Secretary of the Department of Education (Seventh Respondent) Representation: Counsel: RL Gall (Respondents) Solicitors: Minter Ellison (Respondents) File Number(s): 2026/00013556 Publication restriction: Nil

DECISION Pedro Nunes seeks stop bullying orders against his employer, the Secretary of the NSW Department of Education (Secretary) and six colleagues (Individual Respondents). The Individual Respondents, together with their roles at the relevant times, are Katrina Verinder, Principal of Willoughby Public School (WPS), Emma Blake, a Deputy Principal of WPS, Shaun Michaeil, a Deputy Principal of WPS, Lawrence Yu, an Assistant Principal of WPS, Kirsten Stroak, an Acting Assistant Principal of WPS, and Sharon Sands, Director, Educational Leadership, Northern Sydney Network. Mr Nunes says that he was subjected to bullying at work, beginning in February 2025. Timeline Mr Nunes was first employed by the Secretary as a teacher in 2006. In 2023, he started working as a casual teacher at WPS. Since 2024, Mr Nunes has been employed as a full-time teacher at WPS, and has been a permanent, full-time teacher there since 9 April 2025. From around the beginning of 2025, Mr Nunes experienced personal difficulties, including relationship difficulties and associated anxieties and stresses, and other health difficulties including migraines. Mr Nunes’ non-work-related health issues appear to have waned by May 2025, and a Recovery at Work Plan was created. It also appears that around this time his relationship difficulties eased significantly. During 2025 there were a series of interactions between

Mr Nunes and the Individual Respondents which Mr Nunes says amounted to bullying. Mr Nunes expressly denied that there was any bullying of him prior to 2025. Mr Nunes remains employed and assigned to WPS, but is not presently working, having been on sick leave since 20 November 2025. Mr Nunes gave evidence about the following events as the bullying he says he was subjected to: On 27 February 2025, at the WPS swimming carnival, a colleague shouted at Mr Nunes, humiliating him in front of pupils, teachers and parents in the process; In April 2025, after Mr Nunes raised concerns about a policy under which students from different classes came together to eat during morning recess and lunch, his concerns were not properly addressed, and a more senior colleague rudely directed him to “toe the line” and implied he would suffer disadvantage if he did not do so; On 3 June 2025, Mr Nunes was bullied in a staff meeting by a colleague being rude and dismissive to him; On 1 May 2025, Mr Nunes was directed to obtain a medical certificate as to his fitness after he expressed “stress, sleep loss and memory impairment” to Ms Verinder, the WPS principal. Mr Nunes attended his GP and obtained a certificate clearing him as fit for work. Mr Nunes declined to apply for sick leave for the period he was absent, on the basis that he was not unfit for work and had been directed to attend his GP. There

was a lengthy, and at times terse series of exchanges between Mr Nunes and several colleagues about whether or not he should submit a sick leave request in order to be paid for the day; On 12 August 2025, a more senior colleague sent Mr Nunes a text message, intended for a different colleague. The subject of the text was, Mr Nunes says, an attempt by the sender to “fish for evidence” that Mr Nunes had engaged in sexual harassment; During September and October 2025 comments made by colleagues during staff meetings made Mr Nunes’ attendance at those meetings unreasonably stressful for Mr Nunes; When Mr Nunes indicated he no longer felt it appropriate to attend the meetings there was a series of emails exchanged between Mr Nunes and the WPS principal about whether it was mandatory for Mr Nunes to attend. Ultimately the principal unambiguously directed Mr Nunes to attend; and On 19 November 2025, a more senior colleague presented Mr Nunes with a “support plan”, intended to improve Mr Nunes’ teaching, which had been identified as deficient. Mr Nunes identifies this meeting, the support plan implementation, and the threat to his employment from that process, as the central incident in the bullying of him. Legal framework Industrial Relations Act 1996 Section 144G of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 (IR Act) empowers the Industrial Relations Commission (Commission) to make orders to

