A HOSPITAL employee was unreasonably suspended from work because management wrongly believed he had sexual contact with a corpse, a court has ruled.

The Workers Compensation Tribunal has ordered the Department for Health and Ageing compensate a public servant, who The Advertiser has chosen not to name, for his psychological injuries.

It has ruled those injuries resulted from Queen Elizabeth Hospital management suspending the worker based on “an incorrect assumption” that he was facing trial for necrophilia.

Judge Leonie Farrell said the hospital’s operations manager misunderstood a pending criminal case against the worker, in which he had been charged with assaulting his partner.

She said that, while his suspension lasted just two weeks, the erroneous allegations had left him unable to return to work and incapacitated by “a disorder of the mind”.

“The employer failed to act reasonably ... when no mention was made to the worker of what the employer believed to be the charges against him,” she said.

“It would have been an easy step to seek clarification from him as to those charges ... I have no doubt reasonableness required them to raise these matters.

“In this matter, the worker had no real opportunity to respond because he did not know what matters were being referred to.”

In her judgment, published today, Judge Farrell said the man joined the public service in 2007 and, by 2010, was working part-time at the QEH and the Lyell McEwen Hospital.

She said he had “struggled with absenteeism”, “has some difficulty getting along” with managers and had been caught “engaging in sexual conduct with another man” in the hospital library.

In October 2012, the worker’s relationship with his partner broke down and he was charged with aggravated assault.

“Knowing he had an obligation to advise his employer that he had been charged, he and his father went to see his human resources manager,” she said.

Judge Farrell said that, while the case progressed through the justice system, the worker was diagnosed as HIV-positive and began to suffer anxiety issues.

“In April 2013 he received a copy of his former partner’s statement to police (which) contained serious allegations against him,” she said.

“The worker says the allegations were untrue.”

A month later he went to see his operations manager about the case, his former partner’s false allegations and his health, and that manager made a series of notes of their conversation.

“She (the manager) recorded he had been diagnosed ‘with AIDS and was HIV+, and had been summoned to court to face allegations against pedophilia’,” she said.

“(She wrote) he faced allegations of ‘necrophilia, intercourse with a corpse located at the QEH morgue which apparently everyone knows about’.

“(She wrote) he faced allegations of ‘being a pornographic king and another which I cannot remember ... the allegations had been made by a former boyfriend’.”

Judge Farrell said the manager was “shocked” by what the worker told her, was “unfamiliar with criminal procedure” and “saw no distinction” between a charge and an allegation.

“It is my view that she misunderstood what the worker was telling her about necrophilia,” she said.

“She did not do so deliberately or maliciously ... it was a simple misunderstanding resulting from her unfamiliarity with the matters being raised.”

Judge Farrell said the manager passed the matter on to her supervisors who suspended the worker “believing he had been charged with interfering with a body in the morgue”.

The worker, she said, was told he had breached the public service’s code of ethics by not notifying management of the charges “at the earliest possible opportunity”.

At no time was the worker told he was suspected of necrophilia.

Judge Farrell said the Department for Health and Ageing wrote to SA Police, which advised the worker was charged only with aggravated assault.

SA Police also advised “the comments made by the ex-partner appeared to have no substance”.

The worker’s suspension was lifted in July 2013 but he did not return to work due to the worsening of his depression and adjustment disorders.

Judge Farrell said it was clear there had been a misunderstanding, that the worker had not breached the code of ethics and should never have been suspended.

“The decision to suspend him was not reasonable because of the failure of (management) to advise him of what they believed he had been charged with,” she said.

“(Management failed) to give him the opportunity to advise them as to what he had been charged with prior to suspension.”

She adjourned the matter to hear submissions on the appropriate award of compensation.