I did what people are told to do.
I sought legal help.
What followed was not protection.
It was cost, confusion, and a series of failures that left me more exposed than when I started.
This was never supposed to be complicated.
I asked for a safe work environment.
That is a protected workplace right.
That is the foundation of work health and safety law.
And yet, from the very beginning, the response I encountered—even from lawyers—shifted the focus away from what had been done to me…
and onto me.
⸻
The Lawyers on the “Other Side” — When Legal Authority Is Used to Cause Harm
What occurred on the employer’s side was not simply a matter of legal strategy.
It was conduct that, in my experience and supported by contemporaneous records, escalated harm rather than preventing it.
At the centre of this was the employer’s employment relations function, led by Rena Christmann.
From the outset, what should have been a work health and safety response became something else entirely.
⸻
A Privacy Breach That Should Never Have Occurred
A defining moment, and one that continues to have serious implications, was the unauthorised access to private text message communications involving myself and a campus ministry pastoral associate.
These were not workplace documents.
They were not provided by me for use in any process.
They involved my family.
Those communications were then used against me.
Not to support my safety.
But to shift the narrative.
To medicalise what was, at its core, a work health and safety issue.
To place me in a position where I was being pressured to accept a framework that redirected attention away from the employer’s obligations.
This was not protective conduct.
It was coercive.
⸻
9 March 2020 — The Unminuted Meeting
On 9 March 2020, I attended what was described as a “dispute resolution” meeting.
There was no formal record.
There were no minutes taken.
It was in that meeting that the existence and use of those private communications became clear to me.
The impact was immediate.
Distress.
Shock.
Disorientation.
That moment should have triggered safeguarding.
Instead, the process continued.
 |
| When the law becomes machinery, the person disappears. |
⸻
Ongoing Contact, Despite Clear Boundaries
Following this, I made my position clear, repeatedly.
I required no contact.
It was documented, including in the factual investigation report dated 9 June 2020, where concerns regarding contact and safety were formally raised.
Despite this:
- contact continued
- communication was directed through my nominated treating professionals
- requests for no contact were not respected
From my perspective, this conduct crossed into:
- harassment
- intimidation
- and a pattern of behaviour that significantly aggravated psychological harm
⸻
From Risk Management to Harm Escalation
What should have occurred was straightforward:
- risk mitigation
- separation from the source of harm
- implementation of a safe return-to-work pathway
Instead, what I experienced was:
- continued exposure to the source of harm
- withholding of entitlements following the claim
- ongoing workplace ostracism and mobbing behaviours
- escalation through legal channels rather than resolution
The individual involved was not peripheral.
She was central to the events that gave rise to the claim.
And yet, instead of being removed from the situation, her involvement continued.
⸻
External Legal Escalation
External lawyers from Clayton Utz, were then engaged.
From that point, the situation intensified. The impact extended beyond me.
My family, who raised legitimate concerns regarding the privacy breach, were themselves drawn into the process.
What should have been addressed as a serious violation instead became another layer of pressure.
From my perspective, this included attempts to:
- contain the issue
- diminish the complaint
- and silence legitimate concerns
⸻
A Serious Question of Professional Conduct
The conduct described above raises serious questions, not only about compliance with:
- Work Health and Safety obligations
- Workers’ compensation duties
The conduct raises serious questions about:
- privacy law compliance
- professional conduct standards for legal practitioners
- ethical obligations to avoid causing harm through misuse of process
These issues go to the integrity of both the system and the profession operating within it.
⸻
What That Shift Looked Like in Practice
Based on contemporaneous records, correspondence, and my lived experience, this shift resulted in:
- the use of legal channels in place of immediate WHS compliance
- the progression of the matter through adversarial framing rather than risk mitigation
- increasing reliance on legal positioning rather than practical resolution
The impact on me was immediate and sustained.
