High Court explores boundaries between professional duty and workplace rules
The General Division of Singapore's High Court recently dealt with a termination case that questioned when employees could undertake their own workplace investigations. The decision examined the limits of professional obligations when they appear to conflict with workplace protocols.
A worker who discovered what he perceived as unfair treatment in his workplace decided to gather evidence himself. He accessed confidential records without authorisation, arguing this was necessary to document his concerns about workplace conduct and safety issues.
The case explored whether employees could conduct independent investigations into colleagues' conduct, what constituted appropriate whistleblowing, and how organisations should handle situations where professional duties appeared to conflict with workplace policies.
At Singapore Health Services Private Limited (SingHealth), COVID-19 pandemic protocols in 2020 restricted doctors' movements between hospitals.
Two neurosurgeons faced different circumstances: one remained at Singapore General Hospital handling complex cases, while the worker was assigned to Sengkang General Hospital performing mainly routine procedures.
The worker began expressing concerns about his colleague's activities to Associate Professor David Low Chyi Yeu, then Head of Department of Neurosurgery at Tan Tock Seng Hospital, and Associate Professor Ang Beng Ti, Head of Department of Neurosurgery at Singapore General Hospital. He alleged his colleague was improperly attending specialty clinics and gaining unfair advantages.
After feeling his concerns weren't adequately addressed, the worker began accessing patient records without authorisation. He later admitted to accessing records of more than 70 patients who weren't under his care.
SingHealth established several committees to investigate both the favouritism allegations and unauthorised access. A Review Panel found no evidence supporting the worker's claims, stating any advantages were circumstantial rather than deliberate favouritism.
The Committee of Inquiry discovered the worker had accessed records across multiple departments. The organisation's Group Chief Medical Informatics Officer documented in the investigation that "[the worker] accessed the records of 42 patients on 65 occasions."
SingHealth's internal data audit later revealed even more extensive unauthorised access - records of 72 patients had been accessed 103 times without proper authorisation.
The worker argued his actions were justified under the Singapore Medical Council's Ethical Code and Guidelines, which require doctors to report colleagues if they have reasonable concerns.
However, SingHealth's policies explicitly stated that "[workers] who come across any suspected fraud and/or misconduct should not attempt to personally conduct an investigation." The High Court found that "[the worker] was not dismissed for whistleblowing. [The worker] was dismissed because he had accessed the records of patients who were not under his care, without authorisation."
The court's ruling emphasised that while patient safety concerns should be raised, proper channels must be followed: "Patient safety is of course a paramount concern in hospitals, and it is right that issues of patient safety should be raised. However, concerns about patient safety should be raised to the relevant authorities for them to investigate. It was not for [the worker] to carry out his own investigations by breaching patient confidentiality."
