Employer Obligations
Are your policies putting you at risk?
Your Policies Might Be Putting You at Risk
Many organisations highlight their policy library as evidence of effective governance oversight. After reviewing thousands of investigations, audits, and compliance failures, one fact remains unequivocally clear:
An ignored policy can create greater risk than having no policy at all.
Across Australia, organisations are increasingly facing this challenge through employee complaints, regulatory scrutiny, Ombudsman inquiries, integrity investigations, and costly litigation. The pattern remains consistent: the policy is established, yet the practice is not implemented.
The discrepancy between documented policies and actual practices now constitutes one of the most significant governance risks confronting employers.
This is precisely where ACCA provides help.
The Hidden Risk Inside Your Policy Library
Most organisations cannot answer three basic questions:
- When were your policies last reviewed?
- Do your staff members understand these?
- Could you provide evidence that they are being followed?
If the response to these questions is unclear, your organisation may be at risk.
Outdated Policies Create Legal and Regulatory Exposure
Legislation changes. Case law evolves. Regulators raise expectations.
However, many organisations continue to rely on policies that were written five, seven, or even ten years ago. A bullying policy developed before implementing psychosocial risk obligations, or a sexual harassment policy established before positive duty reforms, is outdated and is a potential liability.
Untrained staff Cannot comply with rules they do not understand
In investigations, employees regularly state:
- “I think I saw it when I started.”
- “I know we have one, but I’ve never read it.”
- “I didn’t know that was required.”
Courts and regulators routinely assess whether employees received training, whether policies were readily accessible, and whether expectations were consistently reinforced. A policy that lacks clarity and understanding is indefensible.
Managers who ignore policies create evidence against the Organisation
This is the most severe failure.
When managers circumvent procurement regulations, disregard grievance procedures, neglect to get conflict of interest declarations, or delay investigations, they generate a paper trail that compromises the organisation’s defence.
Courts evaluate actions rather than assurances.
A carefully drafted policy that is not followed may strengthen a claim against your organisation.
Why Councils and Public Entities Face Even Greater Scrutiny?
Local government and public sector bodies uphold comprehensive policy frameworks, including codes of conduct, procurement protocols, conflicts of interest management, fraud control, public interest disclosures, delegations, and governance structures.
However, volume does not equate to compliance.
Integrity agencies, auditors, and investigators consistently identify discrepancies between documented requirements and actual practices. These gaps result in reputational harm, determinations of maladministration, and, in certain instances, an elevated corruption risk.
This is the point at which independent oversight becomes essential.
How ACCA Protects Your Organisation
ACCA specialises in identifying the specific risks outlined above before their development into legal, financial, or reputational issues.
We offer independent, expert compliance support through:
Policy Health Checks
Thoroughly evaluate your current policies to confirm they accurately reflect:
- current legislation
- recent case law
- regulator expectations
- contemporary workplace risks
We identify gaps, inconsistencies, and outdated content and deliver clear, actionable recommendations.
Compliance Audits
We assess the extent to which your policies are being implemented. This encompasses:
- reviewing real‑world practices
- interviewing staff
- assessing training and awareness
- examining documentation and decision-making
- identifying where managers are bypassing requirements
This is the evidence that regulators seek — and the evidence that most organisations do not possess.
Practical, Targeted Training
We provide training that staff effectively comprehend and retain. No jargon. No generic slides. Clear, practical guidance specifically tailored to your risk profile.
Implementation Support
Policies only work when embedded. We help you:
- communicate expectations
- reinforce standards
- establish monitoring processes
- hold managers accountable
This transforms policies from static documents into dynamic controls.
If you have not tested your policies, you do not know your Risk
Most organisations can tell you how many policies they have. Few individuals can determine whether those policies are effective.
If your policies have not undergone independent review within the past two years, staff have not received training, or compliance has never been tested, it is important to act now.
When a regulator, investigator, or tribunal reviews your organisation, they will not be impressed by the volume of your policy library.
They will try to determine whether your staff adhere to it.
Strengthen your governance before someone else tests it
ACCA helps organisations to bridge the gap between policy and practice, thus safeguarding against preventable legal, financial, and reputational risks.
If you want to assess the effectiveness of your policies or require an independent compliance review, ACCA is available to help.
Contact ACCA today to schedule a confidential consultation regarding your policy framework and compliance risks.
