A sarcastic remark, an awkward conversation, and a colleague who stopped talking
A hospital worker who claimed his colleague's silent treatment amounted to workplace bullying has had his case dismissed by the NSW Industrial Relations Commission.
The worker was a permanent part-time patient support assistant employed by the Central Coast Local Health District, based at Gosford Hospital in New South Wales. He had been in the role since mid-2024, when he met the colleague at the centre of his complaint - another patient support assistant on the same floor.
According to the decision handed down on September 30, 2026, the pair's relationship was troubled almost from the start.
In December 2024, during a conversation between the two, the worker mentioned "felching" - what the Commission described as an "outre sex act." The Commission accepted the conversation took place and caused the colleague discomfort.
Then came the cancer ward incident.
In February 2025, the colleague walked into the cancer care ward at Gosford Hospital to find the worker already transporting a patient. When she offered criticism, he fired back sarcastically - words to the effect that he was glad she was there to tell him how to do his job.
After that, the colleague stopped speaking to him entirely. Not professionally, not socially. The situation was brought to hospital management's attention.
By about September 2025, the worker claimed he had become aware of something more troubling: that his colleague intended to covertly record their workplace interactions, had drafted a petition attacking his character and professionalism, and was trying to coerce staff into writing false negative emails about him to management. He lodged a formal bullying complaint.
In late December 2025, a risk assessment was undertaken by the department in response to complaints from both sides. The pair were formally directed to remove themselves from each other's presence and to avoid speaking to one another. The worker was subsequently transferred to Woy Woy Hospital.
In May 2026, he filed an application for stop-bullying orders under section 144C of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 (NSW) - the state equivalent of the federal Fair Work Act's anti-bullying provisions. He named both the health district and the colleague as respondents.
He put forward four allegations: the colleague's refusal to speak to him; her attempt to coerce staff into writing false negative statements; a petition she allegedly drafted questioning his character and professionalism; and her disclosed intention to covertly record him.
The Commission heard the matter in July and August 2026. Three of the four allegations fell away.
On the petition, the Commission found there was no evidence it ever existed. The worker could provide only "scant and vague details" of its content, and neither the colleague nor another witness appeared to know anything about it under cross-examination.
On the coercion claim, the Commission found the colleague had merely asked other staff who had also had negative interactions with the worker whether they were prepared to come forward and make a complaint. That the worker perceived their accounts as false did not make them so. The behaviour, to the extent it was established, was not unreasonable.
On the recording, the colleague admitted in her affidavit and under cross-examination that she had installed voice recording software on her smartwatch with the intention of recording conversations with the worker. But the Commission accepted that once she realised covert recording would be improper, she deleted the software and never recorded any conversation.
That left the silent treatment - the one allegation both sides agreed had occurred.
The Commission acknowledged that refusing to speak to a colleague can amount to unreasonable behaviour through isolation or ostracism. But what counts as unreasonable has to be weighed against the full picture - assessed objectively, taking into account everything known about the people involved and their circumstances.
Here, those circumstances included the December 2024 conversation, the sarcastic exchange in the cancer ward, and the colleague's awareness that other staff had also had negative interactions with the worker. The Commission accepted the colleague felt uncomfortable around the worker, and "not without good reason."
It noted she could be "particularly brash and combative" herself - but accepted the worker's conduct had left her feeling "intimidated, insulted and incensed." In those circumstances, the Commission held, not speaking to someone "may be eminently reasonable, even absent a direction."
The fact that hospital management later issued a formal direction to the same effect - that the two should not speak - confirmed rather than undermined the colleague's earlier decision to go quiet.
The application was dismissed.
For HR teams managing interpersonal conflict, the takeaway is practical: not every breakdown in a workplace relationship amounts to bullying, and an employee who disengages from a difficult colleague may be acting well within the bounds of what the law considers reasonable.