prevent an employee from being bullied at work. The Commission may only do so if it is satisfied first that: The employee has been bullied at work; and There is a risk that the bullying will continue. Section 144C of the IR Act provides that: (1) For this part, an employee is bullied at work if, while the employee is at work— (a) an individual, or group of individuals, repeatedly behaves unreasonably towards— (i) the employee, or (ii) a group of employees of which the employee is a member, and (b) the behaviour creates a risk to health and safety. (2) Subsection (1) does not apply to reasonable management action carried out in a reasonable way. Chapter 3A, Part 1 of the IR Act, where both ss 144C and 144G are found, was only recently inserted in the IR Act. While there have been some decisions concerning that Part, none have dealt substantively with the question of unreasonable behaviour, the risk of that behaviour to health and safety or the concept of reasonable management action. Previous decisions of the Fair Work Commission (FWC), and the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission (QIRC), have addressed each issue, and the IR Act provisions are essentially identical to their counterpart provisions in the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) and the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld). FWC and QIRC decisions From FWC and QIRC decisions can be drawn: Whether conduct is “unreasonable” is

to be assessed objectively: Corney v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2024] QIRC 226 at [15] – [23]: The circumstances known, or which ought reasonably to have been known, about the individuals concerned, including their physical and emotional circumstances, form part of that objective assessment; That an employee subjectively perceived conduct as unreasonable, or reacts adversely to it, does not of itself render the conduct unreasonable In respect of “reasonable management action”, the question is as phrased, and not an enquiry into whether the action could have been better more reasonable or more acceptable: Re Ms SB [2014] FWC 2104 at [51] – [52]: Management action need not be perfect or ideal to be reasonable; A course of action may remain reasonable notwithstanding the deficiencies in particular steps; For the action to be reasonable it must be lawful and not irrational, absurd or ridiculous: Any unreasonableness must arise from the management action itself rather than the employee’s perception of it: It would be relevant to consider whether the action departed significantly from established policies or procedures and if so whether such departure was justified in the circumstances. A requirement of reasonable management action is the existence of a rational connection between the employee’s conduct, behaviour or performance and the management response: Willis v

Gibson (2015) 249 IR 1 at [12]: The management action must represent a reasonable and proportionate response to the matters to which it is directed. Approach to assessing “repeated” unreasonable conduct and “group of” individuals The bullying alleged by Mr Nunes arises from a series of separate incidents. While there is some similarity between some of them, most of them are discrete from each other, and they involve a range of participants. This raises two questions: Whether the requirement of “repeated” connotes that there is a connection between the unreasonable acts, and if so the extent of the connection; and How the expression “group of individuals” informs that connection and/or any connection between the individuals. Beginning with the question of the group of individuals, I am satisfied that any requirement for a connection between the individuals is met. This is because of the relatively small workplace involved, and the evidence demonstrating that most of the Individual Respondents were contemporaneously aware of each of the events as they unfolded. They are more senior colleagues, each of whom was charged with some degree of management responsibility in relation to Mr Nunes. Generally, when an application relies on a series of discrete events, the Commission will assess each of the events to determine whether they are individually unreasonable and as a result of that

unreasonableness creates a risk to health and safety. It may also be necessary for the Commission to assess the totality of the events as a separate assessment, including because the totality is cumulatively unreasonable. For reasons set out in detail below, there has not been repeated unreasonable conduct. This is because the only two events which I consider were relevantly unreasonable are of such a different character from each other that they lack the relevant “repetition”. The evidence Each of Mr Nunes and the Individual Respondents gave evidence via affidavit or witness statement, and each was required for cross-examination. Their evidence is addressed below in consideration of the various events. Lucy Nunes, Mr Nunes’ wife and David Mahoney also gave evidence for Mr Nunes via affidavits. Neither was required for cross-examination. Mr Nunes also summonsed Jane McConnell and Michael Donnelly to give evidence, which was received through questioning by Mr Nunes. Lucy Nunes’ evidence supported the evidence of Mr Nunes in respect of Mr Nunes’ perceptions of his treatment by the Individual Respondents, and his perceptions of the effects that had on him. This evidence was not of significant assistance to me, because I am required to assess those actions objectively. That assessment is set out below. Lucy Nunes’ evidence of the events occurring at WPS was only relevant to the

