A Queensland nurse has lost her legal battle to overturn a demotion after being found guilty of misconduct for accidentally emailing confidential information to her personal email. The Industrial Court of Queensland ruled that it didn’t matter that she had not deliberately intended to expose confidential patient information.
This decision is significant because the court made clear that intent is not a required element of misconduct in confidentiality breaches. It also confirmed that a mistaken or inadvertent departure from accepted standards can still be considered “inappropriate and improper” conduct.
In this article, we take a look at the events of this Queensland Industrial Relations Commission case: State of Queensland (Queensland Health) v Nield [2025]. We also look at a recent unfair dismissal QLD case of a worker who accidentally exposed over 800 private emails while trying to organise a fundraiser for a colleague with cancer.
Ms. Nield was an experienced clinical nurse who worked at Gold Coast University Hospital’s neuroscience rehabilitation unit. She was a delegate of the Queensland Nurses and Midwives’ Union. The events leading to Ms. Nield being disciplined for misconduct stemmed from a personal dispute with her unit manager.
Ms. Nield felt her manager was acting unreasonably towards her and subsequently lodged a personal grievance with her employer. To substantiate her complaint about a hostile work environment, Ms. Nield accessed hospital records and emailed clinical material to her personal, non-work email address. It was established that she took steps to redact some identifying details from the information before sending it.
Gold Coast Hospital and Health Services treated the confidentiality breach as a serious disciplinary matter. Ms. Nield admitted to sending the material and was subsequently issued a show cause notice. Her employer proposed a reprimand and a demotion via a reduction in her classification level. This led Ms. Nield’s union to lodge an appeal against a disciplinary finding of misconduct with the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission.
Ms. Nield’s union argued that her actions did not amount to misconduct. It said that she had a reasonable excuse for sending the clinical material to her email. This was because she was “refuting performance concerns” and exercising herself as a union delegate. The union also claimed the email came under the banner of raising concern about patient safety and staff communication.
The union argued to the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission that Ms. Nield was not aware of her employer’s policy that required getting approval to send clinical information. It also claimed the level of detail sent was similar or less than that which the hospital regularly transmitted to third parties. The union said that the employer applied a different standard to Ms. Nield. Her subsequent apology, after gaining knowledge of the policy, was highlighted as proof that she was not aware beforehand that her actions were wrong.
In 2023, the Commission found that the employer’s decision to find Ms. Nield guilty of misconduct was “not fair and reasonable.” It concluded that Ms. Nield’s actions did not amount to misconduct. This was because she did not “deliberately” depart from accepted standards. Also, because Ms. Nield had not engaged in “serious negligence” to the point of indifference. Nor had she “abuse[d] the privilege and confidence” that government workers have.
Gold Coast Hospital and Health Services were ordered not to proceed with the reprimand and demotion. The Commission said that they should instead take “management action” to address Ms. Nield’s conduct.
In 2025, Queensland Health appealed to the Industrial Court of Queensland to overturn the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission’s finding. It argued that the Commission had applied the wrong legal test for misconduct under section 91(5) of the Public Sector Act. Queensland Health argued that knowledge of wrongdoing was not a necessary element of misconduct. It claimed that the Commission had placed undue weight on Ms. Nield’s subjective state of mind.
In October 2025, the court heard Ms. Nield’s claim, finding two major legal flaws in the Commission’s reasoning. The first error lay in its interpretation of previous cases. The court ruled that the Commission had treated a non-exhaustive list of examples of misconduct as a comprehensive set of requirements. It clarified that it is “one thing to say” that inappropriate conduct includes a departure from accepted standards. However, the court said it is “quite another to say” that a mistaken departure can’t constitute inappropriate conduct.
The second error concerned the element of intent. The Industrial Court of Queensland stressed that the definition of misconduct included “abuse of the privilege and confidence” enjoyed by an employee. It said that this example recognises that subjective knowledge of wrongdoing is not a “necessary element” of inappropriate conduct. The court said that the Commission’s “concentration” on Ms. Nield’s knowledge led to that factor being determinative without considering the seriousness of the admitted breaches of confidence.
Ultimately, the court concluded that Ms. Nield’s admitted conduct was both inappropriate and improper in an official capacity. This was especially true due to the high vulnerability of patients and the sensitive nature of the information involved. The court acknowledged Ms. Nield’s lack of deliberate intent, her security precautions and her belief that she was advancing interests beyond her own as a union delegate. However, it ruled that her sending the email to a private computer was a “serious breach of confidentiality.”
The court concluded that the employer’s finding that Ms. Nield was guilty of misconduct was “fair and reasonable,” regardless of whether it was deliberate or not. It thereby overturned the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission decision.
