In a recent decision of involving Brisbane City Council [2025] QIRC 097, the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission (QIRC) rejected an unfair dismissal claim on the basis that the employee’s alleged ‘psychiatric injury’ was surmounted by the serious nature of his misconduct and the disciplinary process undertaken by the employer.
The employee was employed as a Bus Operator by Brisbane City Council (the Employer) for a period of seventeen years.
In February 2023, the Employer placed the employee on leave whilst investigating claims that he, among other concerns, had displayed inappropriate behaviour towards a colleague which the Employer alleged amounted to misconduct.
In response to the Employer’s investigation, the employee emailed his Division Manager and directly referred to the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Employer as a “vindictive p***” and as a “massive c***”.
Between May 2023 and August 2023, the employee sent 19 emails to several employees of the Council, including the Mayor, discussing the investigation but did not at any point provide a direct response to the allegations.
In September 2023, the Employer concluded that the allegations of misconduct had been substantiated and ultimately dismissed the employee with notice on account of six findings of misconduct, including that:
The employee submitted an unfair dismissal application to the QIRC arguing that the dismissal was harsh and unfair because his conduct was specifically attributable as a manifestation of his mental illness. The main argument of the employee was that he had suffered from anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) since 2018 and he was re-injured at the time of the misconduct.
The employee also provided evidence of a work capacity certificate acquired one month after the misconduct occurred, which stated he “needed a supportive workplace” but that his psychiatric injury did not prevent him from returning to work.
The Employer disagreed with the employee’s submissions, stating that regardless of the employee’s potential injury the employee’s substantiated misconduct was very serious and put other employees at risk.
Regarding the employee’s behaviour towards and about a female colleague, the QIRC relied on recordings of the employee’s conversations to establish he had performed the conduct and found that there was no justification for the intimidating and aggressive language and the tone used by the employee.
In relation to the employee’s email to his Division Manager, the QIRC commented that the employee’s failure to treat the CEO with respect was not out of character for the employee and it noted that the employee had failed to show any remorse for his conduct.
Finding that the misconduct was sufficiently serious to warrant dismissal, the QIRC then turned to whether the employee had a psychiatric injury at the time the misconduct occurred and found that the evidence presented by the employee was not persuasive. Instead, the QIRC relied on the evidence of the Employer.
The QIRC found that the employee was given several opportunities to respond to the allegations and to provide the Employer with evidence of his mental illness. The QIRC also commented that the employee’s work capacity certificate did not provide clear a determination as to whether the employee’s conduct was the result of his psychiatric injury or that he was unfit for work at the time of misconduct.
The QIRC concluded that there was no evidence to suggest that dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable. Therefore, the QIRC rejected the unfair dismissal application.
Employers need to be aware of their safety obligations to, so far as is reasonably practicable, reduce the risk of exposing workers to psychosocial hazards in the workplace, which includes addressing and managing poor conduct and behaviour.
In this decision, the QIRC has provided guidance on managing intimidating and aggressive behaviour through implementation of effective disciplinary processes, including investigating allegations and undertaking a dismissal process if necessary.
Information provided in this blog is not legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. Workplace Law does not accept liability for any loss or damage arising from reliance on the content of this blog, or from links on this website to any external website. Where applicable, liability is limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.
