Resources: Blogs

A force not to be reckoned with


Requesting health information from employees

A recent decision of the NSW Industrial Relations Commission has highlighted one of the pertinent issues currently being faced by employers – that is, to what extent an employer is entitled to require or request an employee provide them with personal medical information.

A recent decision of the NSW Industrial Relations Commission (NSW IRC) has highlighted one of the pertinent issues currently being faced by employers – that is, to what extent an employer is entitled to require or request an employee provide them with personal medical information.

An employee’s (or any individual’s) health information is generally provided with a higher level of privacy protection under Australia’s privacy laws given its highly personal nature. As a result, it can only be obtained with the employee’s consent and only for a reasonably necessary purpose.

In the decision of Danger v Commissioner of Police (No. 2) [2022] NSWIRComm1040, the NSW IRC was required to consider an employer’s direction, which effectively required employees to provide proof of vaccination in the form of their immunisation history statement, and whether an employee’s non-compliance with that direction justified her dismissal.

The employee was employed as a Customer Services Representative by the NSW Police Force (the Employer). On 18 October 2021, the employee resigned from her employment, which the NSW IRC accepted as a constructive dismissal.

Prior to her constructive dismissal, the Employer had issued a direction which provided that all members of the Employer would not be able to perform their employment duties unless they had received at least one COVID-19 vaccine dose by 30 September 2021 and two doses by 30 November 2021. The Direction also required members to provide “vaccination evidence” if required by their manager, supervisor or Commander.

In conjunction with this Direction, two further notices were issued at the same time.

One of the notices contained a requirement that members provide “vaccination information” if required by their manager, supervisor or Commander. “Vaccination information” was defined as “a copy of your immunisation history statement as recorded on the Australian Immunisation Register, or a copy of a medical contraindication certificate”.

The other notice contained a request that members provide “a copy of your immunisation history statement as recorded on the Australian Immunisation Register”.

Following receipt of these documents, the employee raised concerns with her manager that, whilst she did not have any issues with receiving the vaccine, she considered that the requirement for her entire immunisation history was excessive.

The manager’s response was that she needed to submit a report to HR if she was seeking an exemption or deferral based on her concerns. He clarified that, in accordance with the Employer’s notices, she needed to provide vaccination evidence, which could be in the form of her vaccination history, receipt of proof or her COVID-19 vaccination certificate.

The employee then submitted a report to HR raising her concerns about the requirement to provide her immunisation history statement. On 1 October 2021, she was advised that her request for an exemption or deferral had been declined and that she would be stood down without pay until she had met the requirement to provide evidence of her vaccination status.

The employee attempted to clarify that she was not seeking an exemption or deferral, but rather raising concerns about her privacy which had still not been resolved.  

By 18 October 2021, the employee still had no clarification and therefore provided notice of resignation, citing “the ongoing ambiguity” around her situation whilst being stood down without pay as well as the threat of dismissal or other disciplinary measures.

The NSW IRC found that the employee had been unfairly dismissed.

According to the NSW IRC, the Employer’s notices quite clearly required members to provide, if required by their manager, supervisor or Commander, a copy of their immunisation history statement as evidence of their vaccination or a medical contraindication certificate. They did not permit other forms of evidence to be provided, such as a COVID-19 vaccination certificate.

The NSW IRC considered this requirement to “[go] well beyond what was necessary to enforce the Commissioner’s vaccination mandate direction … and constitutes an unwarranted intrusion into an employee’s privacy”.

The NSW IRC was also critical of the contradictory notices which both required and requested members to provide vaccination information, finding that it created confusion in the mind of the employee.

The NSW IRC found that the employee was entitled to object to production of this information and noted that, even up to the date of her constructive dismissal, the requirement/request had not been rescinded or revoked. It also found the Employer’s response to the employee’s grievance to be “less than satisfactory” noting that the Employer continued to treat her complaints as requests for an exemption or deferral, when they were very clearly not. It stated:

“This failure on the part of the [Employer] to adequately address the legitimate concerns which the [employee] had been raising over an extended period of time was unfair to the [employee] and contributed to the breakdown of the relationship of trust and confidence between the [employee] and the [Employer].”

In finding that the employee was unfairly dismissed, the NSW IRC ordered the Employer to pay to the employee compensation in the amount of 14 weeks’ pay. It also ordered the Employer to amend a note on its records which had originally indicated the employee was not suitable for re-employment as she had not been vaccinated, to reflect that she was suitable for re-employment (as she had since been vaccinated).

Lessons for employers

When considering workplace policies or directions which would require employees to disclose personal health information to their employer, it is important that employers consider whether or not such information is reasonably necessary to achieve the intended purpose.

An individual’s health information is provided with a significant level of privacy protection under Australia’s privacy laws. Workplace policies and directions should be drafted to respect this protection and only require information as reasonably 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.

Similar articles

Heat of the moment resignation and constructive dismissal

Go your own way

For an employee to bring a valid unfair dismissal claim or a general protections claim involving dismissal, it should be obvious that they must have been dismissed by their employer.


What does the end of COVID-19 isolation periods mean for workplaces?

Lonely no more

During the COVID-19 pandemic in Australia, many Government issued public health orders mandated that persons who had contracted and / or were exposed to COVID-19 were to self-isolate for a period of time.


Expired COVID-19 schedules in modern awards removed

In April 2020, the Fair Work Commission introduced temporary measures in modern awards in response to the need to provide employers and employees flexibility in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdowns.


Employer successfully rebuts presumption in adverse action claim

Return to sender

An employer has successfully defended an adverse action claim brought by a former employee as the court was satisfied that the employee was not dismissed for a prohibited reason.


Commission finds inappropriate social media use formed valid reason for dismissal

Message delivered

A recent decision of the Fair Work Commission has confirmed that an employee’s inappropriate use of social media group chats may form a valid reason for dismissal, particularly when matters relating to work are discussed.


Commission confirms inappropriate touching constituted sexual harassment warranting summary dismissal

‘Scuse you

Sexual harassment in the workplace has been the subject of significant reform over the past few years, with an even greater onus on employers now to take proactive measures to minimise or eliminate the risk of sexual harassment in connection with work.


Let's talk

please contact our directors to discuss how ouR expertise can help your business.

We're here to help

Contact Us
Let Workplace Law become your partner in Workplace Relations.

Sign up to receive the latest industry updates with commentary from the Workplace Law team direct to your inbox.