Workplace Bullying Prevention Australia: Why Councils and SMEs Must Act Before Problems Escalate
Workplace Bullying Prevention Australia: Why Councils and SMEs Must Act Before Problems Escalate
Workplace bullying continues to challenge Australian organisations despite years of focus on workplace culture, employee wellbeing and compliance. Councils and small to medium-sized businesses (SMEs) regularly deal with the consequences of bullying complaints, including workplace investigations, staff turnover, workers’ compensation claims, damaged morale, and reputational harm.
Many organisations still view workplace bullying as an employee relations issue. That approach is no longer sufficient.
In 2026, regulators increasingly treat workplace bullying as a psychosocial hazard that employers must actively manage under workplace health and safety obligations. Organisations that ignore the warning signs expose themselves to significant legal, financial, and operational risks.
The reality is straightforward. Preventing workplace bullying costs far less than dealing with the fallout.
Why Workplace Bullying Matters More Than Ever
Workplace bullying affects far more than the individuals directly involved. It can undermine workplace culture, damage productivity, and create lasting impacts across entire teams.
When employees experience bullying, organisations often see:
- Increased absenteeism.
- Higher staff turnover.
- Reduced productivity.
- Lower employee engagement.
- Workplace conflict.
- Workers’ compensation claims.
- Costly workplace investigations.
For councils, the risks can be even greater. Allegations involving senior managers, executives or elected members can quickly attract media attention and erode community confidence.
For SMEs, the loss of a valued employee or a prolonged workplace dispute can significantly disrupt day-to-day operations.
What Is Workplace Bullying?
Workplace bullying occurs when a person or group repeatedly behaves unreasonably towards a worker or group of workers in a way that creates a risk to health and safety.
The key elements are repetition, unreasonable behaviour, and risk.
Bullying may involve:
- Repeated verbal abuse.
- Intimidation or aggressive behaviour.
- Persistent humiliation.
- Deliberately excluding individuals from workplace activities.
- Spreading rumours or gossip.
- Unreasonable workloads or deadlines.
- Withholding information necessary to perform duties.
- Harassment through emails, messaging applications or social media.
Although a single incident may not constitute workplace bullying, employers should never ignore inappropriate behaviour. Early intervention often prevents minor issues from developing into formal complaints or workplace investigations.
Workplace Bullying Is Now a Psychosocial Hazard
Australian workplaces have experienced a significant shift in how they manage employee wellbeing.
Employers are now expected to identify and manage psychosocial hazards with the same diligence they apply to physical hazards. Workplace bullying remains one of the most common and damaging psychosocial risks.
Unchecked bullying can contribute to:
- Anxiety and depression.
- Stress-related illness.
- Reduced workplace participation.
- Long-term psychological injury.
- Increased workers’ compensation costs.
The impact often extends beyond the affected employee. Teams experiencing unresolved conflict frequently suffer declining morale, reduced collaboration, and poorer performance.
Organisations that actively manage psychosocial risks are better positioned to create safe, productive, and compliant workplaces.
The Hidden Cost of Workplace Bullying
Many organisations underestimate the true cost of workplace bullying.
The direct expenses associated with complaints often include legal advice, investigations, and compensation claims. However, the indirect costs frequently exceed the visible financial impacts.
These costs may include:
- Internal investigations.
- Independent workplace investigations.
- Legal representation.
- Recruitment and onboarding expenses.
- Lost productivity.
- Increased sick leave.
- Reduced employee engagement.
- Damage to organisational reputation.
Every bullying complaint consumes management time and organisational resources. The longer issues remain unresolved, the more expensive they become.
Why Councils Face Unique Risks
Local government operates in an environment where transparency, accountability and public trust are essential.
Unlike private sector organisations, councils must manage workplace issues while maintaining public confidence and responding to community expectations.
Poorly managed workplace bullying complaints can result in:
- Governance reviews.
- Community criticism.
- Political pressure.
- Adverse media coverage.
- Reputational damage.
A complaint that begins as an internal employment matter can quickly become a public issue.
That reality makes early intervention and effective workplace culture management critical for councils of all sizes.
Leadership Shapes Workplace Culture
Strong leadership remains the most effective defence against workplace bullying.
Employees closely observe how leaders behave and what behaviour they tolerate. Managers who ignore inappropriate conduct often create an environment where bullying flourishes.
Leaders who consistently demonstrate professionalism, accountability and respect set a very different standard.
Effective leaders:
- Address concerns promptly.
- Communicate expectations clearly.
- Support respectful workplace behaviour.
- Hold individuals accountable.
- Promote psychological safety.
Organisations rarely regret acting too early. They often regret acting too late.
Policies Alone Will Not Prevent Bullying
Every organisation should maintain a clear workplace bullying policy. However, policies only work when employees understand them, and leaders apply them consistently.
