PwC defends bullying case, sacked associate not fired because of ‘protected’ complaints

A woman who claims she had “an awful time” working at PwC was not entitled to make a complaint under the Fair Work Act, the firm said in its defence against her bullying allegation.

PwC has lodged its defence against a former employee who alleged she was bullied in an adverse action claim. Picture: Andrew Henshaw

A woman who claims she had “an awful time” working at PwC was not entitled to make a complaint under the Fair Work Act, the ­accounting giant said in its ­defence of a bullying allegation by the former employee.

Jane Langley, who worked for the firm until she was retrenched last year, is suing PwC over bullying allegations. She is seeking a declaration that the firm and her former colleague Andrew Tran breached Fair Work rules, as well as penalties and compensation in respect of lost wages.

Ms Langley’s adverse action claim in the Federal Circuit and Family Court identified five examples between July 2022 and October last year when she said she made complaints or had discussions with her superiors about the alleged behaviour of Mr Tran, and said she was entitled to do so each time under section 341 (1)(c)(ii) of the Fair Work Act.

In its defence, PwC said Ms Langley did not identify the “source of entitlement” that gives her the ability to make a complaint about her employment.

“As a result, the first respondent cannot admit that the applicant possess (sic) the asserted workplace rights,” PwC said.

The firm said it “does not admit that the applicant was entitled to make a complaint or ­inquiry in relation to her employment pursuant to s 341(1)(c)(ii) of the FW Act.”

Instead, the professional services firm claimed a decision was made to dismiss her because her role in the Wellbeing, Health and Safety Team was made redundant amid a major restructure in October last year that resulted in more than 300 jobs being slashed across PwC Australia.

“The applicant’s employed role was selected as one that was no longer required to be performed by anyone,” the court documents read.

“The applicant’s main responsibility in the WHS Team was providing administrative support to an internal initiative relating to peer mental health support.

“In October 2023, a new director was appointed to the WHS team. That director commenced a review of the WHS team and identified the applicant’s role (and other roles) as no longer being required to be performed by anyone as the internal initiative she was overseeing was placed in review and moved to the internal psychologist’s portfolio for management, where it remains.”

PwC declined to comment when contacted on Tuesday.

Its defence went on to say that, while a suitable alternative role was identified for Ms Langley, she was not selected for it following a competitive selection process.

“No other suitable opportunities for redeployment were identified by either the first respondent or the applicant,” the firm said.

“As a result, the employment of the applicant was terminated in circumstances of redundancy.”

PwC agreed that Ms Langley “and other employees raised concerns about the second respondent’s (Mr Tran’s) leadership manner” in July 2022 during a formal evaluation of the diversity, inclusion and wellbeing team.

Ms Langley alleged that from 2020, while working in the diversity, inclusion and wellbeing team, she “experienced what can reasonably be described as ‘an awful time at work’ with her direct supervisor, the second respondent, behaving in a way that would constitute significant and repeated bullying”.

Mr Tran did not admit he was involved in any contraventions of the Fair Work Act in his own ­defence statement.

Ms Langley declined to ­comment.

She was urged to take a “pragmatic” approach to her dispute during a hearing March and to consider settling the case.

Originally published as PwC defends bullying case, sacked associate not fired because of ‘protected’ complaints