Case highlights proper channels for raising workplace conduct concerns
Singapore's High Court recently addressed whether accessing confidential workplace information without authorisation could be justified if done to expose perceived unfair practices.
A worker in a healthcare institution argued that accessing records without permission was necessary to document and investigate workplace safety concerns. He claimed his employer failed to follow proper termination procedures and didn't provide adequate opportunities to present his case.
The dispute raised questions about professional obligations, confidentiality requirements, and appropriate channels for raising workplace concerns. It examined the limits of employee investigative actions when suspecting misconduct.
During the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, Singapore Health Services, the nation's largest public healthcare organisation, implemented protocols restricting staff movement between hospitals.
Two neurosurgeons found themselves in different situations - the worker was assigned to Sengkang General Hospital handling routine work, while his colleague was stationed at Singapore General Hospital where he gained experience in complex procedures.
The worker discovered his colleague had begun seeing specialty patients at the hospital's Ear, Nose and Throat Department's Acoustic Neuroma Clinic. To verify this information, he accessed patient records through the hospital's computerised management system without authorisation.
Believing this violated department rules, the worker approached his department heads, including the Head of Department of Neurosurgery. He alleged his colleague was managing cases beyond his qualifications and accused leadership of showing favouritism.
The employer's investigation revealed the worker had accessed records of more than 70 patients without proper authorisation. A detailed information technology audit later showed he had viewed confidential information 103 times, including records of patients with no connection to his department.
When questioned by the employer's Committee of Inquiry, the worker acknowledged his actions violated policy but maintained they were necessary. The court record shows he stated: "I knew that I should not be accessing records of patients not under my care due to patient confidentiality. However, I had to obtain information from patient records in order to make a credible complaint."
The worker continued accessing unauthorised records even after being specifically counselled by the Head of Department and Deputy Medical Director to stop, as this constituted a breach of confidentiality.
The employment contract contained specific provisions about confidentiality. Clause 39.2 prohibited accessing or attempting to access unauthorised confidential information, while the organisation's disciplinary policy classified data breaches as grounds for dismissal.
The Singapore Medical Council's Ethical Code and Guidelines established clear professional standards, stating doctors "must not access confidential patient information if [they are] not involved in any aspect of the patient's care."
The court noted in its decision: "[The worker] was not entitled to access the records of patients not under his care on the ground that he believes that doing so would be in the best interests of such patients. The treating doctor is in the best position to determine what is in the best interests of a patient under his care."
Workplace investigation resolution
The employer's investigation found that the colleague's additional training opportunities resulted from pandemic-related workplace restrictions rather than favouritism. Multiple committees examined both the original complaints and subsequent confidentiality breaches, with each providing the worker opportunities to explain his position.
The court dismissed the worker's claims of wrongful termination and negligence. In its decision, the court emphasised: "Rules of natural justice do not apply in the context of private contracts; in contracts of employment, absent a term in the contract to the contrary, there is no basis for finding that [an employer] is obliged to accord to [an employee] the right to any particular process before undertaking any action."
The judgment concluded: "Patient safety is of course a paramount concern in hospitals, and it is right that issues of patient safety should be raised. However, concerns about patient safety should be raised to the relevant authorities for them to investigate. It was not for [the worker] to carry out his own investigations by breaching patient confidentiality."