extent it could show that Mr Nunes had recalled them consistently, as she was not present for any of the impugned events. I conclude Mr Nunes has been a consistent historian. Mr Mahoney is a classroom teacher at an unspecified NSW “government school”. His evidence set out two general statements. One about assessment and reporting practices, and a second about operational flexibility and school routines. He set out unexceptional statements which might apply to any government or business organisation. His evidence was not referenced by either party in their submissions. Mrs McConnell is a teacher at WPS. She was questioned about her recollection of the events of the WPS swimming carnival. Her evidence is addressed below in consideration of that event. Mr Donnelly is a teacher at a school for students with special needs. One student was taught by Mr Donnelly 4 days a week, and by Mr Nunes the other day. I did not permit Mr Nunes to ask questions about support which might have been put in place by WPS in relation to the student, as the issue of such supports had not been raised in the material filed before hearing. Mr Donnelly was asked about a day on which he attended WPS to observe the student in Mr Nunes’ class. While he could recall the day Mr Nunes was asking him about, his recollection was too general to assist the Commission. The individual events The WPS swimming

carnival On 27 February 2025 the WPS swimming carnival was held at a local swimming centre. Along with seven of his colleagues, Mr Nunes’ main role for the day, in so far as it related to the actual races, was timekeeper in one of the eight lanes. Mr Nunes used a stopwatch to determine the time for competitors in his lane. After this time was passed along, and other events occurred, Mr Nunes was to reset the watch in preparation for the next race. Ms Stroak had a role including recording these times, and other management of the races. At the time of the swimming carnival, Ms Stroak was an Acting Assistant Principal, and so senior to Mr Nunes. After one of the races, there was some further action required by Ms Stroak before the next race should be permitted to start, and she called out to Mr Nunes that she was not ready for the next race. It was accepted by all witnesses that the carnival was a noisy and fast-moving environment. Ms Stroak’s first attempt to attract Mr Nunes’ attention was not heard by Mr Nunes. It was only on the third attempt, with Ms Stroak raising her voice with each attempt, that Mr Nunes heard Ms Stroak. Of the four witnesses who gave evidence about the event, being Mr Nunes, Ms Stroak, Ms Blake and Mrs McConnell, there was little commonality as to the details of the event. The most that could be agreed was that Ms Stroak had called out to Mr Nunes with an

increasingly loud voice. Mr Nunes’ recollection included Ms Stroak having an angry tone, facial expressions consistent with exasperation, and having huffed at Mr Nunes because he had not responded to her earlier calls. Mr Nunes describes being embarrassed and humiliated in front of the school community because of what had occurred. Ms Stroak agreed she had used a loud voice when calling to Mr Nunes but denied having an angry tone or that she was huffing in exasperation. Mrs McConnell, a teacher at WPS, described Ms Stroak as having used a “teacher’s tone” in calling out to Mr Nunes. Mrs McConnell was summonsed at the request of Mr Nunes, and her evidence was not set out in a witness statement prior to hearing. Her evidence was supportive of Ms Stroak’s evidence. Mr Nunes and Ms Stroak agreed that they exchanged words shortly thereafter. They did not agree about the second interaction. Ms Stroak recalled a calm interaction with Mr Nunes during which she apologised for any offence which he had taken and attempted to explain that she was simply trying to get his attention in a noisy environment. Mr Nunes’ recollection was that he had deliberately stepped in front of Ms Stroak, as she passed nearby him. His evidence was that the second interaction between them was heated and included raised voices on both sides. I observed during the arbitration that Mr Nunes’ description of the

interaction reflected badly on both he and Ms Stroak. Ms Blake gave evidence that she spoke with Ms Stroak after returning to school because she was concerned about Ms Stroak’s well-being, having been told Ms Stroak was upset. She did not witness either interaction between Ms Stroak and Mr Nunes. In respect of the first interaction, better planning, or perhaps Ms Stroak simply moving closer to Mr Nunes, may have avoided the situation, but the raised voice of Ms Stroak falls well short of constituting unreasonableness behaviour. Even on the recollection of Mr Nunes, the language, tone and body language of Ms Stroak could not rise to a level at which a teacher should reasonably experience humiliation or embarrassment. It is not likely that such an event would create a risk to health and safety. I have concluded that the only aspect of unreasonable behaviour recollected by anyone was Mr Nunes’ recollection of him confronting Ms Stroak. On no basis was it reasonable for him to have raised his concerns in the way he described, both in intercepting Ms Stroak, and then in engaging in what, on his description, was a shouting match with her. After the swimming carnival, there was a period of approximately 10 days during which the events were raked over in a series of meetings including between Mr Nunes, Ms Stroak, Ms Blake and Mr Yu. Mr Nunes remained upset, and this was compounded when