An effective policy should:
- Define workplace bullying.
- Provide practical examples.
- Explain reporting pathways.
- Outline investigation procedures.
- Emphasise procedural fairness.
- Explain confidentiality obligations.
- Identify available support services.
A policy hidden on an intranet page will not change workplace behaviour.
Employees need confidence that leaders will enforce the policy fairly and consistently.
Training Builds Capability and Accountability
Workplace bullying prevention requires ongoing education.
Employees need to understand what bullying looks like, how to report concerns and what standards of behaviour the organisation expects.
Managers require additional skills in:
- Complaint management.
- Conflict resolution.
- Difficult conversations.
- Psychosocial risk management.
- Early intervention strategies.
- Workplace investigations.
Regular training helps organisations reinforce expectations and maintain a respectful workplace culture.
Early Intervention Prevents Escalation
Most serious workplace disputes begin with relatively minor issues that organisations fail to address.
Common warning signs include:
- Interpersonal conflict.
- Increased complaints.
- Team dysfunction.
- Employee disengagement.
- Declining morale.
- Increased absenteeism.
Managers who identify these indicators early can often resolve issues through coaching, mediation, facilitated discussions or other informal processes.
Early intervention remains one of the most effective workplace bullying prevention strategies available.
When Should You Engage an External Investigator?
Some matters require an independent assessment.
External workplace investigators may be appropriate when:
- Senior managers are involved.
- Conflicts of interest exist.
- Serious misconduct is alleged.
- Multiple parties are involved.
- Organisational impartiality may be questioned.
- Significant reputational risks exist.
An independent investigation helps demonstrate procedural fairness, transparency, and objectivity.
For councils, government agencies and larger SMEs, independent investigations often provide confidence to employees, executives, governing bodies, and the wider community.
Creating a Respectful Workplace Culture
Preventing workplace bullying requires more than policies, training sessions and investigations.
It requires leadership commitment and a workplace culture built on respect, accountability, and professionalism.
Organisations that encourage employees to raise concerns early, address complaints fairly and support respectful behaviour create safer and more productive workplaces.
The benefits are substantial:
- Stronger employee engagement.
- Higher retention rates.
- Better organisational performance.
- Reduced workplace conflict.
- Lower legal and compliance risks.
Final Thoughts
Workplace bullying is no longer simply an HR issue. It is a workplace health and safety issue, a governance issue, and a leadership issue.
Councils and SMEs that invest in workplace bullying prevention, psychosocial risk management, leadership development and workplace culture create stronger, safer, and more resilient organisations.
Those that delay action often face escalating conflict, costly investigations, reduced productivity, and reputational damage.
The most successful organisations understand a simple truth: preventing workplace bullying is not just about compliance. It is about protecting people, strengthening culture, and building a workplace where employees can perform at their best.
Is Legal Professional Privilege Still Relevant for Workplace Investigations in 2026?
Update June 2026: This article has been expanded to include recent Federal Court commentary, additional case studies and practical guidance for councils, government agencies and SMEs. Read our updated article: “Is Legal Professional Privilege Still Relevant for Workplace Investigations in 2026?“
Is Legal Professional Privilege Still Relevant for Workplace Investigations in 2026?
Many councils, government agencies, and employers still believe that hiring lawyers to carry out a workplace investigation automatically protects the process with legal professional privilege.
That idea is still risky.
Australian courts and tribunals keep confirming that simply having a law firm involved does not create privilege. The crucial question is whether the investigation is mainly to get legal advice or to get ready for a lawsuit.
By 2026, this problem has become more important because investigations now more often include:
- psychological and social risks
- accusations of bullying and harassment
- complaints about unwanted sexual behaviour
- reporting of wrongdoing by an insider
- code of Conduct breaches
- conflicts of interest
- fraud and corruption allegations
- unfair dismissal proceedings; and
- workers’ compensation and workplace conflicts
Employers who do not understand privilege may accidentally reveal sensitive information during lawsuits, Commission hearings, court reviews, and investigations.
The Key Legal Principle
The High Court’s decision in Esso Australia Resources Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (1999) 201 CLR 49 is still the fundamental rule. Privilege applies only when the main reason for the communication or document is to get or give legal advice, or to use it in current or expected legal cases.
Who the investigator is does not matter.
If the primary goal of the investigation is to find out if rules were broken, if bad behaviour happened, or if someone should be disciplined, then privilege might not protect the information.
The Fair Work Commission Warning Employers Still Ignore
One of the most important workplace investigation decisions is Gaynor King [2018] FWC 6006.