I experienced:
- escalating psychological distress
- a progressive disconnection from my workplace
- increasing difficulty maintaining my role and professional identity
This was not a neutral process. It had consequences.
⸻
Isolation and Disconnection from the Workplace
A critical aspect of harm occurred through what I experienced as a powerlessness in my ability and attempts to remain connected to my workplace.
This included:
- obstructed communication pathways
- no access to colleagues and support networks
- the absence of a functional return-to-work framework
This is significant.
Under the workers’ compensation and injury management framework, recovery at work is a central objective.
Maintaining connection to the workplace is not optional, it is part of the system’s design.
Yet, by early 2020, the reality for me was the opposite, and that disconnection was occurring in parallel with ongoing legal management of the matter.
⸻
The Use of Legal Process — A Question of Purpose
There is a distinction that must be made.
Legal representation is not, in itself, improper.
But the use of legal process matters.
Where early compliance could have:
- resolved the issue
- reduced harm
- limited cost
…the approach taken prioritised legal containment.
Significant resources were expended.
External lawyers were engaged.
And yet the underlying issue, a request for a safe workplace, remained unaddressed.
⸻
Evidence Anchors — Documented Points of Escalation - What Was Known and When
These issues were raised at the time and are supported by contemporaneous records.
- 15 October 2019 — Written correspondence raising workplace concerns, including inappropriate reliance on personal communications and early indicators of boundary violations
- Late 2019 – Early 2020 — Repeated escalation of safety concerns and requests for risk management intervention
- 9 March 2020 — Unminuted “dispute resolution” meeting where private text message communications were introduced without prior disclosure or consent, triggering acute distress
- 9 June 2020 — Factual Investigation Report (commissioned by the insurer) documents concerns regarding contact and need for protective measures (including restricted contact with identified individuals - Incident #24)
- 25 June 2020 — Injury Management Plan issued; subsequent failure to implement in a manner consistent with statutory obligations
- Post-claim period (2020 onward) — Ongoing contact despite requests for no contact, including through nominated treating practitioners, alongside continued workplace disconnection
At each of these points, there were opportunities to:
- intervene
- comply
- correct course
Those opportunities were not taken.
⸻
Regulatory Complaints — Formal Steps Taken
As a result of what I experienced, I have taken formal steps to seek accountability.
Complaints have been lodged with the Office of the Legal Services Commissioner regarding the conduct of legal practitioners involved.
Matters relating to Clayton Utz have been referred to the relevant interstate regulatory authority, given jurisdictional considerations.
These complaints are grounded in documented concerns regarding:
- professional conduct
- ethical obligations
- the use of legal process in circumstances involving clear statutory frameworks
⸻
The First Employment Lawyer — Paying to Be Told What I Already Knew
The first employment lawyer did not tell me anything I didn’t already understand.
Discrimination.
General protections.
Legal pathways.
I already knew I had rights. What I didn’t know was how quickly those rights would become something I had to pay to access.
After the second appointment, I had spent close to $1,600, not to progress my matter and not to enforce my rights.
I paid a small fortune to be told how much more it would cost.
How much it would cost if it went further.
How much it would cost to take it to a commission.
How much it would cost to pursue something that, at its core, was simple:
I had asked for a safe workplace.
I remember sitting there, almost falling off my seat.
Because what I was hearing was this:
That enforcing a basic legal right,
a statutory right,
was something only available if I could afford to keep paying.
Underlying it all was something even more troubling:
A failure to properly recognise what was happening.
This wasn’t just a workplace issue.
This was retaliation.
This was the redirection of a work health and safety obligation into something else entirely, something medicalised, something pathologised, something that shifted responsibility away from the employer.
Even at that early stage, that shift was already happening.
⸻
The Second Employment Lawyer — Negotiating My Exit When I Wanted to Stay
The second lawyer approached my situation as something to be resolved through an exit.
But I never wanted an exit.
I wanted to return to my work.
