Imperfect but not unreasonable: Supporting robust performance management and feedback processes

As many employers approach performance review periods or are considering commencing performance management processes, a recent workers' compensation appeal decision from Queensland reinforces that providing honest performance feedback – even where the process is imperfect – can constitute reasonable management action.

In Bauer v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2026] QIRC 043, the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission (QIRC) dismissed a temporary teacher's appeal against the rejection of her workers' compensation claim for a psychological injury.

The feedback, management action and psychological injury

In this decision, the temporary teacher was employed by the Queensland Department of Education at a state College.

The teacher claimed she suffered a psychological injury as a result of the way she was treated by supervisors at the College, focusing on two feedback meetings held in July 2022 relating to her request for conversion to permanent employment, and the subsequent handling of her complaints about that process.

At the first meeting, the Head of Campus met with the teacher to discuss the teacher's wish to be made a permanent employee and also provided feedback. The feedback was based on feedback reports prepared by relevant managers. The invitation received by the teacher inviting her to the meeting informed the teacher that the purpose of the meeting was "to give feedback on permanency application".

The feedback provided at the meeting included negative feedback, which the teacher did not accept.

A second meeting was then held with the teacher to discuss the evidence that formed the basis of the feedback. In addition to the Head of Campus and the teacher, two other Heads of Department attended the meeting as well as two Queensland Teachers' Union representatives.

The teacher alleged that her employer had not followed positive performance management principles regarding "detailing, describing and managing employee work performance" and she suffered psychological "hurt" as a result of the "unreasonable, unjust, biased and unfair actions of the management team".

The teacher made a workers' compensation claim that was rejected, and that rejection was upheld by the Workers' Compensation Regulator. The teacher then appealed that decision to the QIRC.

While it was accepted that the teacher had suffered a psychological injury arising out of her employment and that employment was a significant contributing factor, the central issue was whether that injury arose from reasonable management action taken in a reasonable way, thereby excluding the claim under the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld).

The importance of good processes in management action

In rejecting the teacher's appeal, the QIRC made some key findings including:

• Firstly, management action need not be perfect to be reasonable. The Commissioner acknowledged some imperfections in the process – for example, the permanence process and criteria relevant to the feedback discussion and could have been communicated more clearly to the teacher before the meeting. However, these imperfections did not render the management action unreasonable.

• Secondly, an employee's perception of management action is not determinative. A critical thread in the decision was the distinction between the employee's subjective perception and the objective reality of the management action. The teacher's expectation that she would receive only positive feedback, and her complete rejection of any critical feedback, drove her conclusion that the process was unreasonable. The Commissioner found it was the teacher's perception, rather than the reality of the management action, that led to her view that it was unreasonable. Similarly, the Commission made clear that the teacher not agreeing with evidence "is not a basis to contend it is inadequate or untrue".

• Thirdly, providing performance feedback and responding to complaints was reasonable. The Commission found that convening the feedback meetings, gathering feedback from Heads of Department via a template permanency report, and referring to emails sent by the teacher as evidence of classroom management issues were all reasonable management actions taken in a reasonable way. The handling of the teacher's subsequent complaints was also found to be reasonable and in accordance with applicable processes.