A workplace harassment incident that crossed into stalking - September 2021

When Surveillance Replaces Safety

In the digital age, intimidation doesn't always knock on the door. 

Sometimes it simply watches.

There are moments in a workplace dispute when something stops feeling like ordinary conflict and begins to feel like intimidation.

This was one of those moments.

It followed my request for agreed boundaries to support a safe work environment — a request that should have been routine, and respected.

Instead, what followed was adverse action, and it was not the first time.

There had already been earlier incidents that raised concerns about monitoring and intimidation.

But this was different.

This was a new level — one that felt covert, calculated, and deeply unsettling.

Late one evening, around 10pm on Friday 24 September 2021, I noticed something unusual on my LinkedIn account.

A profile had viewed my page.

At first glance it looked like a legitimate institutional account connected to my employer.

But it wasn’t.

It was a LinkedIn profile using the university’s logo and branding, with the job title:

“Soldier / Military Officer at Australian Catholic University.”

The problem?

The university does not employ soldiers or military officers.

And within minutes, the profile disappeared.

Fortunately, I captured screenshots before it was deleted.

 

 Fake LinkedIn profile view notification

The screenshot shows the account claiming to be a “Military Officer at Australian Catholic University” viewing my profile.  

When I attempted to search for the account immediately afterward, it had already been removed.

 

Search result showing “No results found”

⸻

Why this incident mattered

At the time this occurred, I was already navigating a deeply distressing workplace dispute as an injured worker with a psychological injury.

Regulatory complaints were underway.

Workers’ compensation processes were unfolding.

The situation was already fragile and highly stressful.

Within that context, the sudden appearance of a fake LinkedIn profile using my employer’s branding, late at night, viewing my account and disappearing minutes later, was deeply unsettling.

It did not feel accidental.

It felt like covert monitoring.

Or worse — intimidation.

⸻

The digital equivalent of being followed

Workplace intimidation no longer happens only in offices or corridors.

In the digital age it can take other forms:

• anonymous monitoring

• fake online profiles

• covert observation on social media

• behaviour designed to make someone feel watched or unsafe

For someone already experiencing psychological injury, these behaviours can be profoundly destabilising.

They create hyper-vigilance.

They create fear.

They reinforce the feeling that someone is watching — even when you are alone.

⸻

Psychological safety is a legal obligation

In Australia, workplace safety law recognises that psychological safety is as important as physical safety.

Under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW):

Section 19 — Primary Duty of Care

Employers must ensure, so far as reasonably practicable, the health and safety of workers, including psychological health.

Section 27 — Duty of Officers

Officers of an organisation — including senior executives and governance bodies — must exercise due diligence to ensure the organisation complies with its safety obligations.

This means actively ensuring systems exist to prevent psychological harm.

Section 28 — Duties of Workers

Workers must also take reasonable care that their conduct does not adversely affect the health and safety of others.

Conduct intended to intimidate, harass or psychologically harm another worker may therefore raise serious workplace safety concerns.

⸻

Enterprise Agreement obligations

Statutory obligations were not the only safeguards in place.

At the time, the University Staff Enterprise Agreement 2017–2021 also recognised obligations relating to worker safety and workplace conduct.

The Agreement contains provisions addressing:

Workplace bullying

The Agreement recognises workplace bullying as a workplace matter requiring organisational response.  

Consultation on workplace health and safety

The Agreement establishes consultation mechanisms where workplace health and safety matters are reported and discussed with staff representatives.  

Workers’ compensation obligations

It also recognises that absences resulting from work-related injury must be managed in accordance with workers’ compensation legislation and university rehabilitation policies.  

These provisions exist to ensure that when workers are injured or vulnerable, the institution responds with appropriate safeguards.

⸻

When safety systems fail

When someone is already a psychologically injured worker navigating a workplace dispute, behaviour that resembles monitoring or intimidation can have a profound impact.

Instead of supporting recovery, the environment becomes threatening.

Instead of restoring trust, it erodes it.

Instead of protecting the vulnerable, the system exposes them to further harm.

Workplace safety laws exist precisely to prevent this.

⸻

A reminder to governance and senior leadership

Universities are institutions built on values.

Integrity.

Human dignity.

Justice.

Care for the vulnerable.

But values must be practiced, not simply written in policies.

Under the Work Health and Safety Act, senior officers — including executive leadership and governance bodies — must exercise due diligence to ensure workplace safety systems function effectively.

This responsibility includes ensuring:

• workplace intimidation is not tolerated

• complaints are properly investigated

• injured workers are treated with dignity

• safety systems are functioning as intended

When those safeguards fail, the consequences extend beyond the individual worker.

They affect the integrity of the institution itself.

⸻

Questions for governance and the Vice-Chancellor

These events raise important questions for governance and senior leadership.

In particular:

• How does the university ensure that psychologically injured workers are protected from intimidation or harassment during workplace disputes?

• What safeguards exist to prevent misuse of institutional branding or identity online in ways that could intimidate or distress staff?

• When incidents of potential harassment are reported, what processes ensure they are investigated impartially and transparently?

• How does governance assure itself that Work Health and Safety obligations relating to psychological safety are being properly implemented across the institution?

• What oversight mechanisms exist to ensure that workers navigating compensation processes are treated with dignity and respect, consistent with both WHS law and the institution’s own enterprise agreement?

These questions go to the heart of governance responsibility and due diligence.

Under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW), officers of an organisation must actively ensure that systems are in place to protect workers from harm.

That responsibility includes psychological harm.

It also includes ensuring that concerns raised by workers are taken seriously and addressed appropriately.

For institutions that publicly commit to values such as human dignity, justice and compassion, the expectation is even higher.

⸻

Mission and identity

For institutions grounded in ethical traditions, the responsibility is even greater.

Universities that emphasise values such as human dignity, compassion, justice and truth carry a particular obligation to ensure those values are reflected in their actions.

The treatment of vulnerable workers is one of the clearest tests of whether institutional values are truly embedded in workplace culture.

If dignity is central to an organisation’s mission, it must extend to:

• injured workers

• individuals raising safety concerns

• staff navigating distressing workplace disputes

When safety systems fail those individuals, the gap between institutional values and lived reality becomes impossible to ignore.

⸻

Why documentation matters

Digital intimidation often disappears quickly.

Profiles are deleted.

Messages vanish.

Accounts disappear.

Without evidence, incidents like these can easily be dismissed as misunderstandings.

Screenshots captured in real time ensure events are not erased.

They create a record.

And records matter.

⸻

Final reflection

A fake LinkedIn profile might appear trivial in isolation.

But in the context of a workplace injury dispute, its impact was profound.

For an injured worker already navigating a complex system, the message it sends is simple:

You are being watched.

Workplace safety is not only about preventing physical harm.

It is about ensuring people feel safe.

Respected.

Protected.

When surveillance replaces safety, something fundamental has gone wrong.

And institutions committed to dignity, justice and truth must be willing to confront that reality.

Source: contemporaneous records of events - Document 197.