Most organisations have a workplace investigation procedure. Very few have ever assessed whether that procedure is itself a source of psychosocial risk.

After the NSW Industrial Relations Commission's decision in Secretary, New South Wales Department of Education v SafeWork NSW (No 2) [2026] NSWIRComm 1014, handed down on 2 March 2026, that gap is difficult to justify.

What happened

The facts are straightforward, which is part of what makes the decision significant. A Business Manager at a NSW Department of Education school, referred to in the proceedings as A, was advised in April 2023 that she was the subject of a misconduct investigation. She was stood aside from her substantive role and placed on alternate duties. A letter of allegations did not arrive until July 2023, roughly three months later. The investigation continued for approximately 10 months, with limited communication and alternate duties that did not reflect her experience or capability.

The outcome, after all of that, was a caution and reprimand.

In November 2023, the worker complained to SafeWork NSW about the psychosocial hazards arising from the length of the investigation, the lack of communication, and the nature of her alternate duties. SafeWork investigated, and in February 2024 issued two improvement notices against the Department. The Department challenged those notices before the IRC.

It lost.

The investigation process itself is a psychosocial hazard

The core finding is that the investigation process, standing alone, constituted a psychosocial hazard requiring active management by the employer. The Commissioner's reasoning did not rest on whether the original conduct allegations were valid or whether the worker's distress met some subjective threshold. It rested on the design and execution of the investigation process itself: how long it ran, how communication was managed, whether the alternate duties were suitable, and whether the employer followed its own policies.

This is a meaningful distinction. Most organisations think about psychosocial hazards as conditions that exist in the ongoing workplace: workload, bullying, poor change management, role conflict. This decision adds a category that many have not considered: the processes organisations use to manage people, particularly when those processes involve standing someone aside, restricting their duties, or subjecting them to prolonged uncertainty.

The Department argued that the psychosocial regulations were too unclear to be applied in practice. That argument failed. The Commissioner found the obligations are sufficiently clear: identify the hazard, control the risk, review.

Three operational implications for WHS and HR teams

1. Duration is a hazard, not just an inconvenience. An investigation that runs for months without meaningful updates is not simply slow. It is exposing the worker to a hazard that the employer has a duty to control, just as it would with any other identified psychosocial risk. Organisations conducting complex or multi-party investigations need to treat elapsed time as a risk factor, not just a project management problem.

   
   

2. "Guide only" timelines in investigation policies are not control measures. Many investigation procedures include recommended timeframes but no mechanism to enforce them. The decision suggests this is not sufficient. If an organisation's policy sets a timeframe but has no escalation pathway, no review trigger, and no accountability when the timeframe is exceeded, the policy is not functioning as a control measure in the way the regulations require.

   
   

3. Alternate duties must be genuinely suitable. Standing a worker aside and giving them tasks that do not reflect their skills, experience, or role is not managing the psychosocial risk. It may be creating one. The suitability of alternate duties is now part of the compliance picture, not just an HR convenience question.

Why this matters beyond the education sector

It would be easy to read this decision as specific to a large government department with a complex bureaucracy. It is not. The principles apply to any organisation that conducts workplace investigations, which is effectively every employer in Australia.

The data reinforces why this is worth paying attention to. Mental health claims now account for 12% of all serious workers' compensation claims in Australia, up 14.7% in a single year to 17,600 claims in 2023–2024. The median time off work for a psychological injury claim is 35.7 weeks, almost five times the median for all other serious claims. The median compensation is $67,400, more than four times the median across all claim types.

These numbers reflect harm that has already occurred. This IRC decision is about where some of that harm originates: not only in the workplace conditions that trigger an investigation, but in the investigation process itself. Organisations that redesign their investigation procedures to treat duration, communication, and alternate duty suitability as controllable psychosocial risks are not just reducing legal exposure. They are addressing one of the mechanisms through which psychological injury occurs.

Where to start

If your organisation runs workplace investigations, three questions are worth asking now. First, has your investigation procedure ever been assessed as a potential source of psychosocial risk? Second, do your investigation timeframes have escalation mechanisms, or are they guidance that nobody enforces? And third, when a worker is stood aside, who is responsible for ensuring their alternate duties are genuinely suitable, and how is that decision reviewed?

The answers will tell you whether your process would hold up if a regulator walked in through the same door SafeWork NSW used with the Department of Education: one complaint, one worker, an improvement notice that covered thousands.

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.