it became apparent to him that the school management was reviewing the events through the lens of the second interaction. Mr Nunes also formed a view that Ms Verinder had directed Ms Stroak not to repeat her apology while Ms Blake investigated the event, which compounded Mr Nunes’ angst. From the totality of the evidence, it is clear to me that Ms Blake did initially view the events through the lens of the second interaction. Given the way the matter was reported, and in light of my findings above, this was not an unreasonable starting point for Ms Blake. I do not find Ms Blake said more to Ms Stroak than that Ms Stroak did not need to further apologise, and certainly not a direction. Ultimately apologies were repeated by both Ms Stroak and by Mr Nunes, with no further action considered necessary. That is where the issues arising from the school swimming carnival should have been left. Unfortunately, the events of that day became the wellspring of difficulties in the relationship between Mr Nunes and his colleagues at WPS. On each subsequent occasion Mr Nunes felt he had been treated unfairly, Mr Nunes raised the events at the school swimming carnival. The text message On 12 August 2025, Mr Yu, an Assistant Principal at WPS, sent a text message to Mr Nunes the contents of which read: “Bro, can you recall when Pedro offered Deidre chocolates, did he have his arm around her?” It

was accepted by all that the message was sent to Mr Nunes in error. It was intended for another colleague at WPS. Mr Yu apologised to Mr Nunes very soon after sending the text message, and did so again on several subsequent occasions. Mr Nunes did not accept Mr Yu’s apology and repeatedly requested that it be repeated in different formats. Mr Nunes regarded the text message as an attempt by Mr Yu to have other staff members falsely create a narrative of sexual harassment by Mr Nunes. Mr Yu categorically denied any attempt to drum up false accusations and was clearly embarrassed at having sent the text message to Mr Nunes. I conclude that Mr Yu was genuinely attempting to follow up an issue which had been raised with him, albeit related to an event some months earlier. It cannot be a surprise that a senior teacher would test whether there was a basis for a more thorough investigation. Mr Yu, properly, considered himself bound to do so. Conversely, it could hardly be surprising that a teacher would be distressed to discover that they were the subject of such an investigation in that way. I determine that Mr Yu’s action in investigating was management action, and reasonable as such. Whether the management action was carried out in a reasonable way is not as clear. Mr Yu’s error caused Mr Nunes distress, and it is easy to understand that such distress would be the natural and

normal consequence of such a misdirected message. Section 144C prescribes unreasonable “behaviour”. Accordingly, I must determine whether Mr Yu’s behaviour was unreasonable, and not whether Mr Yu’s “conduct” or “actions” were unreasonable. In the context of the text message, I conclude that behaviour means Mr Yu’s negligence, or lack of care, in misdirecting the text message is the relevant behaviour. Not, for example, Mr Yu’s action in sending the message. I conclude that the carelessness in sending the text message to Mr Nunes was the kind of behaviour captured by s 144C. This is because the management action was not carried out in a reasonable way, in that it was not carried out with reasonable care. It is also because Mr Yu’s carelessness constituted unreasonable behaviour, in any event. Behaviour of that kind clearly creates “a risk” to health and safety. It should be recorded that WPS concluded that Mr Nunes had not engaged in sexual harassment. Other incidents Mr Nunes referred to an interaction with Mr Yu in April 2025. This interaction proceeded over several days. It began after Mr Nunes disagreed with a school wide policy that, divided by age cohort, all the students would gather outside the classrooms to eat at the start of morning recess and lunchtime, before dispersing for the remainder of each break. Mr Nunes disagreed with this decision, for reasons which he

explained rationally, and emailed the principal asking for his class to be excused. While Mr Nunes’ reasons were rational, the school leadership did not agree with him for reasons which were also rational. The exchange between Mr Nunes and the principal was less than ideal, because the principal was slow to respond. Nevertheless, Ms Verinder ultimately did not agree with Mr Nunes. Mr Yu spoke with Mr Nunes about the decision of Ms Verinder. Mr Yu agreed that he had said words to the effect “sometimes you just need to toe the line” to Mr Nunes. Mr Nunes raised this is a further act of bullying, in addition to the requirement that his students join the eating together policy. Mr Yu may not have expressed his advice or opinion to Mr Nunes in the most eloquent or formal wording, but its meaning was unmistakable. Equally it was reasonable. Most employees will occasionally disagree with a decision which their manager takes. Subject to the decision being lawful and reasonable there are occasions when an employee must simply “toe the line”. In Mr Yu’s recollection, the expression was firm but without rancour. In Mr Nunes’ recollection Mr Yu’s expression carried a clear menace. It is likely each has truthfully described the conversation as they recalled it. I am not persuaded the interaction constituted unreasonable behaviour by Mr Yu. The enforcement of the policy for Mr Nunes’ class