The City of Darwin hired Minter Ellison to look into bullying claims. The Council later said the report was confidential because lawyers carried out the investigation.
Commissioner Wilson did not accept that argument.
The Commission looked into the real reason for the investigation and found that the main goal was to see if workplace behaviour rules and Council policies were broken, not to get legal advice.
The Commission also looked at how the employer acted: employees were told about the investigation, the accusations, and the results. Sharing this information weakened the claim of privilege.
That decision is still very important in 2026 because many organisations still organise investigations in ways that do not protect privilege.
Why Some Investigation Reports Remain Protected
Privilege applies when the investigation is done mainly to get legal advice.
In the cases Bowker, Coombe and Zwarts v DP World Melbourne Ltd [2015] FWC 7312 and Kirkman v DP World Melbourne Ltd [2016] FWC 605, the Fair Work Commission agreed that certain information was protected because the investigators were hired specifically to help lawyers give legal advice.
The Commission examined:
- the exact words used in the retainer
- the role of the lawyers
- the reason for the investigation
- how documents were managed
- whether findings were broadly disclosed; and
- whether the employer kept things confidential as they should
Privilege is determined by how things are organised, their goals, and how people behave—not by job titles or guesses.
Recent Federal Court Commentary (2023–2026)
The Federal Court’s decision in Diawara v National Australia Bank Limited [2023] FCA 1048 provides one of the most important recent clarifications. (Australasian Lawyer)
The case was about a claim of privilege over a cultural review report created during a discrimination dispute. The Court confirmed that:
- the dominant purpose test remains the central inquiry
- the focus is on why the person made or obtained the document
- the party claiming privilege must prove the necessary facts; and
- privilege can apply even if the document is used for secondary or additional purposes
The Court looked at the agreement between Herbert Smith Freehills and Wise Workplace Solutions and agreed that the main reason for the report was to help the lawyers legally advise NAB.
This decision confirms that privilege can be kept, but only when the evidence clearly shows that the main reason was legal advice.
Recent Oversight Commentary
A 2022 external review by the South Australian Ombudsman highlighted the importance of the dominant purpose test when evaluating claims of privilege over investigation materials. The Ombudsman said that if investigations mainly focus on gathering facts about employee complaints or policy violations, claims of privilege might fail unless the evidence clearly shows the investigation was for obtaining legal advice.
The Ombudsman also emphasised that labelling a document “privileged and confidential” does not make it privileged. Courts and oversight agencies will focus on the true nature of the work and the actual reason for the investigation.
Why This Matters for Local Government
The problem is especially serious for councils.
Local government investigations often include:
- councillor behaviour
- allegations against a senior executive
- code of Conduct matters
- complaints about bullying
- procurement concerns
- allegations of corruption
- protected disclosures; and
- conflicts of interest
Many councils believe that hiring outside lawyers guarantees privacy.
That assumption becomes a problem when things get to:
- The Fair Work Commission
- NCAT
- ICAC
- The NSW Ombudsman
- Legal process
- Public interest disclosure investigations; or
- Judicial review.
If privilege doesn’t apply, sensitive information might be exposed, including:
- draft findings;
- internal communications;
- witness credibility assessments;
- legal assumptions;
- procedural weaknesses; and
- governance failures.
The Practical Lessons for Employers in 2026
Organisations should not automatically assume they have special rights just because lawyers are investigating.
The safer approach is to separate:
- factual investigations
- disciplinary decision-making
- witness evidence collection; and
- legal advice.
Employers should get advice early on how to organise the investigation before choosing investigators.
- Retainer documents are important.
- How the investigation is carried out is important.
- How findings are shared is important.
- How reports are shared is important.
- How the organisation uses the report later may decide if the privilege continues.
Often, the best protection isn’t a privilege.
The best way to protect yourself is by carrying out investigations that are:
- procedurally fair
- impartial
- based on evidence
- properly documented; and
- capable of withstanding external scrutiny
The main lesson from the Commission, the Federal Court, and oversight authorities is still the same.
In 2026, organisations that still do not understand legal professional privilege may find out too late that their supposedly confidential investigation materials can be revealed during lawsuits or regulatory checks.
Governance Matters — Especially When Nobody Is Watching
Governance Matters — Especially When Nobody Is Watching
Governance Looks Strong on Paper — But Is It?
Today, most organizations publicly champion governance, compliance, and accountability.
They publish policies, codes of conduct, procurement procedures, fraud control frameworks, workplace behaviour standards, and risk management plans. Boards and executive teams routinely tackle integrity, transparency, and compliance obligations.
