the Applicant v the Respondent
Citation: [2024] FCA 690
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 1
What happened
the Applicant, a specialist in intensive care medicine, worked as Clinical Director of the Intensive Care Unit at Canberra Hospital from 2015. On 3 November 2021, she submitted four incident reports through the hospital's RiskMan health and safety reporting system about risks and potential injuries in the ICU. Following these reports, hospital management directed her to attend an independent medical examination, investigated her for alleged clinical misconduct and improper use of the reporting system, proposed her suspension, and transferred her from the ICU to an alternative medical position at another hospital.
What was decided
Justice Kennett dismissed the Applicant's application. The court found that the investigations, transfer, and proposed suspension were not adverse action within the meaning of the Fair Work Act section 340, or alternatively, any adverse action was authorized by or under the enterprise agreement and was not taken because of the exercise of workplace rights. The court found the Australian Capital Territory had legitimate reasons related to workplace conduct and followed agreed procedural fairness processes.
What it means for employers
Employers can investigate conduct concerns and take employment actions (investigation, temporary suspension, transfer) in response to incident reports if those actions are authorized under enterprise agreements and follow proper procedures. However, the genuineness of the reasons and compliance with procedural fairness will be examined.
What it means for employees
While submitting incident reports is a protected workplace right, employers can investigate alleged misconduct arising from such reports. If actions are taken for legitimate conduct reasons (not to prevent reporting), they may not breach fair work laws. Employees should rely on enterprise agreement protections and procedural fairness requirements.
Want this applied to your situation?
Reading the decision is free. FairWork Mate goes further — it reads the full case library and applies precedents like this one to your specific facts, citing the cases as it reasons. General information, not a guaranteed outcome or legal advice.
Every statement above is drawn from the published decision. Read the original here:
https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2024/2024fca0690Want more cases like this?
FairWork Mate tracks Fair Work Ombudsman, Fair Work Commission and Federal Court decisions across Australia. The AI advisor answers plain-English questions grounded on the full corpus — awards cited, industry, penalty amounts and affected employee counts — with a citation to the underlying decision on every answer.
Individual case summaries on this site are free. Full-corpus advisor access is a paid product — Business Solo from $99/mo, 50% off your first 3 months for the first 100 signups.
Get notified on new Fair Work cases
Free email alerts when we publish new underpayment decisions, penalty orders, and workplace law updates.
Free forever. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
This summary was drafted from the published decision and reviewed before publishing. It is general information, not legal advice. For your specific situation, speak to the Fair Work Ombudsman (13 13 94) or a qualified lawyer. About these summaries & corrections →