was unexceptional and could not be unreasonable behaviour. In any event, enforcement of the policy was reasonable management action, conducted in a reasonable way. Albeit colourfully expressed, Mr Yu responded rationally to Mr Nunes’ pushback on the eating policy and explained to Mr Nunes why the policy was in place. Mr Yu attempted to explain to Mr Nunes that sometimes an employee must accept and comply with a manager’s decision that does not accord with their views. In doing so Mr Yu was explaining and enforcing a school policy (management action), and in my view he did that in a reasonable way. On 1 May 2025 Ms Verinder had a conversation with Mr Nunes during which Mr Nunes expressed a concern for his own health. As a result, Ms Verinder directed Mr Nunes to see a doctor to check if Mr Nunes was fit for work. Later that day, Mr Nunes’ GP certified him fit for work. Mr Nunes did not return to WPS that day, because by the time he had seen his GP the workday was effectively over. Mr Nunes did not provide a medical certificate certifying him unfit for work on the day and there began a stand-off in which Mr Nunes had a certificate of fitness for work but was marked as absent for the day for not presenting a sick certificate and applying for sick leave. Mr Nunes followed this issue up with administrative officers at WPS, who told him they did not have authority to make the changes

to the attendance records he sought. Ultimately Mr Nunes obtained authority from a relevant person, his attendance was changed from absent, and he was paid for the day. On one occasion while Mr Nunes was raising his concerns with an administrative officer, Ms Blake intervened. Ms Blake was passing the school office and heard Mr Nunes and an administrative officer speaking about the issue in what she considered to be raised voices. On Ms Blake’s recollection, she paused before immediately intervening to see if the matter would smooth over. When it became apparent to her that it would not, she intervened to support the administrative officer. On her evidence the administrative officer had no authority to do what Mr Nunes was asking her to do, and she explained this to Mr Nunes. On Mr Nunes’ recollection, Ms Blake had been underhanded in secretly listening to his conversation with the administrative officer, and this was the substance of his categorisation of her intervention as bullying. I am not satisfied that Ms Blake’s intervention was unreasonable behaviour. Mr Nunes had a legitimate complaint, but I am satisfied that Ms Blake’s evidence that the administrative officer was not the person who could assist him was correct. I am also satisfied that as a person with some management responsibility in relation to Mr Nunes her intervention constituted reasonable management action in

a reasonable way. In any event, it was entirely reasonable for Ms Blake to intervene in support of the administrative officer where she heard Mr Nunes being unreasonable to the administrative officer. I am satisfied Mr Nunes was pursuing his legitimate concern in an unreasonable manner with the administrative officer. It was clear that the issue of Mr Nunes being marked absent, and his request for that to be reversed could have been handled better. However, I consider that Mr Nunes approaching to the wrong staff contributed substantially to the delays and aggravation surrounding the process. On balance, I am not satisfied that the process amounted to bullying, because it lacked the relevant unreasonableness. Mr Nunes raised an interaction which he says occurred on 8 April 2025 in the course of a staff meeting. The details provided by Mr Nunes were scant, but the substance was that he had not prepared his students for a mathematics test because he was unaware that the test was to take place. Mr Nunes says that Ms Stroak reprimanded and humiliated him when she said words to the effect “this was discussed at the last meeting where you were present and it’s in the minutes”. Ms Stroak’s recollection was that her words to Mr Nunes were to the effect “this has been discussed at the last couple of meetings. I’m sure I emailed you about it.” In Ms Stroak’s recollection the issue would