Despite these efforts, governance failures persist across Australia.
By 2026, policies are rarely the problem. The problem is whether those policies are truly understood, consistently applied, properly enforced, and backed by leadership behaviour.
Many organizations seem compliant outwardly, while serious problems silently brew beneath.
This remains a top governance risk for councils, government agencies, and SMEs.
Why Governance Failures Still Occur in 2026
Modern organizations navigate ever-tougher environments.
Councils and government departments confront:
- rising community expectations
- tighter financial pressures
- increasing regulatory obligations
- workforce shortages
- cyber security threats
- procurement scrutiny
- heightened public accountability
SMEs face these common challenges:
- rising operating costs
- staffing pressures
- economic uncertainty
- increasing compliance obligations
- intense commercial competition
Under pressure, organizations can slowly normalize poor practices.
Shortcuts may replace proper processes. Oversight can weaken. Employees may avoid reporting concerns out of fear of conflict, reputational damage, or career repercussions.
Importantly, governance failures seldom start with major misconduct.
They often start with small rationalizations:
- “we need to get this project finished.”
- “everyone does it this way.”
- “it’s only temporary.”
- “the organization cannot afford delays.”
Repeated compromises eventually erode accountability, transparency, and organizational integrity.
Performance Pressure and Ethical Risk
A top governance risk in 2026 is performance pressure.
Many organizations intensely focus on:
- financial performance
- project delivery
- operational targets
- KPIs
- political expectations
- public image
While performance matters, problems arise when organizations prioritize outcomes over ethical decisions and proper oversight.
This can foster environments where employees feel pressured to:
- manipulate reporting
- ignore compliance failures
- bypass procurement controls
- avoid documenting concerns
- conceal mistakes
- protect reputations instead of addressing problems
In many investigations, warning signs appeared well before formal action.
The failure was not because of lack of information. The failure was the unwillingness to confront the problem early.
Why Councils and SMEs Remain Vulnerable
Local Government Risks
The failure was the unwillingness to confront the problem early.
- public funds
- procurement processes
- development approvals
- community services
- infrastructure projects
- regulatory functions
Even the perception of favoritism, poor transparency, weak procurement controls, or inconsistent decisions can erode community confidence.
Public trust is hard to earn and easy to lose.
Poor governance also exposes councils to:
- reputational damage
- regulatory scrutiny
- legal disputes
- workplace conflict
- adverse media attention
- loss of community confidence
SME Risks
SMEs face distinct yet equally serious governance challenges.
Smaller organizations often depend on trusted staff, informal systems, and minimal oversight.
Without strong internal controls, businesses risk becoming vulnerable to:
- procurement manipulation
- payroll irregularities
- fraud
- conflicts of interest
- financial misconduct
- cyber-related scams
- poor record keeping
In many SMEs, governance weaknesses are not deliberate. They develop gradually because operational pressures take priority over oversight.
Warning Signs Leaders Often Ignore
They develop gradually as operational pressures overshadow oversight.
Common indicators include:
- resistance to scrutiny
- poor record keeping
- inconsistent decision-making
- weak procurement controls
- lack of policy enforcement
- repeated complaints about transparency
- employees afraid to report concerns
- senior staff avoiding accountability
- excessive reliance on one employee controlling key functions
- unexplained financial anomalies
- informal approval processes
- poor complaint handling
Organizations must take these indicators seriously.
Unaddressed small issues can escalate into major organizational, financial, and reputational risks.
Governance Is More Than Compliance
Strong governance isn’t about the number of policies an organization has.
It is measured by:
- leadership behaviour
- accountability
- transparency
- ethical decision-making
- effective oversight
- consistent policy enforcement
- willingness to address misconduct
- organizational culture
Policies alone don’t build integrity. Leadership behaviour does.
Leadership behaviour delivers.
When leaders dodge tough talks, skip consistent standards, or put reputation over accountability, organizational culture can quickly decay.
Building a Culture of Accountability
Organizations that manage governance risks effectively share key characteristics.
They:
- encourage reporting of concerns
- respond to complaints consistently
- maintain strong procurement and financial controls
- review policies regularly
- provide ongoing staff training
- support independent oversight
- act early when warning signs emerge
- prioritize transparency and accountability
Strong organizations know governance is not a onetime exercise.
Governance demands constant focus, regular review, and strong leadership commitment.
Final Thoughts
Governance failures continue to harm councils, government agencies, and SMEs across Australia.
The lesson is obvious.
