Background
Gunilla Rindeklev was employed by the Commonwealth of Australia from June 2013 until she voluntarily resigned in December 2021, working first at Centrelink and later at the Child Support Agency. Throughout her employment she raised numerous complaints about the conduct of colleagues and the adequacy of management’s responses. A central set of concerns arose from her interactions with a former work colleague with whom she had a personal relationship, and the employer’s handling of her complaints about that colleague’s workplace behaviour. A formal preliminary investigation in 2016 resulted in directions letters to both employees but no Code of Conduct referral, a decision Ms Rindeklev contested as inadequate. In October 2017, her shifts were reduced following an incident involving alleged disrespectful conduct towards another staff member.
At the Child Support Agency, Ms Rindeklev raised further bullying complaints in March 2019. A preliminary assessment report (the 2019 Report) found insufficient evidence to substantiate her allegations, noted she had lodged at least 12 complaints since November 2017, and described aspects of her complaint language as “border[ing] on being vexatious accusations.” The report recommended she be reminded of the principles of the complaints policy and offered counselling support. Ms Rindeklev subsequently made workers’ compensation claims and, in 2022, commenced two proceedings in the Federal Court — WAD 156/2022 concerning her Centrelink employment and WAD 165/2022 concerning the Child Support Agency — each targeting the manner in which her complaints were handled by her employer.
Ms Rindeklev appeared in person. The Commonwealth was represented by counsel. The hearing ran for nine days in September 2025, generating a judgment of 501 paragraphs. The claims spanned alleged discriminatory conduct under s 104(1) of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Cth), false or misleading representations about workplace rights under s 345 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) in both the 2016 outcome letter and the employer’s response to a statutory Comcare information request, and adverse action under s 340 of the Fair Work Act arising from the shift reduction, the conduct and outcome of the 2019 investigation, and a warning issued after she spoke at a union meeting.
The Court’s Holding
Colvin J dismissed both applications in their entirety. The court found that the employer had not engaged in discriminatory conduct contrary to s 104(1) of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 in its response to the concerns raised by Ms Rindeklev. The letters sent to Ms Rindeklev about the outcome of the preliminary investigations did not constitute false or misleading representations about her workplace rights under s 345 of the Fair Work Act, and neither did the employer’s response to the statutory Comcare information request. The reduction in shifts in October 2017 was found not to constitute adverse action for the purposes of s 340 of the Fair Work Act.
The court also rejected the claim that the 2019 investigation was conducted or concluded in a manner that constituted adverse action, and specifically considered whether a finding had been made in the investigation that Ms Rindeklev was a “multiple and vexatious complainer” or a person who made complaints in bad faith — a characterisation she regarded as central to her case. It further found that those responsible for managing her workplace had not incited adverse action in connection with the investigation or its outcome, and that the warning issued after the union meeting did not constitute adverse action. On the question of causation — relevant to any claims that might otherwise have been upheld — the court considered and declined to accept certain evidence advanced by Ms Rindeklev, and held that causation had not been established.
Key Takeaways
- An employer’s preliminary investigation outcome letter and its response to a statutory Comcare information request will not constitute false or misleading representations about an employee’s workplace rights under s 345 of the Fair Work Act merely because the employee disputes the findings or characterisations in those documents.
- The use of language such as “border on being vexatious” in an internal investigation report does not necessarily amount to a formal finding that an employee is a “vexatious complainer” capable of founding an adverse action or discrimination claim.
- A reduction in an irregular/intermittent employee’s shifts following a documented conduct incident will not automatically constitute adverse action under s 340 of the Fair Work Act; causation must be independently established.
- Courts will scrutinise causation evidence carefully in general protections claims, and a failure to establish the requisite causal link is independently fatal to a claim even where the conduct in question may have been imperfect.
Why It Matters
This decision addresses the outer boundaries of the Fair Work Act‘s general protections provisions and the Work Health and Safety Act‘s non-discrimination protections in the context of a Commonwealth public sector workplace. It offers guidance on when complaint management outcomes — including investigation reports, outcome letters, and communications with compensation insurers — may or may not cross the line into actionable misrepresentation or adverse action, a question of practical significance for public sector employers who routinely produce such documents in response to employee grievances.
The case also illustrates the evidential and legal challenges faced by self-represented litigants pursuing multi-claim general protections proceedings across extended factual chronologies. With a 501-paragraph judgment examining numerous distinct causes of action, the decision underscores that courts will assess each alleged contravention individually and will not allow a pattern of employer conduct, even one perceived by the employee as systemic, to substitute for proof of each statutory element — including causation — on each separate claim.