have passed with little comment except that Mr Nunes continued to interject about the test, to assert that he didn’t know anything about it, and question why his students were being tested. Ms Stroak also recalled a private conversation with Mr Nunes after the meeting which, albeit with more detail, accords with Mr Nunes’ recollection. The substance of the private conversation was Mr Nunes’ complaint that Ms Stroak was treating him differently because he was not a permanently appointed teacher. He then went on to re-agitate his unhappiness about events at the swimming carnival. I prefer the recollection of Ms Stroak, including because there is more context, and because it accords with Mr Nunes’ evidence of his reactions on this and other occasions. It is consistent with Mr Nunes’ own words in describing his unhappiness at any interaction even approaching a public rebuke. Mr Nunes also raised an interaction which occurred on 3 June 2025. Mr Nunes describes events during a staff meeting, the substance of which was him apologising to the meeting for a mix up which had resulted in some students in his class not attending a planned speech competition. Mr Nunes describes the bullying as a responding comment by a colleague, not being one of the Individual Respondents, to the effect “well next time, if you’re unsure just ask”. Even as described by Mr Nunes, it is difficult to avoid the

conclusion that by June 2025 Mr Nunes had become so sensitive to perceived criticism that the mildest “rebuke” was received by Mr Nunes as a personal attack. Mr Nunes repeatedly expressed a view that only praise should be delivered in public; criticism should be delivered only in private. The difficulty for Mr Nunes is that the evidence before the Commission demonstrated that specific criticism and substantive negative feedback about his work was delivered in private settings. Mr Nunes’ perception of general comments, perhaps implicitly negative, as targeted public criticism are not supported by the evidence. The two examples immediately above are illustrative of this conclusion. On 9 September 2025, Mr Nunes advised Ms Verinder that he no longer felt safe to attend staff meetings. After this, there was a series of emails exchanged between them. In the emails Mr Nunes questioned whether Ms Verinder’s repeated response, that Mr Nunes was “required and expected” to attend, indicated a mandatory direction for Mr Nunes to attend. After eventually receiving Ms Verinder’s direct answer that it was mandatory, Mr Nunes advised Ms Verinder that he would submit sick leave requests for the period of the staff meetings each week. Given the history of expressed distress and anxiety by Mr Nunes, the lengthy to and fro about the meaning of “required and expected” warrants careful

consideration. This is so, notwithstanding that legally the phrase is abundantly clear. The use of “required” leaves no room for doubt that attendance was mandatory. Given Mr Nunes continued to question whether the phrase “required and expected” meant mandatory, it is difficult to see why his question could not have been directly answered in the terms asked by Mr Nunes. Against this, it is clear that Ms Verinder saw no ambiguity and was using a phrase provided to her by departmental offices employed to advise on such matters. Further, it is understandable that by this stage Ms Verinder was frustrated that even what she considered simple and obvious communication was being challenged by Mr Nunes in what she saw as repeated unreasonable behaviour by Mr Nunes. Behaviour which I conclude added unreasonable and unnecessary stress to her and Mr Nunes’ other colleagues at WPS. Had Mr Nunes been more moderate in his responses to his colleagues it appears obvious to me that one of two things would have flowed. The first is that the aggravation between Mr Nunes and his colleagues would likely not have reached the level it did. Alternatively, if his colleagues’ responses had been as described, but without the background of Mr Nunes’ increasingly difficult responses, there would have been a basis for a finding that the exchanges between Mr Nunes and Ms Verinder about the meaning of

“required and expected” amounted to bullying of Mr Nunes. I do not, in the totality of the circumstances, conclude that Mr Nunes was bullied by the exchanges. Having heard the evidence of each of the Individual Respondents, it is clear that they found dealing with Mr Nunes stressful and draining. I have concluded that the majority of the irritation and aggravation was initiated by the conduct of Mr Nunes. It is not surprising that, when faced with an option of engaging enthusiastically with Mr Nunes, or shrinking from contact with him, they chose to avoid Mr Nunes where this was an option. This conclusion does not equate to a determination that his colleagues, and in particular the Individual Respondents, shunned or refused to work with him when it was an appropriate and necessary part of their employment. Finally, it should be recorded that there were a range of other interactions which were the subject of some, albeit scant, evidence of a similar nature to the exchanges between Mr Nunes and Ms Verinder concerning Mr Nunes’ attendance at staff meetings. These proceed in a similar vein, demonstrating an increasing reluctance by Mr Nunes’ colleagues to enthusiastically engage with him where not strictly necessary. Consideration set out in the preceding paragraph applies equally to each of those events and I do not propose to set them out in full. Additional Support Plan On 19