A policy on a shelf offers little protection without a culture of integrity, accountability, transparency, and ethical leadership.
Real governance is not about appearances.
It is about what leaders, managers, and employees do when no one’s watching.
Contact [email protected] for help in these areas.
How Should Employers Address Misconduct Allegations in 2026?
How Should Employers Address Misconduct Allegations in 2026?
Allegations of workplace misconduct are becoming more complicated, more noticeable, and much more dangerous for employers in 2026.
Local councils, government agencies, and small businesses are now receiving more complaints about:
- bullying and harassment
- conflicts of interest
- misuse of resources
- fraud and corruption
- inappropriate social media conduct
- discrimination
- workplace behavioural issues
Meanwhile, employees now have vastly different expectations. Employees better understand their workplace rights, psychological safety requirements are being examined more closely, and organisations face increasing demands to show fairness, transparency, and accountability.
A single investigation that is not managed well can rapidly become more serious:
- unfair dismissal proceedings
- workers compensation claims
- psychological injury allegations
- reputational damage
- union disputes
- media scrutiny
- loss of staff confidence
Despite these changing risks, one principle stays the same:
Procedural fairness remains central to every justifiable workplace investigation.
Why Procedural Fairness Still Matters
Procedural fairness is not just an HR formality or a legal technicality.
It supports a legal and trustworthy investigation process.
Employees who face allegations must be provided with:
- clear details of the allegations
- enough time to respond
- access to relevant information
- an opportunity to provide evidence
- a fair and unbiased assessment process
Investigators and decision-makers should remain open-minded throughout the entire investigation. If an investigator works backward from a desired result, the honesty of the process is already affected.
The Fair Work Commission keeps emphasising that assumptions, hints, and unsupported opinions cannot replace factual evidence.
The Continuing Relevance of Deng v Westpac
One of the most often talked about cases about procedural fairness is Kefeng Deng v Westpac Banking Corporation [2018] FWC 7334. (CaseNote)
Westpac looked into claims about using customer information improperly and breaking internal rules. Although the Commission agreed that there were valid concerns about the employee’s behaviour, the investigation process itself faced strong criticism.
The Fair Work Commission pointed out several major failures, including:
- insufficient detail provided before the interview
- a five-hour interview with minimal breaks
- failure to thoroughly test or corroborate evidence
- an apparent overreliance on the investigator’s opinion
- only 24 hours provided for the employee to respond to detailed allegations
Commissioner Riordan said parts of the process were unfair and criticised the investigation for not properly following important leads. The Commission ultimately determined that the dismissal was unfair and ordered the employee to be reinstated.
The decision is still especially important in 2026 because many organisations keep making the same mistakes.
Common Investigation Failures Still Seen in 2026
Although people are more aware of governance and workplace culture, many employers still do not fully understand how complex misconduct investigations can be.
Frequent problems include:
- managers investigating their own staff without training
- poorly framed allegations
- lack of independence
- rushing investigations
- failing to gather corroborating evidence
- excessive delays
- inadequate interview practices
- confidentiality breaches
- failing to separate fact from opinion
- predetermined outcomes
In local government settings, these problems become more serious because investigations often draw political attention, council members’ examination, and public interest.
For SMEs, the impact can be equally damaging. An investigation with mistakes can damage workplace relationships, lower morale, and cause long-term harm to reputation.
Why Poor Investigations Create Bigger Problems
Many organisations strongly emphasize “resolving the issue quickly.”
This approach often leads to much higher risks in the long term.
An investigation conducted poorly can be detrimental:
- complainants
- respondents
- witnesses
- workplace culture
- leadership credibility
- staff trust
- public confidence
Employees soon lose trust in systems they see as biased, inconsistent, or unfair.
When trust is lost, organisations often experience more complaints, higher employee turnover, and employees becoming less willing to report wrongdoing.
What a Professional Investigation Looks Like in 2026
A proper workplace investigation should include:
- logical terms of reference
- properly articulated allegations
- impartial investigators
- evidence-based findings
- procedural fairness throughout
- documented reasoning
- proportionate recommendations
- independent review of findings before disciplinary action
Importantly, findings must always rely on evidence rather than assumptions, office politics, or the pressure to reach a quick result.
Effective investigations follow a systematic and fair approach and can withstand careful examination by others.
The Value of Independent Investigators
For important, sensitive, or high-risk issues, independent investigators offer some of the best protections for councils, government agencies, and small and medium-sized enterprises.
Independent investigators provide:
- objectivity
- investigative expertise
- procedural fairness experience
- evidentiary assessment skills
- independence from internal politics
- increased credibility
External investigators also help show employees, regulators, and tribunals that the organisation handled the matter fairly and professionally.
