A manager receives a complaint. An employee says they don’t feel safe at work.
It is a phrase that triggers immediate concern, and rightly so. But before you act, there is a critical question to answer: is this a genuine safety issue, or is it discomfort being described as danger?
The distinction matters more than ever. Under Western Australia’s Work Health and Safety (General) Regulations 2022, employers are legally required to identify and manage psychosocial hazards — risks to an employee’s psychological health arising from how work is designed, managed, or experienced. Getting this wrong in either direction carries real consequences: dismiss a genuine safety concern and you face regulatory liability; misclassify discomfort as a safety crisis and you complicate legitimate management, undermine accountability, and create a different set of risks.
The Fair Work Commission (FWC) has been making this distinction with increasing precision — and so have Australian courts.
The Problem with Misappropriating ‘Unsafe’
In the modern work environment, the term “unsafe” is increasingly being used in situations that are, in reality, more uncomfortable than hazardous. While genuine psychological health and physical safety concerns must always be prioritised, appropriation of the word “unsafe” inaccurately can have unintended consequences, complicating conflict resolution, workplace dynamics, and HR management.
The Fair Work Commission (FWC) recently raised concerns about the overuse of the term “unsafe” in two high-profile cases. In the case involving Heidi Black and Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute, the Commission found that the term “unsafe” was misapplied to describe an environment that was more accurately “awkward and uncomfortable.”
Similarly, in the case of Roy Sabag and D&T Hydraulics, claims of creating a “serious and imminent risk to health and safety” were deemed unjustified as the behaviours in question, though unprofessional, did not rise to the level of threats or danger.
Conflict specialist Zandy Fell, director of The Zalt Group, has highlighted this trend, describing how phrases like “I don’t feel safe” are often used to avoid discomfort or accountability rather than addressing genuine threats. This misuse can stifle open communication and hinder the development of resilient, growth-oriented workplace cultures.
This pattern is now playing out against a more demanding legal backdrop. Across Australia and Western Australia, employers are required under WHS regulations to proactively manage psychosocial hazards. This means the obligation does not wait for a formal complaint. It requires employers to assess and address risk before harm occurs. Within that framework, the ability to accurately distinguish genuine psychological harm from ordinary workplace discomfort is not just good practice — it is foundational to compliant risk management.
Additionally, both FWC decisions emphasised the importance of providing employees with procedural fairness. The failure to offer proper feedback, counselling, and support to employees contributed significantly to the findings of unfair dismissal.
Objectively differentiating between genuine safety hazards and discomfort is not just a semantic exercise; it’s critical to maintaining fairness, trust, and productivity.
The Distinction Between ‘Unsafe’ and ‘Uncomfortable’
To manage workplace concerns proactively and effectively, it is imperative to distinguish between the terms “unsafe” and “uncomfortable.”
- Defining Unsafe
Unsafe workplaces involve clear risks to psychological or physical health, such as bullying, harassment, or other misconduct that breaches workplace policies or safety standards. These scenarios constitute genuine psychosocial hazards as defined by Safe Work Australia. - Understanding Uncomfortable
Uncomfortable situations, such as receiving constructive criticism, engaging in challenging conversations, or navigating differing opinions, are natural components of professional growth. While these experiences may provoke unease, they are not inherently unsafe.
The FWC cases underscore this distinction. In both, the environments were described as uncomfortable but not dangerous. Mislabelling such situations as unsafe can escalate conflicts unnecessarily, detracting from a collaborative culture.
Visualising this distinction as a continuum can help business owners and managers better evaluate workplace situations:
- Unsafe: Verbal abuse by a manager that significantly impacts an employee’s mental health.
- Uncomfortable: Firm but respectful performance feedback that encourages development.
By recognising this continuum, organisations can respond appropriately to concerns, fostering both psychological safety and professional accountability.
It is also worth noting that workload can sit on this continuum. Ordinary work pressure — deadlines, competing priorities, high expectations — is not automatically a psychosocial hazard. But when workload becomes sustained, unmanageable, and unaddressed, it can cross into genuine risk. Safe Work Australia identifies high job demands as one of the primary psychosocial hazards employers must assess. The question is not whether the work is demanding, it is whether the demands are being managed appropriately.
What ‘managed appropriately’ means in legal terms is covered in Psychosocial Risk Is Now a Legal Obligation: What Australian Employers Must Know.
HR Challenges and Risks
The misappropriation of “unsafe” presents unique challenges for business owners and managers, adding complexity to their role in managing psychosocial safety and workplace compliance.
- Increased Workplace Conflict
Labelling discomfort as unsafe can escalate tensions and derail constructive conversations. This mischaracterisation often leaves underlying issues unresolved, further straining workplace relationships. - Impact on Culture
Over-sensitivity to discomfort can inhibit innovation and collaboration. When teams avoid necessary but uncomfortable discussions for fear of being labelled unsafe, it leads to stagnation and unresolved tensions. - Legal and Procedural Risks
As the FWC cases demonstrate, employers must exercise caution to ensure fairness and procedural compliance when addressing complaints. Failure to do so, such as not offering support or coaching to employees, can result in unfair dismissal findings. But the stakes have risen further.A 2025 conviction saw the Department of Defence fined $188,000 — the first time a Commonwealth employer was penalised for failing to manage psychosocial risks — after a worker was subjected to repeated performance management with no referral for support at any stage. The Court found the risks were obvious. The obligation to act proactively, not reactively, is now settled law.
