the Applicant v the Respondent
At a glance
- 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.
Send your details to Liquid Employment Lawyers
Liquid Employment Lawyers is a paid legal service and our referral partner, not free Fair Work advice. FairWork Mate may receive a referral fee from Liquid Legal. Tell them what has happened and a member of their team will call you back. For free general guidance, use our tools or call the Fair Work Ombudsman on 13 13 94.
Prefer to read first? About Liquid Employment Lawyers · Not sure if you need a lawyer? Read the legal help guides
Want 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.
FairWork Mate AI
This is one decision. Pro reads all of them.
Free case pages cite the top 250 decisions. Pro opens the full Fair Work Commission and Federal Court library, cross-references your own situation against it, and cites the decision behind every answer — plus document upload, so it can read your letter or contract line by line. 150 questions a month, cancel anytime.
Renews monthly at A$29.99 until you cancel. By continuing you agree to our Terms.
Get notified on new Fair Work cases
Free email alerts when we publish new underpayment decisions, penalty orders, and workplace law updates.