That trustworthiness can become especially important if the issue later goes to the Fair Work Commission, a regulator, or the media.
Final Thoughts
By 2026, workplace investigations must be handled with greater seriousness than just routine HR tasks.
Allegations of misconduct now have major legal, operational, cultural, and reputational affects.
The organisations best able to handle these risks are those that:
- act early
- investigate professionally
- maintain procedural fairness
- document decisions carefully
- remain evidence-focused throughout the process
When investigations are conducted correctly, organisations protect both themselves and the integrity of their workplace culture.
Lack of Sleep, Poor Decisions and Rising Workplace Risk: Why Councils and SMEs Should Pay Attention
Lack of Sleep, Poor Decisions and Rising Workplace Risk
Introduction: The Hidden Cost of Workplace Fatigue
Across Australia, many workplaces still treat exhaustion as a sign of commitment. Employees who work late into the night, managers surviving on minimal sleep, and executives constantly “pushing through” are often praised for their dedication.
However, growing research suggests this culture may be creating a serious governance and compliance risk for Local Government, government agencies, and SMEs.
How Lack of Sleep Impacts Decision-Making
Lack of sleep does far more than reduce productivity. Research now links fatigue to poor judgment, inflexible thinking, impaired decision-making, and unethical behaviour.
Tired employees are more likely to cut corners, ignore procedures, make reactive decisions, and fail to properly consider the consequences of their actions. Fatigue also reduces emotional control and increases “tunnel vision” thinking, where individuals focus only on immediate outcomes rather than long-term risks.
Fatigue and Unethical Behaviour in the Workplace
Importantly, one of the first abilities people lose when tired is the capacity to reflect on the ethical consequences of their actions. This means exhausted employees are more likely to rationalise shortcuts or justify conduct they would normally recognise as inappropriate.
What begins as “just getting the job done” can quickly evolve into procedural breaches, poor workplace behaviour, or misconduct.
Governance Risks for Local Government and Public Sector Organisations
For councils and government organisations, this creates significant risk.
Fatigued staff may:
- Overlook procurement requirements
- Mishandle complaints
- Fail to maintain proper records
- Make poor decisions under pressure
- Ignore compliance obligations
In environments where accountability, transparency, and procedural fairness are critical, even small lapses can lead to allegations of misconduct, governance failures, reputational damage, or legal scrutiny.
Many investigations into workplace misconduct, fraud, corruption, and compliance breaches reveal a common factor — employees operating under excessive workload pressure and chronic fatigue.
Why SMEs Are Particularly Vulnerable
For SMEs, the danger can be even greater.
Small businesses often operate with limited staff, high workloads, and minimal internal oversight. Owners and employees frequently manage multiple responsibilities while working extended hours. Over time, fatigue can weaken internal controls and create conditions where errors, poor judgment, or even fraudulent conduct become more likely.
Common Workplace Failures Linked to Exhaustion
An exhausted finance employee may fail to identify suspicious transactions. A fatigued manager may ignore bullying or harassment complaints. An overworked staff member may manipulate records simply to keep up with unrealistic expectations.
These issues are rarely isolated incidents. They are often symptoms of a workplace culture where fatigue has become normalised.
Workplace Fatigue as a Risk Management Issue
The issue is not simply employee wellbeing — it is organisational risk management.
Businesses and councils that reward constant overwork may unintentionally be increasing their exposure to fraud, misconduct, poor workplace culture, and legal liability.
Forward-thinking organisations are now recognising fatigue as both a workplace safety issue and a governance issue. Managing workloads, encouraging healthy work practices, and reducing burnout are no longer optional wellbeing initiatives — they are essential risk mitigation strategies.
Creating a Sustainable Workplace Culture
Leaders should ask themselves an important question:
Are we rewarding productivity — or simply rewarding exhaustion?
Organisations that prioritise sustainable workloads, ethical leadership, and employee wellbeing are far more likely to maintain strong governance, effective decision-making, and healthy workplace cultures.
Conclusion: An Exhausted Workplace Is Not a High-Performing Workplace
The message for leaders is simple: an exhausted workplace is not a high-performing workplace.
It is a workplace operating with reduced judgment, weakened ethical safeguards, and increased exposure to serious organisational risk.
For Local Government, government agencies, and SMEs, managing fatigue is no longer just a wellbeing initiative — it is a critical governance and compliance priority.
