Whistleblower Daniel Abel in front of the State Library of Queensland. Credit:Tony Moore "Why wouldn't it be sexual harassment of someone at work?" he asked. Justice Martin is hearing an appeal brought by one of six former female library employees who had covert photographs of their cleavage taken on a work iPhone and work iPad by a senior SLQ employee. Thursday's public hearing was told the photographs were taken by the SLQ's former director of corporate services, Bruce MacGregor, the woman's supervisor. Mr MacGregor no longer works at the library. He resignation became effective in July 2013.

On December 22, last year Queensland Industrial Relations Commissioner Leslie Kaufman ruled the woman's stress-related injuries were not work-related. On Thursday, the complainant's lawyer, Catherine Hartigan, argued the injuries were work-related because the photographs were taken at her client's workplace on a work-related mobile phone by her immediate supervisor, and during work activities. "It is this evidence which the appellant says goes to show it (the workplace) goes well beyond being a backdrop to the behaviours," Ms Hartigan said. At the centre of her client's appeal is a phrase by Commissioner Kaufman that the library was not the primary reason for her injuries, "merely the background or the setting in which the inappropriate behaviour took place." On Thursday, Justice Martin closely questioned lawyers representing SLQ about the nature of the 2784 photographs.

Most of those photos are of women's breasts and cleavage. In the vast majority of the photographs the women cannot be identified because their faces are not in the close-up images, the commission was told. Ms Philipson said photographs of the women were taken in the open areas of library, not toilets or change rooms. Justice Martin asked why there was no evidence from other women who had been photographed to determine if the incident was a "one-off" or "a course of behaviour". "If we had the evidence of the other women, we would be able to determine if it was a course of behaviour," he told the appeal hearing.

Ms Philipson said all six women were offered the chance to view the photographs in individual meetings with senior state library staff in late April and May 2013. Justice Martin asked how the secret photography was uncovered, and was told how the 2784 photographs were first identified by SLQ whistleblower Daniel Abel, then investigated by the Crime and Misconduct Commission in 2013. Justice Martin asked about the time between the allegations being raised (October 2012), the staff being identified and allegations of delays in management actions in alerting other women to the photography. "Why would it not be clear to draw an inducement that these allegations do not help your client's case?" he asked. Ms Philipson said SLQ had to wait until March 2013 for advice from Crown Law before it began to individually approach female state library staff who had been photographed.

She said confidentiality issues had to be respected, and library management believed it was wrong for the women who were photographed to view all the photos. "Because they are photographs of other people," Ms Philipson said. She said the library defended its handling of the issue. "I think it is relevant in terms of reasonable management action," she said. Ms Philipson said not all the 2784 photographs were secret photographs of staff members.

She said they included close-up photographs of female members of the public, family and images from pornography sites. Ms Hartigan cited evidence - during an hearing in July, 2014 - from her client's treating psychiatrist Greg Richardson who said the woman's "mood swings are directly related to over 2000 photographs being taken by Mr MacGregor". Ms Hartigan said while management actions were discussed in Dr Richardson's evidence on the woman's condition, "it is secondary, compared with the primary stressor (learning she had been photographed)". She said the woman's treating psychiatrist, Dr Andrew Khoo, told the same three-day hearing that management action "perpetuated" her stress-related condition, rather than acting as a stressor. Ms Hartigan argued that the medical evidence demonstrated that the taking of the photographs in the workplace was the "primary stressor", while the management actions that followed was a "secondary stressor".

Justice Martin adjourned the hearing for a future decision. Stay informed. Like the Brisbane Times Facebook page.