Court rules on worker's bullying case after report leaked
The Supreme Court of Queensland recently dealt with a case examining whether an employer breached its duty of care after a worker claimed he suffered psychiatric injury from alleged workplace harassment.
The worker said the harassment started after he made a confidential workplace complaint to an external agency. He believed his identity was improperly disclosed, leading to bullying and victimisation by colleagues and managers.
The worker sought damages, arguing his employer failed to protect him and properly handle the situation.
The decision highlighted the importance of having established complaint procedures while acknowledging limits to an employer's obligations regarding workplace interactions.
The worker started at a public hospital in 2010 as a radiographer and sonographer. His employment history showed a previous WorkCover claim and court proceedings from 2013 related to a shoulder injury that occurred during ultrasound work.
Medical reports from that time documented the worker had adjustment disorder with anxiety and depression.
By mid-2017, the worker's GP records indicated increasing workplace stress. A May 2017 entry noted "work-related stress and intimidation," with anti-anxiety medication prescribed. The worker continued taking this medication through early 2018.
In December 2017, the worker contacted the Office of the Health Ombudsman (OHO) with concerns about medical imaging assistants' practices, including patient positioning and giving medical advice.
He specifically asked for confidentiality, but the OHO mistakenly revealed his identity when referring the matter back to the hospital.
After receiving the complaint in April 2018, the acting service director consulted human resources, held a general meeting with staff without naming the complainant, and conducted individual interviews. She documented all findings and recommendations in writing.
The Court examined this process, noting:
"[The manager] had been forwarded a complaint originally made to the OHO. It was, in effect, sent to [the employer's] senior manager representative... to investigate and resolve."
The worker said colleagues began ignoring and excluding him after the complaint. However, staff testimony painted a different picture, with one medical imaging assistant stating:
"[The worker] was always very pleasant, and understanding and caring of patients. At times it had been fun working with him."
The Court found no evidence that management revealed the worker's identity, stating:
"I find that [the managers] did maintain the confidentiality of [the worker's] identity as the complainant. I find that [the managers] did not disclose to anybody else in the Department the identity of [the worker] as the complainant in the OHO complaint."
On workplace dynamics and employer duties, the Court said:
"I do not accept that there is a duty with a scope to quell such gossip or rumours in the circumstances of this case... Whilst there may be circumstances in certain cases where such a duty might arise, no such circumstances existed here."
The Court found the employer had adequate complaint handling procedures in place:
"[The employer] had a complaints system in the form of the HR Policy and that system was a proper and adequate one, designed to deal with conduct within the workplace... [The employer] had put in place clear procedures and processes whereby inappropriate conduct in the workplace could be reported to management so that it could be investigated."
The Court dismissed the claim, finding the employer maintained proper systems and handled the complaint appropriately.
