When management style becomes a psychosocial hazard: lessons for employers

Lawrie v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) ^[1] was a public sector appeal against Queensland Health by a Director of Speech Pathology and Audiology at Gold Coast Health. The Director had been in role since 2008 and held an unblemished disciplinary record spanning over 30 years with Queensland Health. 

In 2022, a service-wide staff survey highlighted ‘toxic red flags’ in the Director’s team culture and leadership, issues which were echoed by a union survey which raised safety and wellbeing concerns. 

Witness evidence described the Director’s management style as 'autocratic', with interactions characterised as 'one way conversations' involving directions rather than learning opportunities, and feedback characterised as an exercise in fault finding rather than improvement and development. 

Because the survey results indicated work health and safety issues associated with the Director’s presence in the workplace, she was suspended on full pay in October 2022.

The public sector appeal was against two decisions Queensland Health made with respect to the Director’s employment, being: 

• the decision to extend her suspension from work on 24 November 2024, despite the fact she had already been suspended for two years at that time; and 
• a decision to make a disciplinary finding, despite disciplinary allegations not being framed until nearly two years after the Director’s initial suspension.

The Director argued that neither decision was fair or reasonable.

The suspension was extended multiple times, citing work health and safety (WHS) risks to colleagues. During the suspension, an independent culture review audit was conducted which dealt with a significant volume of material. 

The legislative framework specifically provides that, where a public service employee is suspended and they are entitled to normal remuneration during the suspension, procedural fairness is not required. 

The Commission found the November 2024 decision to extend the suspension was fair and reasonable, accepting that the employer had a sound factual basis to conclude that the employee's conduct created a psychologically unsafe working environment. 

It specifically endorsed the employer's reliance on the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Qld) (WHS Act) as the basis for continuing the employee's suspension and noted that the employer had considered alternative options (which were not appropriate due to the risk the employee presented to others). 

While recognising the delay caused prejudice to the Director, the Commission observed that she had continued to receive full pay, and stated, ‘delay does not override the duty of the Respondent to fulfill its obligations to ensure that foreseeable risk to the health and safety of its employees is managed appropriately.’

The disciplinary allegations were characterised as a breach of the Code of Conduct, and centred on two main areas of conduct:

• treating co-workers and direct reports in a manner that was unfair, unreasonable, disrespectful, and discourteous, including by failing to genuinely consult with staff or explain decisions, and denying direct reports opportunities to upskill over extended periods; and

• failing to accommodate a pregnant employee's request for flexible working in accordance with the parental leave policy.

Because the conduct concerned the Director’s interactions with her direct reports, the Commission found the employer was entitled to treat the conduct as serious enough to warrant disciplinary action, rather than management action alone. 

In finding that the employer’s decision to make a disciplinary finding in the circumstances was fair and reasonable, the Commission stated, ‘It was open to the decision maker to consider that senior leaders are expected to have a greater awareness of obligations regarding their conduct. This is particularly the case noting the requirements under s 28 of the WHS Act to take reasonable care that their acts or omissions do not adversely affect the health and safety of other persons.’

The most significant aspect of this case is the clear link between a leader’s routine management style and psychosocial risk.

The psychosocial hazard arose from the cumulative effect of the way in which one leader made decisions, responded to requests and interacted with staff over time. There was no single defining incident. 

This is conduct that many employers may not instinctively associate with WHS obligations or consider sufficiently serious to justify taking action. The decision demonstrates why management style, communication and workplace interactions may need to be considered through a psychosocial safety lens. The decision also reinforces that an employer’s obligations relating to psychosocial safety can affect workforce management beyond the WHS regime and regulatory activity.

While this was a public sector appeal, it highlights the increasing weight being given to psychosocial risk management and demonstrates how workplace health and safety considerations can shape disciplinary and employment decisions. In this case, the WHS risk the Director was considered to pose to others formed the basis of her suspension.

Importantly, that risk was not the basis for disciplinary action. The disciplinary action was based on specific conduct identified through the employer’s consideration of the risk raised in the staff surveys.

Employers should consider whether their existing processes adequately identify and respond to psychosocial hazards arising from leadership and management practices. Staff surveys, complaints and other workplace culture indicators may reveal risks that require work health and safety response as well as employment or performance management action.

Where concerns arise, employers should ensure they have a sound factual basis for any action taken, consider appropriate risk controls and alternatives, and distinguish steps taken to manage immediate psychosocial risk and any subsequent disciplinary process.