Since the 2022 update to the Model Work Health and Safety regulations, employers have a positive duty to manage workplace psychosocial hazards. And regulators are now cracking down on employers who fail to proactively identify and control them.
In this article, we’ll cover some of these recent crackdowns. This includes SafeWork NSW forcing a Sydney university to temporarily cease layoffs affecting around 800 staff due to the immediate workplace psychosocial hazard risk. Also, a NSW court’s historic conviction and $188,000 fine handed to the Department of Defence for the death of an Air Force technician.
Before we look at these recent cases, let’s first explain what workplace psychosocial hazards are and the laws that apply to employers. The 2022 update to the Model Work Health and Safety Regulations require employers to treat “invisible” risks like excessive workload or bullying with the same risk management processes used for physical hazards.
Employers now have a “positive duty” to proactively identify potential psychosocial hazards and implement reasonably practicable protections. Failing to have a robust, documented system for managing these psychological risks is now a direct breach of Work Health and Safety obligations.
Under this legal framework, psychosocial hazards are not just occasional moments of stress. They are specific elements of work design, management or social interaction that increases the risk of psychological or physical harm. The Model WHS Regulations and supporting Codes of Practice categorise these hazards into several key areas.
- High job demands: This refers to sustained high mental or physical effort, such as unrealistic deadlines, excessive workloads or long hours that leave little time for recovery.
- Low job control: When workers have little say over how they perform their tasks, or when their autonomy is severely restricted.
- Poor support: This occurs when employees lack the necessary resources, information or emotional support from supervisors and colleagues to complete their work safely.
- Lack of role clarity: Uncertainty about responsibilities, conflicting expectations from different managers or frequent, unmanaged changes to tasks.
- Inadequate reward and recognition: A consistent imbalance between the effort a worker puts in and the recognition or feedback they receive.
- Poor organisational change management: Restructures or process changes that are poorly communicated or implemented without consultation.
- Interpersonal and environmental factors: Harmful behaviours such as bullying, sexual harassment and workplace violence. Even remote or isolated work can be classified as a hazard.
These hazards often do not act in isolation. A worker might be able to handle high job demands if they have high levels of support and control. However, when multiple hazards overlap – such as high demands paired with low support and poor role clarity – the risk of a psychological injury becomes significant.
This cumulative effect is what regulators are now specifically looking for. That’s because it often points to a systemic failure in work design rather than an isolated interpersonal conflict.
Experts have warned that employers that fail to properly manage workplace psychosocial hazards in accordance with the updated laws risk significant legal, financial and reputational consequences. And regulators are now actively using enforcement tools like improvement and prohibition notices to drive compliance.
In a 2026 webinar hosted by Australian Business Lawyers, its director Julian Arndt admitted that he had been “sceptical” about the momentum of the new workplace safety regime. However, he said that he “should have believed the hype” as employers face genuine legal peril.
Australian Business Lawyers associate director Kate Thomson said that safety regulators are now demonstrating a “preparedness” to enforce psychosocial legal requirements. They are motivated to issue “provisional improvement notices” or initiate litigation against employers “in ways we’ve just never seen,” she said.
The regulatory crackdown is particularly visible in New South Wales.
Mr. Arndt said that SafeWork NSW has begun a significant “clampdown on psychosocial hazards.” This has included a massive compliance “blitz” resulting in over 500 notices. As part of a record $127.7 million investment, SafeWork NSW has significantly expanded its inspectorate. These inspectors are trained to move beyond reactive investigations to conduct proactive, unannounced site visits aimed at detecting systemic work design flaws before they lead to injury.
Ms. Thomson noted that if an employer doesn’t have an adequate safety system in place, a regulator will give them a “very detailed list of things to fix them” before a specific deadline. When dealing with regulators, Ms. Thomson said that employers must “not look at them as your friends.” She noted that their primary function is to “find risk” and “enforce the law,” often doing so “far more seriously” and “more expensively” than management might anticipate.
A recent example of how regulators are cracking down on employers was SafeWork NSW’s prohibition notice to the University of Technology Sydney (UTS) in September 2025. The notice forced a temporary cessation of the university’s redundancy proceedings. SafeWork NSW’s decision was based on the belief that UTS’s management of the process created an immediate workplace psychosocial hazard risk.
SafeWork NSW deployed an inspector to investigate the university’s restructure following reports of potential safety breaches. The resulting prohibition notice directed UTS to halt meetings with approximately 800 affected staff members and delay the release of its formal Academic Change Proposal.
‘Reckless’ job cuts would have made 10% of workforce redundant
In April 2025, UTS had informed its staff that it intended to pursue $100 million in cost reductions. This plan involved the potential redundancy of 150 academic and 250 operational positions, representing roughly one-tenth of the institution’s total workforce. Prior to SafeWork NSW’s intervention, UTS had already suspended student enrolments for 120 courses.