$90,000 Sexual Harassment Case: A Warning for Councils and Small Businesses
$90,000 Sexual Harassment Case: A Warning for Councils and Small Businesses
$90,000 Sexual Harassment Decision – What Council CEOs and SME Managers Must Learn From This Case
A recent Federal Circuit and Family Court decision has sent a very clear message to employers across Australia: failing to properly manage workplace sexual harassment and basic employment obligations can be extremely costly — both financially and reputationally.
In Mejia v Capital City Café-Bar [2026], the Court ordered a café director to pay approximately $90,000 in compensation and penalties following a sexual harassment incident involving a young employee. This case is significant because it is one of the first published decisions under the new sexual harassment jurisdiction introduced under the Fair Work Act reforms in March 2023.
For Council CEOs, senior managers, and SME owners, this case provides several critical lessons.
What Happened in This Case?
The employee, a 23-year-old migrant worker, alleged that the café director hugged her, kissed her without consent, and attempted to offer her money while pinning her against a sink.
The incident occurred shortly after the employee had raised concerns about her pay and the fact that she had not been receiving pay slips. The employee did not return to work after the incident and later commenced legal proceedings.
The Court accepted that the incident caused distress, humiliation, and ongoing emotional impact, and compensation was awarded accordingly.
However, the sexual harassment itself was only part of the problem.
The Employer’s Bigger Problem – Multiple Fair Work Breaches
What significantly increased the penalties was the employer’s broader failure to comply with basic employment laws. The Court found the director had failed to:
- Provide a Fair Work Information Statement
- Provide a Casual Employment Information Statement
- Provide pay slips
- Pay correct wages including overtime and casual loading
- Maintain proper employment records
- Make the Award and National Employment Standards available
- Provided false pay slips to the Fair Work Ombudsman
The Judge described this as a “comprehensive, if not complete, disregard for the obligations of a national system employer.”
This is a critical point for employers: sexual harassment cases often expose broader compliance failures.
Important Legal Development – New Sexual Harassment Jurisdiction
This case was brought under section 527D of the Fair Work Act, introduced under the Secure Jobs, Better Pay reforms.
This means employees now have another legal pathway to pursue sexual harassment claims — in addition to the Human Rights Commission and anti-discrimination processes.
In practical terms, this increases the legal risk for employers.
Key Takeaways for Council CEOs and SME Managers
A Single Incident Can Result in Large Compensation
The Court made it clear that sexual harassment does not need to be repeated behaviour to result in significant damages.
Many managers still believe that a “one-off incident” is less serious.
This case confirms that is not how courts see it.
Power Imbalance Matters
The Court placed significant weight on:
- The employee being young
- Being a migrant
- Having limited financial resources
- The offender being the business owner and in a position of authority
This highlights a major risk area for:
- Small businesses
- Councils
- Family-run businesses
- Workplaces where owners/directors deal directly with staff
Power imbalance increases damages.
Poor HR Practices Will Make Everything Worse
The penalties were not just for harassment — they were for systemic non-compliance.
This is where many councils and SMEs are exposed:
- No proper policies
- No training
- Poor documentation
- Incorrect pay slips
- No investigation procedures
- No HR systems
- No external investigator
When something goes wrong, these failures compound liability.
Text Messages and Apologies Can Become Evidence
The director sent messages apologising and asking the employee to keep the incident secret.
This significantly damaged his case.
Managers and business owners often try to “fix things informally” after an incident.
This can make the legal situation worse.
This Case Sends a Message About Personal Liability
Importantly, the director personally was ordered to pay penalties.
This is critical for:
- Council senior managers
- Directors
- Business owners
- CEOs
- General Managers
You can be personally liable, not just the organisation.
What Organisations Should Do Now
This case clearly shows what organisations should have in place:
- A clear sexual harassment policy
- Complaint reporting procedures
- Investigation procedures
- Manager training
- Proper wage and payroll compliance
- Proper employment records
- Access to an external investigator
- Post-investigation follow-up processes
Organisations that do not have these systems are exposed to significant risk.
Final Thoughts
This decision is a warning to employers across Australia. The combination of sexual harassment and basic employment law breaches resulted in a $90,000 outcome for a single incident involving one employee in a small business.
For councils and SMEs, the message is very clear:
If you do not have proper workplace policies, complaint procedures, and investigation processes in place before something happens, it is already too late.
Prevention, proper procedures, and independent investigations are no longer optional — they are a critical part of risk management and governance.
If you have none of these, then contact ACCA ([email protected]). I can help protect you, your business, and your employees by ensuring you have the proper policies and ensuring matters are handled properly, fairly, and legally.