I wanted to recover in my job.
I wanted the harm to stop.
Instead, I found myself in a “dispute resolution” meeting on 9 March 2020 that was not even properly recorded.
No minutes.
No formal record.
No safeguards.
And in that room (or rather, the one next door between Rena Christmann and my employment lawyer, an “unorthodox” decision), something happened that should have immediately triggered concern.
A text message was produced.
A deeply personal communication that I had never consented to being used in that way.
A privacy breach.
The employment lawyer’s response?
To say she didn’t know about it.
But that was the point.
Neither did I.
A competent, trauma-informed legal response would have stopped everything right there:
- Why was this not disclosed earlier?
- On what basis was it being used?
- How had my private communication been obtained and deployed?
Instead, the moment passed, and so did the opportunity to protect me.
My reaction in that moment—shock, distress, fear—should have been enough to demonstrate harm.
It wasn’t.
There was no trauma-informed approach.
No protective stance.
No challenge to what had just occurred.
The process moved forward as if it were normal.
As if my life could simply be negotiated away.
⸻
The Third Employment Lawyer — When Even Asking for Help Became Impossible
The third lawyer came from a reputable firm.
There were attempts.
There were letters.
But even here, something fundamental was missing.
I should never have had to convince my own legal representative that I did not have a mental health condition.
What I had was distress.
Fear.
Psychological harm caused by the very person they were engaging with.
Instead, the focus again shifted toward me.
Toward whether I should make a claim.
Toward stepping away.
“It’s not worth your health.”
But what that really meant was this:
Step into another system.
The workers’ compensation system.
A system that would go on to cause its own layer of harm.
And once that shift happened, they were gone.
No ongoing support.
No accountability.
When I later tried to go back, when I needed help, urgently, I couldn’t even get an appointment.
I was left where so many people are left in these systems:
Abandoned.
Just as I had been abandoned by my union.
⸻
The Workers’ Compensation Solicitors — A System That Never Heard Me
Then came the workers’ compensation lawyers.
By that point, I was already vulnerable.
I was already trying to understand a system no one had properly explained to me.
Already dealing with withheld information—from my employer, from the insurer, from those who were supposed to guide me.
And what I encountered was not individualised legal care.
It was a one-size-fits-all process.
From the beginning, I was clear:
I did not want a permanent impairment assessment.
I wanted:
- A return to work plan
- My entitlements
- The ability to recover in my job
That was ignored.
Instead, I was told:
“We do both WPI and medical expenses to save time.”
Save time for who?
Not for me.
Not for my life.
Not for my career.
Not for everything I had worked for.
I was treated like a file.
A process.
A product to be moved through a system.
Not a person with a professional identity, a career, and a future I was trying to protect.
⸻
The “Win” That Was Never a Win
What followed has been called a “win.”
A determination.
Some backpay.
But it was not a win for me.
Because it was made without my knowledge:
Without my understanding of the system.
Without proper communication.
Without listening to what I had been trying to say all along.
I was trying to prevent exactly what happened.
Because I didn’t have the information I should have been given.
Because everyone assumed I understood processes I had never been told about.
Because when I tried to explain, I was ignored.
That outcome did not restore me.
It locked in harm.
It aligned—whether by “design” or by failure—with what I can only describe as a coordinated outcome that ultimately benefited the insurer.
And from that point on, the consequences compounded.
⸻
Where This Left Me
Instead of enforcement of my rights, I was pushed:
- Toward the Personal Injury Commission
- Toward more lawyers
- Toward more processes I did not understand
All while I had no income.
No proper support.
No enforcement of my statutory entitlements.
And when another workers’ compensation lawyer came into the picture in 2022, the harm escalated even further.
Financially.
Psychologically.
To the point that it did something profound:
It blocked my access to justice.
Because after everything that had happened, I no longer trusted the very people who were supposed to protect me.