The university argued that the cuts were a financial necessity. A UTS spokesperson noted that it had faced “deficits for five years” and that its current revenue did not cover operational costs. Professor Andrew Parfitt, the vice-chancellor, stated in an email to staff: “We recognise and regret that this will be adding to the uncertainty felt by our staff.”
Meanwhile, National Tertiary Education Union national president Dr. Alison Barnes said that university executives were pursuing “reckless” job cuts that “tear at the fabric” of public universities. She said that this was happening while dismissing the “expertise and concerns of their own staff.”
First time a regulator has stepped in to halt redundancies
SafeWork NSW’s inspector stated in the prohibition notice that he reasonably believed workers “are and will be” exposed to a serious and imminent risk of workplace psychosocial hazards. It was the first reported instance in New South Wales where a prohibition notice has been used to stop a corporate restructure.
However, in February 2026 it was reported that UTS was planning to move ahead with cutting over 100 jobs. This came after the Fair Work Commission dismissed a dispute raised by the National Tertiary Education Union.
Dept. of Defence convicted and fined for Air Force technician’s death
Another recent example of regulators cracking down on workplace psychosocial hazards took place in December 2025. This was when the New South Wales Local Court handed down a historic conviction regarding workplace psychosocial hazards. It concerned a 34-year-old Royal Australian Air Force technician who took his own life at the Williamtown base in July 2020. The Department of Defence was fined and convicted for a breach of duty relating specifically to psychosocial hazards under federal work health and safety legislation. This was the first time a Commonwealth employer had faced this kind of penalty.
The investigation into the death was led by Comcare; the federal work health and safety authority. Defence initially faced three charges filed in 2022. However, it ultimately pleaded guilty to a single Category 3 offence under section 33 of the Commonwealth Work Health and Safety Act 2011.
The conviction centred on Defence’s failure to provide adequate training for supervisors tasked with administering performance management tools. Specifically, the court found a breach of the primary health and safety duty under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011.
The investigation revealed that the technician had been placed on four separate Work Plans during the six months leading up to his death. Comcare CEO Colin Radford said that the risks associated with this intense performance management were foreseeable. Mr. Radford said that the worker’s supervisors failed to refer him for support, put him on leave or do anything to “relieve the stress and pressure he clearly felt.”
The court heard that the technician had exhibited clear indicators of declining health and mental distress. Despite these signs, Defence failed to implement practical measures such as referring the employee for a medical assessment or suspending the performance management process entirely.
Under the Commonwealth Work Health and Safety (Managing Psychosocial Hazards at Work) Code of Practice 2024, a psychosocial hazard is defined as any aspect of work design or management that may result in psychological or physical harm. In this case, the specific hazard was the implementation and oversight of the draft Work Plan procedure.
Comcare argued that Defence’s existing safety guidelines were insufficient because they were not supported by active supervisor training. Mr. Radford noted that “the risks were obvious and known to Defence” through its existing policies and guidelines. He said that these policies can only minimise risk when they are “applied and followed in practice”, and if they are backed up by training for staff tasked with implementing them.
The investigation concluded that Defence knew that the worker was not coping with his professional duties and was also having personal difficulties. Comcare argued that Defence’s failure to take a proactive approach constituted a significant breach of its legal obligations to protect workers from predictable psychological injury.
Defence handed huge fine, named and shamed
In December 2025, the New South Wales Local Court imposed a fine of $188,000 on Defence. For context, the maximum penalty for the breach is $500,000. The court also issued an adverse publicity order under section 236 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011. Such orders serve as a secondary penalty. They require the convicted party to publicise the details of their offence and the subsequent penalty to ensure organisational accountability.
The ruling clarifies that internal policies and procedures do not equate to safety compliance if supervisors lack the training to identify and mitigate psychosocial hazards. In particular, during high-pressure cycles like performance management.
Read more: Why Suppressing Misconduct Hurts Workers: Lessons from Silvagni
Feeling the pressure of workplace stress or poor management?
Workplace psychosocial hazards can have a lasting impact on your health, safety and job security. If you’ve been subjected to excessive workloads, poor management practices, bullying or have raised concerns that were ignored, you may have legal options.
A Whole New Approach (AWNA) supports employees across Australia with unfair dismissal claims, general protections disputes, and workplace issues linked to psychological harm. Whether you’ve been pushed out during a restructure, disciplined unfairly, or affected by unsafe work practices, our team can help you stand up for your rights.
Your initial consultation with us is free and private. Contact us today on 1300 766 700 to find out how we can assist.
