The appellant was employed by the respondent as a Level G8 Senior Supply Specialist and, at times, acted in higher-level positions. In 2024, the respondent imposed disciplinary action on the appellant, including a reduction in remuneration and a reprimand, after finding that the appellant had committed three breaches of discipline relating to the unauthorised disclosure of confidential information. The appellant appealed this decision to the Public Service Appeal Board (the Appeal Board), arguing that the disciplinary process was procedurally unfair, the sanction was disproportionate, and not based on all available facts.

An external investigator reviewed the matter, and the respondent confirmed the disciplinary action in October 2024, which was later superseded by a further letter in November 2024.

The Appeal Board considered whether the appellant had engaged in the alleged conduct, whether that conduct constituted a breach of discipline, and whether the disciplinary action was fair. The allegations were as follows:

• The appellant breached confidentiality by sending sensitive documents to an external party;

• The appellant failed to raise concerns when a subordinate sent confidential recruitment information to the same external party; and
• The appellant again breached confidentiality by sending internal information to the external party, who was not employed or engaged by the respondent.

The Appeal Board determined that the appellant did not seriously contest the conduct alleged in the three allegations, finding that the appellant had indeed sent the relevant emails and failed to raise concerns as required. The information disclosed was confidential and sensitive, specifically, commercial-in-confidence pricing, stock levels, and recruitment data. Sharing this information with an external party not bound by confidentiality obligations was deemed a breach of discipline.

The Appeal Board rejected arguments that the context of the COVID-19 pandemic or the external party’s previous employment with the respondent excused the conduct. The Appeal Board also found that the appellant’s failure to raise concerns about his subordinate’s conduct was itself a breach of discipline, reflecting a lack of insight into confidentiality obligations. Mitigating factors, such as the pandemic and the appellant’s previously unblemished record, were acknowledged but did not excuse the breaches.

The Appeal Board concluded that the appellant engaged in the conduct alleged in all three allegations with the first allegation being particularly serious due to the nature and volume of information disclosed and the appellant’s seniority within the organisation. The disciplinary action imposed by the respondent, a reprimand for each breach, reduction in remuneration, and a final warning, was found to be fair and proportionate in all the circumstances. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

The decision can be read here.