Another example of an employee accused of serious misconduct after emailing confidential information is the unfair dismissal QLD case Mrs. Rebecca Callow v M People (QLD) Pty Ltd [2025]. Rebecca Callow began working as rear dump truck operator for mining equipment company M People (trading as Mackellar) in 2021. The events that led to her termination of employment started with a company-approved fundraiser for a colleague who had cancer.
M People had authorised the fundraiser, which involved sourcing work shirts bearing the company’s logo and intended for use on the mine site. These were to be sold and the proceeds would go towards the ill colleague. Ms. Callow was heavily involved in the initiative. In her Fair Work unfair dismissal claim, she admitted that she had exhibited “a sense of overzealousness” in organising the fundraiser. This was because she was concerned about the “seriousness” of her colleague’s condition.
Ms. Callow had attempted to get help from a project manager on payroll deductions and other logistical matters. However, the manager did not respond to her emails. At the Fair Work unfair dismissal hearing, the manager admitted that he had “no interest” in the fundraiser. The Fair Work Commission said that this failure of communication left Ms. Callow feeling “unsupported” and “pressured” to manage the time-sensitive matter herself
On 6 November 2024, in an effort to disseminate ordering information for the work shirts, Ms. Callow sent an email to hundreds of employees. However, she admitted to the Commission that she made the “simple mistake” of cc’ing rather than bcc’ing the email addresses. This led to the emails of 850 staff and contractors being publicly exposed.
M People viewed this as a substantial breach of policy related to the handling of confidential information, which it considered serious misconduct. The company claimed that the breach caused reputational harm by creating a “perception that they had mismanaged” their personal information.
Ms. Callow was issued a show cause notice, which required her to respond to the allegations and explain why her employment should not be terminated. After this process, it was decided that Ms. Callow would face termination of employment.
Ms. Callow’s union lodged a Fair Work unfair dismissal claim. It argued that her termination of employment was disproportionate and procedurally flawed. The union submitted that M People lacked a valid reason for dismissal and that Ms. Callow’s conduct could not be categorised as serious misconduct. This was because it was not “wilful or deliberate” behaviour that was inconsistent with the continuation of her employment contract.
A central part of the Fair Work unfair dismissal claim was the union’s evidence of preferential treatment. It claimed that senior employees “well versed” in the use of email and what is considered confidential information had committed similar breaches. However, these employees did not face termination of employment. The union argued that Ms. Callow’s dismissal was “completely prejudicial.”
The union also argued that the dismissal process was procedurally unfair. It said that M People had failed to notify Ms. Callow during the show cause process that they intended to rely on two key reasons for dismissal. This included a breach of the employment agreement and her previous disciplinary history.
The union argued that this denied Ms. Callow the opportunity to respond to critical elements of the case against her. In her Fair Work unfair dismissal claim, Ms. Callow also provided evidence regarding a prior matter where she had experienced alleged abuse and was “victimised” every week.
Ms. Callow’s Fair Work unfair dismissal claim was heard by the Fair Work Commission in July 2025. It found that M People did not have a valid reason to dismiss her for serious misconduct. This was because she had not willfully exposed the confidential information and that it was a mistake that had a minimal impact.
The Commission was heavily persuaded by the evidence of inconsistent treatment. It stated that the “comparatively different treatment” of M People with regard to Ms. Callow “significantly undermines” the so-called valid reason the company relied on for the termination of employment. The Commission noted that the company had not dismissed other employees who had committed equal or more severe breaches. This therefore proved that contravening confidentiality policies “did not automatically destroy” the trust and confidence in Ms. Callow.
The Fair Work Commission also found significant procedural failures with Ms. Callow’s termination of employment. It noted the failure to give her an opportunity to respond to the reasons for her dismissal. This included her previous disciplinary history and breaching her employment contract. The Commission also found a conflict of interest with the decision to dismiss her. It was noted that the project manager had made the decision, but he had also not responded to Mr. Callow’s enquiries. The Commission concluded that this was “procedurally unfair and prejudicial” to Ms. Callow.
Considering all the circumstances, including Ms. Callow’s genuine, cost-incurring efforts for the fundraiser, the Commission ordered her reinstatement. It also ordered continuity of service but declined to restore lost remuneration for the interim period. This was to act as a “deterrent” for possible future breaches of workplace policies.
Australian Workplace Discrimination Representatives helps Australians challenge unfair treatment at work; from dismissals and discrimination to workplace harassment and unfair deactivation If you’re feeling overwhelmed or unsure about your next step, we can help you take action quickly and confidently.
There are strict deadlines for making Fair Work claims, so act fast. Contact us today on 1800 333 666 for a free and private consultation.