⸻
Legal Accountability — Duties, Breaches, and Professional Conduct
At every stage, there were clear legal obligations in place.
Work Health and Safety Duties
Under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW), employers must:
- ensure the health and safety of workers, including psychological safety
- eliminate or minimise risks, including risks arising from interpersonal conduct
- take proactive steps to prevent further harm once risks are identified
Where a worker identifies a source of harm and requests separation, that risk must be addressed.
⸻
Workers’ Compensation and Injury Management Obligations
Under the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (NSW):
- injury management must support recovery at work
- communication must be appropriate and not exacerbate harm
- suitable duties and safe systems must be actively facilitated
Ongoing exposure to the source of harm is inconsistent with these objectives.
⸻
Privacy and Information Handling
The use of private communications without consent raises serious questions regarding:
- lawful access to personal information
- proper use and disclosure
- the intersection between privacy obligations and workplace processes
These are not procedural issues.
They go directly to the lawfulness of conduct.
⸻
Professional Conduct — Legal Practitioners
Legal practitioners are not exempt from scrutiny.
They are bound by professional and ethical obligations, including:
- acting with integrity
- avoiding conduct that brings the profession into disrepute
- not using legal process to cause unnecessary harm
Where legal knowledge is used in a way that facilitates or escalates harm, serious questions arise regarding compliance with those obligations.
At every stage, there were clear legal frameworks in place.
- The Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW) imposes duties to ensure a safe system of work
- The Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) protects employees from adverse action when exercising workplace rights
- The Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW) and Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (NSW) establish entitlements to weekly payments, medical support, and injury management
Lawyers—on both sides—operate within these frameworks.
They are expected to:
- act within the law
- uphold professional and ethical standards
- avoid conduct that causes unnecessary harm
- ensure legal processes are not used in ways that undermine statutory protections
What I experienced raises serious questions about whether those standards were met.
Because instead of legal process reinforcing the law, what I experienced was:
- legal process overtaking compliance
- legal strategy displacing early resolution
- and harm escalating in circumstances where it could have been prevented
⸻
This Was Never About Complexity
This was never meant to become what it became.
It began with a simple request:
A safe work environment.
What followed was not just a failure of systems.
It was a failure of accountability—
across employers, regulators, and legal professionals—
to do what the law already required them to do.
⸻
Further Reading — Dignity, Law, and Workplace Harm
These issues have been observed, analysed, and written about over decades.
“Bullied at Work, Then Bullied by the Legal System” (2009)
https://newworkplace.wordpress.com/2009/09/14/bullied-at-work-then-bullied-by-the-legal-system/
This article highlights how individuals who experience workplace harm often encounter a second layer of harm when navigating legal systems. It emphasises how cost, process, and power imbalance can compound the original injury rather than resolve it.
“When Bad Employers Retain Thuggish Employment Lawyers” (2011)
https://newworkplace.wordpress.com/2011/07/11/when-bad-employers-retain-thuggish-employment-lawyers/
This piece explores how legal representation can be used strategically to intimidate, pressure, and silence workers. It raises concerns about the ethical boundaries of legal practice when defending employer interests.
“Work and Workplaces of the New Decade: Notes on a ‘Dignitarian’ Agenda” (2010)
This article introduces the concept of a “dignitarian” workplace framework, arguing that employment systems should prioritise human dignity over purely economic or managerial interests. It calls for workplaces that are not only productive, but also respectful, fair, and psychologically safe.
Human Dignity and American Employment Law
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1299176
This foundational paper argues that employment law has been dominated by a “markets and management” framework, where efficiency and control outweigh human considerations. It proposes a shift toward a dignity-based framework, where the law centres on the well-being, respect, and psychological health of workers. It also recognises that enforcing employment rights is often costly, complex, and stressful, which can deter individuals from seeking justice.
The paper calls for a systemic shift—where legal, organisational, and cultural structures align to support not just economic outcomes, but human dignity at work.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.