In March 2026, the NSW Industrial Relations Commission upheld two SafeWork NSW improvement notices against the Department of Education in Secretary, New South Wales Department of Education v SafeWork NSW (No 2). The Department had challenged both notices over their scope and proportionality, arguing they went too far. For any organisation managing psychosocial compliance across multiple sites, the reasoning behind the Commission's rejection of those arguments carries significant practical implications.

The pattern

The investigation began with a single employee complaint about psychosocial hazards at a single workplace. SafeWork investigated, and then did something the Department considered disproportionate: it issued improvement notices that applied across all of the Department's workplaces, not just the one where the complaint originated.

The Department's challenge rested on two arguments. First, that a complaint from one worker shouldn't be enough to trigger action. Second, that notices covering all workplaces were unreasonable when only one site was investigated.

The Commissioner rejected both. On the first point, the ruling confirmed that the duty to manage psychosocial risk applies regardless of how many workers raise it. One person experiencing a psychosocial hazard is sufficient to engage the employer's obligation to act. On the second, the Commissioner found that the notices were reasonable because the hazard wasn't confined to one location. It was systemic, arising from how the Department identifies, controls, and reviews psychosocial hazards as an organisation.

This distinction between a localised incident and a systemic gap is the core of the decision. It establishes that a regulator can treat a single complaint as the entry point for examining an organisation's entire psychosocial compliance system.

What this looks like in practice

Consider a multi-site employer with 30 locations. A worker at one site raises a concern about workload and poor organisational change management. SafeWork investigates and finds that the way work demands and change processes are managed isn't specific to that site. The same risk identification gaps, the same absence of documented controls, and the same lack of worker consultation exist across the organisation. Under the reasoning in this decision, a single investigation can produce obligations that cover every location.

This is consistent with the broader enforcement trajectory. Mental health claims have risen 161% over the past decade (Safe Work Australia), and NSW now has 20 inspectors specifically focused on psychosocial safety. The regulatory infrastructure is being built for sustained, systemic scrutiny, not isolated spot checks.

What to do about it

The practical question for multi-site organisations is whether their psychosocial risk management would hold up as a system, not just at any individual location. That means reviewing whether psychosocial hazard identification is consistent across sites rather than dependent on local managers, whether controls are documented and tracked centrally rather than managed in isolation, and whether worker consultation processes exist at every location and are meaningfully connected to how risks are reviewed and updated.

Organisations that can demonstrate a structured, consistent approach across their operations are in a fundamentally different position when a regulator uses one complaint to look at everything.

Disclaimer: This article provides general information on psychosocial compliance in Australian workplaces. It does not constitute legal advice. Organisations should consult qualified professionals for advice specific to their circumstances. Data cited is sourced from Safe Work Australia and relevant state regulators as of the date of publication.