- Missed Opportunities for Growth
Labelling challenging interactions as unsafe can prevent employees from developing the resilience and interpersonal skills necessary for long-term success. Leaders must create environments that normalise discomfort as a part of professional growth.
Lessons for Employers
The FWC decisions provide critical lessons for employers, particularly small business owners seeking to navigate these complex issues:
- Procedural Fairness Matters
In both FWC cases, the Commission criticised employers for failing to follow proper processes. This means providing feedback, coaching, and genuine opportunities for improvement before escalating to disciplinary action. Procedural fairness is not a box to tick — it is the difference between a defensible decision and a costly one.
Under WA’s WHS framework, it extends further: employers must also assess whether management processes themselves are creating psychosocial risk, not just respond to complaints after the fact.
- Clear Communication Is Key
Employers should ensure that concerns are clearly communicated and documented. Constructive feedback, delivered respectfully, can help address behavioural issues without escalating conflicts. - Avoid Overreacting
Not all challenging behaviours warrant termination. As the FWC noted in the Sabag case, heated arguments or refusal to follow instructions should often be managed through disciplinary action rather than immediate dismissal. - Address Emotional Triggers
Employers should be mindful of the context in which workplace disputes occur. In the Sabag case, the use of the term “war room” was perceived as insensitive given the employee’s personal connection to the Israel-Palestine conflict. Small adjustments in language can make a significant difference in mitigating tensions.
Solutions and Best Practices
To address these challenges, business owners and organisational leaders must adopt proactive strategies that foster a psychologically safe yet dynamic workplace.
- Encourage Open Dialogue
- Normalise discomfort as a necessary part of growth and by having regular feedback sessions with employees.
- Train leaders to address challenging situations respectfully and set the tone for constructive conversations.
- Develop Clear Policies and Procedures
- Create frameworks to evaluate whether a concern relates to safety or comfort.
- Ensure processes are transparent and inclusive, giving employees confidence in reporting concerns.
- Provide Training and Support
- Educate employees on psychosocial safety and the importance of constructive feedback.
- Offer coaching and resources to help managers address challenging situations effectively.
- Adopt Fair Processes
- Follow proper steps, including counselling and warnings, before resorting to termination.
- Maintain thorough documentation of all actions and decisions to ensure compliance with legal standards.
- Foster Resilience
- Help employees build coping mechanisms to handle difficult situations.
- Create a culture where discomfort is seen as a learning opportunity rather than a barrier to growth.
By integrating these practices, organisations can cultivate a culture where employees feel empowered to navigate discomfort while maintaining trust and fairness.
Conclusion
The line between unsafe and uncomfortable will never be perfectly clean. Workplaces are human environments and human situations are rarely tidy. But the inability to distinguish one from the other — reliably, fairly, and consistently — creates risk in both directions.
Genuine psychological harm must be identified and addressed. That is a legal obligation, not a choice. Ordinary discomfort — the friction of feedback, accountability, and high standards — must be preserved. That is what functional workplaces are built on.
If you are unsure where a complaint sits, or whether your current processes meet WA’s psychosocial risk obligations, speak with us before the situation escalates. We will help you assess it clearly, respond appropriately, and protect both your people and your business.
For more on how to handle difficult workplace conversations, see: Why Uncomfortable Conversations Must Be Part of Your Workplace DNA – And How to Make It Happen
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the legal definition of a psychosocial hazard in Western Australia?
Under the Work Health and Safety (General) Regulations 2022 (WA), a psychosocial hazard is anything that could cause psychological harm — arising from the design or management of work, the work environment, workplace interactions or behaviours, or other relevant factors. WA employers are legally required to identify, assess, and control these hazards in the same way they manage physical safety risks.
Can an employer dismiss a complaint because it involves discomfort rather than genuine harm?
Not without a proper assessment. Employers have an obligation to take complaints seriously and assess them fairly. Dismissing a concern without investigation creates procedural risk — even if the concern ultimately relates to discomfort rather than a genuine safety hazard. The Fair Work Commission has found against employers who failed to provide feedback, coaching, and support before escalating to termination.
At what point does a difficult workplace situation become an unsafe one?
The threshold relates to the nature and sustained impact of the experience. Discomfort from feedback, accountability, or high performance standards is a normal part of work. A situation becomes unsafe when it involves behaviour that causes — or risks causing — genuine psychological or physical harm: bullying, harassment, or conditions that persistently compromise a person’s wellbeing in ways they cannot reasonably manage.
What are an employer's obligations when an employee says they feel "unsafe"?
The employer must take the complaint seriously and assess it fairly. This means listening to what the employee is describing, gathering relevant information, and determining whether the situation constitutes a genuine psychosocial hazard under WHS law or a workplace issue requiring a different kind of response. Either way, a documented, fair process is required. If you are unsure how to assess this, contact Strategic HR Australia before taking action.
