FWC looks at unfair dismissal case involving senior clinician in healthcare
The Fair Work Commission (FWC) recently dealt with an unfair dismissal case where a worker challenged her termination, arguing that her alternative work methods were known to management and that blocked calendar times were used for legitimate administrative tasks.
The case raised questions about workplace protocols, documentation practices, and the handling of sensitive information.
The worker, who had served the organisation for nearly 15 years without prior performance issues, presented arguments about workload pressures and systemic issues that she claimed justified her modified work practices.
Her dismissal came after she had raised serious concerns about leadership and workplace culture.
The case involved a healthcare organisation established in 2006 that provided support services to nurses and midwives in Victoria. By 2024, it had grown to employ 18 staff members and offered various services including one-on-one counselling, recovery support groups, and health promotion forums.
The worker had been employed as a senior clinician since 2009. Her role involved supporting and counselling nurses and midwives dealing with various challenges, including mental health issues, domestic violence, and substance abuse. At the time of her dismissal, she managed between 60-70 participants.
In 2021, the organisation implemented a Case Management System (CMS) to replace their paper-based records. The system required clinicians to document client sessions promptly, with specific time allocations: one hour plus an additional hour for notes for initial sessions, and one hour plus 30 minutes for notes in subsequent sessions.
The investigation into the worker's conduct began shortly after she had raised significant concerns about workplace leadership. In November 2023, during a strategic review process, she had written a letter to the board chair detailing her concerns, which the board decided to treat as a formal complaint requiring investigation.
The worker's relationship with management was notably strained. During cross-examination, she confirmed she had lost trust and faith in the organisation's leadership, testifying that there was "an absence of respectful honest communication from senior management." She maintained that management was "manipulative and deceptive" - views she continued to hold at the time of the hearing.
In January 2024, the chief executive officer discovered the worker hadn't updated client records in CMS for at least three months. Further investigation revealed she had developed her own method of recording client notes using her iPhone's voice recording app, then emailing these to herself before eventually transferring them to CMS.
The worker argued this practice was known to management, though the chief executive officer disputed this claim. An administrative coordinator gave evidence that the worker's alternative method was "openly shared by staff at formal meetings and received management support," though specific details about when these discussions occurred and who approved the practice weren't provided.
The organisation's audit of the worker's calendar between October 2023 and January 2024 showed concerning patterns, including 108.5 hours of unaccounted time and numerous periods blocked for "focus time" and "admin tasks" beyond standard allocations.
During the investigation, the worker sent confidential client notes to an administrative staff member who lacked authorisation to access such information. When questioned about this decision, the worker acknowledged the staff member "had no role in treatment of the clients and had no reason to access confidential information."
After being notified of the investigation, the worker attempted to update client records while on sick leave without informing management. She agreed during cross-examination that this action "had the capacity to interfere with the investigation by making it harder to determine the matters subject to investigation."
The Commission found these actions raised serious concerns about client privacy and continuity of care, particularly given the sensitive nature of the counselling services provided and the vulnerable state of many clients.
In its final determination, the Commission concluded that the dismissal was neither harsh, unjust, nor unreasonable, finding that the worker's conduct constituted serious misconduct that justified termination.