November 2025, Mr Michaeil met with Mr Nunes. Also present was a union representative supporting Mr Nunes, and an administrative officer to take minutes. Mr Michaeil told Mr Nunes that Ms Verinder had decided to give Mr Nunes a support plan. In the usual way of these matters, a support plan precedes, and may help a teacher to avoid, a so-called TIP. A TIP is a Teacher Improvement Plan which is a formal process by which a teacher must improve, or risk being dismissed for failing to meet the teaching standards. Mr Michaeil recalled that he was instructed to speak with Mr Nunes, read from a prepared script, and then to give Mr Nunes what he described as a “support plan”. The WPS principal had asked Mr Michaeil to meet with Mr Nunes about the support program specifically because Mr Michaeil had not been the subject of previous complaints by Mr Nunes. It was the position of the Secretary, supported by the Individual Respondents in the WPS leadership, that they had followed the usual and ordinary process prescribed by the Secretary to place a teacher on a support plan. What was handed to Mr Nunes was a single A4 page. It set out three weeks of events over 16 days. There was, at most, a five-word headline for any event; with no more than a short sentence underneath, describing what was intended for that day. The document gave only the barest description of what was to happen. What the

remedial support was directed to address, how Mr Nunes had failed to meet the teaching standard relevant to the activity on any day, or what Mr Nunes might do to prepare for any particular day was not set out. The script Mr Michaeil used was in evidence, and had been annotated to briefly record some of the questions Mr Nunes raised during the meeting. This document is more detailed and provides considerable information which does not appear on the document given to Mr Nunes. There was significant disagreement between Mr Nunes and the Individual Respondents, and in particular Ms Stroak and Ms Blake, about whether concerns about Mr Nunes’ teaching had been raised with him during the course of 2025. Mr Nunes denied that this had been the case. Ms Stroak and Ms Blake gave clear and compelling evidence that they had raised concerns with Mr Nunes during the year when the issues had arisen. Ms Stroak was a calm and responsive witness who impressed as considered and as having responded with care about the issues raised with her during her evidence. I reject Mr Nunes’ submission that “Ms Stroak is someone who loves the limelight and she enjoyed her time at the court and was that was very obvious …”. [1] Ms Stroak appeared, unlike some other witnesses, to have prepared herself mentally for the day, to have refreshed her memory from her statement, and to have carefully considered her

answers without any sense of avoiding the questions being asked. Ms Blake similarly appeared to take her evidence seriously, albeit that on some occasions her recollection differed from detail able to be cross-referenced with contemporaneous documents. Ms Verinder also treated her evidence seriously, answered the questions asked of her and did so with apparent thoughtfulness. The same could not be said of Mr Yu or Mr Michaeil. Each of them was frequently non-responsive and appeared on occasions to evade the questions which had been asked of them. Both were unnecessarily difficult, repeatedly asking that questions in cross examination be rephrased or repeated. Any evidence from Ms Stroak or Ms Verinder would be preferred to that of Mr Nunes where there is a direct contradiction. This was also the case with Ms Blake, subject to consideration of contemporaneous records. Fortunately, there was ultimately little factual difference between the recollections of Mr Nunes and other witnesses. There was some difference in specific wording, but no more than might be expected of people recalling conversations as much as a year ago. I have concluded these differences are less important than the witnesses’ recollections of the tone of the conversations, and in that respect, I find the witnesses against Mr Nunes more compelling. I do not consider Mr Nunes to be either unreliable or in any way

dishonest, but as set out above at [78] and [85] – [90], my overall impression is that Mr Nunes was the one setting the wrong tone. Mrs Sands’ evidence was important because it revealed why Ms Verinder and Mr Nunes had such differing views of the support plan which was eventually provided to Mr Nunes in January 2026. This was only provided after significant correspondence between Mr Nunes, his union, Ms Verinder and Mrs Sands. The final document which Mrs Sands and Ms Verinder had agreed upon was unfortunately not the document which Mrs Sands sent to Mr Nunes. The document sent to Mr Nunes by Mrs Sands was an outdated draft containing a number of places where further detail should have been inserted following all of the circular correspondence. Had the correct document been sent to Mr Nunes, a considerable degree of angst could have been saved between the parties. The fact that this document, even if it had been the correct document, did not accompany the initial presentation of the support plan to Mr Nunes exposes the unreasonableness of that process. Clearly the decision to put Mr Nunes on a support plan was a management decision. For reasons that follow, this decision was reasonable management action. I conclude that Mr Nunes was told about the issues of concern with his teaching as they arose. I accept that it was done in a reasonable way, and in a way which a member of the

