The Fair Work Commission has refused to grant a "stop the bullying order" to a senior Australian Bureau of Statistics public servant who alleged his boss was using the bureau's performance management system to bully and force him out of his job.

But in a ruling that has attracted the attention of employment lawyers around the country, FWC found the bureau was simply using its "management prerogative" to try to get its employee to do a better job.

The case was the first major test of Labor's much-vaunted anti-bullying laws in the public service, where claims of bullying and harassment are a hot-button issues, and addressed the vexed question of how the APS manages poor performers.

In its first six months of operation, to June 2014, the Fair Work Commission's anti-bullying jurisdiction has proved a tough arena for workers seeking orders against bosses or co-workers.

More than 340 claims have been lodged, with 197 of them finalised mostly by being withdrawn.

Of the 21 cases that made it through to decision-stage, 20 of them were dismissed and only one "stop the bullying" order had been issued and that was with the consent of both parties.

In the ABS case, the senior public servant, whose identity was suppressed by the commission, claimed  his boss had told him to come back where he came from, intimidated him, made hurtful remarks and fabricated claims against him.

"He patronises and puts me down under the guise of having performance issues," the claimant alleged.

"He treats me like a slave – he expects me to jump every time he asks me to do a task for him.

"He fabricates non-existing performance issues.

"All his actions demonstrate that he is trying to get me into trouble."

The public servant said the actions of his boss, identified simply as PR, left his subordinate in ill-health with his blood pressure up, insomnia and anxiety.

In January, the applicant complained to the bureau's personnel department that he was being bullied by PR and two of his previous managers.

But the human resources concluded that on each occasion, allegations of bullying were raised after the employee was told his performance must improve.

The bureau's response to its employee's allegations was that he was underperforming at his level and the ABS had tried to improve his performance.

The bureau's management rejected any suggestion of bullying and argued its employee's perception of the performance management process was misconceived.

Commission senior deputy president Lea Drake found no evidence the public servant's managers set out to bully him.

"Mr PR's concerns about the performance of the applicant are not motivated by an intention to bully him," Ms Drake wrote in her decision.

"I accept that it is the applicant's honestly held belief that all action taken to manage his performance has been motivated by a desire to establish a reason to terminate his employment.

"I am not persuaded that there is any justification for the applicant's belief.

"All of the material which I have considered demonstrates an ordinary exercise of management prerogative."