AIL v Department of Premier and Cabinet [2012] NSWADT 191

Administrative Decisions Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: AIL v Department of Premier and Cabinet [2012] NSWADT 191 Hearing dates: 12 June 2012 Decision date: 19 September 2012 Jurisdiction: General Division Before: N Isenberg, Judicial Member Decision: The decision under review is affirmed. Catchwords: Complaint to Anti-Discrimination Board - provision of information arising out of workers compensation claim - breach of HPPs - exceptions Legislation Cited: Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 Health Records Information Privacy Act 2002 Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 Cases Cited: Department of Education & Training v GA (No 3) [2004] NSWADTAP 50 Department of Education and Communities VK [2011] NSWADTAP 61 Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550 KO and KP v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police (GD) [2005] NSWADTAP 56 NK v Northern Sydney Central Coast Area Health Service [2010] NSWADT 258 OD v Department of Education and Training (GD) [2005] NSWADTAP 74 PN v Department of Education and Training [2010] NSWADTAP 59 Category: Principal judgment Parties: AIL (Applicant) NSW Department of Premier and Cabinet (Respondent) Representation: AIL (Applicant in person) Crown Solicitor's Office (Respondent) File Number(s): 123031

REASONS FOR DECISION 1The background has been largely extracted from the internal review, and, broadly, was not in dispute. 2On 28 March 2010, the applicant lodged a formal grievance of bullying against his manager, Mr T of the Workforce Planning Unit, Department of Premier and Cabinet ('the Department'). One of his complaints was that Mr T had allegedly bullied and intimidated him during a feedback meeting held on 11 March 2010 ('the meeting'). 3On 12 April 2010, the Department engaged a consultant to undertake an investigation and review the applicant's grievances. The consultant's report of 24 May 2010 included the following findings: * "(a) there was no evidence of a workplace culture of bullying and harassment within the Department, including the Workforce Planning Unit; * (b) officers in the Department's Workforce Planning Unit and their managers, including Mr T, had not breached any Departmental policies or procedures; * (c) a medical and psychological review of [the applicant's] health (Welfare check) be undertaken to ascertain his ability to return to work; and * (d) the applicant had not followed the grievance process of initially attempting to raise his grievance issue with Mr T." 4He was invited to comment on the consultant's report and provided his comments approximately 2 weeks later. On 25 June 2010, the applicant was informed of the Department's decision about his grievance, following the investigation and his comments. He requested a review of the decision, which had adopted the consultant's findings. The Department engaged Mr Baldwin to undertake the review and requested that he consider the consultant's report and the process the Department followed in conducting the investigation and making the decision that no claim of workplace bullying could be substantiated. 5Mr Baldwin's report of 18 September 2010 contained the following findings in relation to the consultant's report: * "The finding there was no evidence of a workplace culture of bullying and harassment within the Department generally (as opposed to the Workforce Planning Unit) was beyond the terms of reference and should not have been included; * concerns expressed by the applicant about the treatment of the evidence of anonymous witnesses and the finding that he did not follow the grievance process have substance, but the investigation process was otherwise appropriate; and * there was no basis for setting aside the report or calling into question its general conclusions that the applicant's complaints of bullying and harassment against Mr T were not substantiated." 6On 24 September 2010, the applicant was informed that no claim of workplace bullying and harassment by Mr T could be substantiated.