teaching service should objectively have understood. I also conclude that it was reasonable to expect Mr Nunes to have understood the issues were of concern to the leadership at WPS. I accept that Ms Stroak and Ms Blake raised their concerns with Mr Nunes at the time, as the Secretary’s policies require and as Mr Nunes says should have happened. The most likely explanation for Mr Nunes’ evidence to the contrary is not that he was deliberately untruthful. It is that Mr Nunes was so focused on his anxious reaction to events that he simply did not process the substance of what was being raised with him. It was the position of the Secretary that WPS followed the usual departmental approach to such matters. Following a standard process and the extent of any departure have been held to be a means to test the reasonableness of a process of management action. It is apparent that the process followed was the usual process. I do not consider that the support program was carried out in a reasonable way. It was to start the next day, 20 November 2025 and proceed for 16 days. The fact that much of the detail was not provided until January 2026, and only after considerable follow up, demonstrates that. Even without the considerable history of unhappy relations between Mr Nunes and his colleagues, it is hard to see that presenting a teacher with a single A4 sheet can constitute reasonable

management action conducted in a reasonable manner. In Mr Nunes’ circumstances, presenting him with a plan starting the next day, and without fuller details of issues and means for resolution clearly “creates a risk to health and safety”. It was indeed obvious to the principal that Mr Nunes would be more sensitive to criticism than most. Ms Verinder took this into account in tasking Mr Michaeil to inform Mr Nunes of the support plan. Conclusion as to specific events To this point, I have concluded two events have the requisite unreasonableness and risk to health and safety. Do the events found to be unreasonable constitute repeated behaviour? Grammatically, repeated might be something done just twice, and there will likely be occasions when a second action might constitute repeated behaviour. Likely two events would constitute repeated behaviour if the two events were the same, or of a closely similar nature. In Re SB at [41] Commissioner Hampton set out: “[41] Having regard to the approach urged by the authorities, the concept of individuals ‘repeatedly behaving’ unreasonably implies the existence of persistent unreasonable behaviour but might refer to a range of behaviours over time. There is no specific number of incidents required for the behaviour to represent ‘repeatedly’ behaving unreasonably (provided there is more than one occurrence), nor does it appear that the same

specific behaviour has to be repeated. What is required is repeated unreasonable behaviour by the individual or individuals towards the applicant worker or a group of workers to which the applicant belongs.” In this case, the two events are of a sufficiently different character not to constitute the relevant repetition. One concerns potential misconduct, and one raises concerns as to Mr Nunes’ capacity. Mr Yu features to some extent in each, although in respect of the support plan Mr Yu was peripheral. One is a preliminary inquiry by a single person, the other a determined action by WPS leadership to ensure required teaching standards. The first issue had been closed some time when the second arose. Against my conclusion, I have found that both events exhibit a lack of care and attention to detail; both arise from reasonable management action, not conducted in a reasonable way. Taken as a whole, I consider the two events sufficiently different that they do not constitute repeated behaviour. I consider this outcome is clear, but not overwhelming. Is the totality of the events collectively bullying? The remaining events raised by Mr Nunes demonstrate a tense relationship between Mr Nunes and the Individual Respondents, but even collectively they do not meet the definition of bullying set out in s 144C of the IR Act. The reasons for this are those set out above at [79] to [84].

Objectively they do not have either the requisite unreasonableness or risk to health and safety. As set out above, the tense relationship is fundamentally the result of the approach adopted by Mr Nunes, and to the extent there was any responding formality or lack of warmth in the actions of the Individual Respondents, it arose from the approach adopted by Mr Nunes. The events collectively do not constitute bullying. Outcome Accordingly, I am required to dismiss the application. Order The application of Pedro Nunes is dismissed. C Muir Commissioner ** Endnote 1. Tcpt, 4 May 2026, p38(25) DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 01 September 2026