|
Skodel Newsletter · April 2026
The Kyle and Jackie O case is a WHS story.
Australia's most publicised workplace breakdown has produced a Federal Court claim built on psychosocial health and safety grounds. The legal mechanics are relevant to every organisation managing interpersonal conflict at work.
|
|
|
Key Figures
|
$82M+
Compensation sought by Henderson and her company under the Fair Work Act
|
|
s340
Fair Work Act provision prohibiting adverse action against workers who exercise a workplace right
|
|
27 yrs
Duration of the on-air partnership, with reported interpersonal tensions documented over many years
|
|
|
| Skodel Case Analysis |
What Happened |
|
|
The sequence of events
KIIS FM · ARN Media · February to April 2026
| 01 |
On 20 February 2026, Kyle Sandilands publicly criticised co-host Jackie Henderson during a live broadcast, with reports indicating he told her she was not performing and that staff had raised concerns about her. Henderson left the studio mid-broadcast and did not return. |
| 02 |
Henderson sent ARN a formal complaint letter alleging psychosocial health and safety and bullying concerns relating to Sandilands' conduct on and prior to the broadcast. ARN terminated her contract days later. |
| 03 |
Henderson and her company filed proceedings in the Federal Court alleging the termination contravened section 340 of the Fair Work Act, the adverse action provision protecting workers who exercise a workplace right, including raising a WHS complaint. Compensation sought: at least $82.25 million. |
| 04 |
Sandilands separately filed proceedings challenging the termination of his own contract, arguing the on-air exchange was consistent with the show's established format, a dynamic ARN had reportedly contracted around and monitored in real time without intervention. |
ARN disputes both claims. The matter is before the Federal Court. All references to conduct and claims in this newsletter reflect allegations made in court filings and public reporting.
|
|
|
| Skodel Case Analysis |
The Adverse Action Mechanism |
|
|
How section 340 works in practice
Fair Work Act 2009 · Burden of proof
| 01 |
Once a worker raises a health and safety complaint, any adverse action taken after that point carries legal risk. The burden shifts to the employer to prove the complaint was not a substantial and operative reason for the decision. It does not need to have been the sole or primary reason. |
| 02 |
Where the gap between complaint and termination is short, that burden becomes harder to discharge. The sequence of complaint then termination is itself the foundation of the alleged adverse action. |
| 03 |
Sandilands' legal team reportedly argued the conduct was endorsed by ARN and consistent with the contracted format. Under WHS law, that framing does not limit the duty of care. Where an organisation has sustained knowledge of alleged interpersonal risk, that history may be treated as evidence of a foreseeable hazard that was not controlled. |
The alleged employer position. ARN will need to demonstrate the complaint played no operative role in the termination decision. Where the alleged facts show a formal WHS complaint followed by a swift exit, that case is difficult to make.
|
|
|
| Skodel Case Analysis |
Safe System of Work |
|
|
The question behind the claim
WHS Act obligations · Reasonably practicable standard
| 01 |
Beyond the adverse action claim, ARN faces a broader question: whether it had a safe system of work so far as is reasonably practicable for managing psychosocial hazards. That system must exist before a complaint is made, not in response to one. |
| 02 |
A safe system of work for psychosocial risk requires the organisation to identify hazards, assess the risks those hazards create, implement controls, and review their effectiveness on an ongoing basis. Evidence of each step is what regulators and courts look for when testing whether the duty was met. |
| 03 |
Consultation with workers is a legislated part of that system, not optional. Where an organisation cannot demonstrate it consulted workers on psychosocial risks and the controls in place to manage them, that gap is itself a compliance failure, separate from any harm that results. |
The practical implication. An organisation that can point to documented hazard identification, risk assessment, controls, review cycles, and worker consultation is in a fundamentally different position to one that cannot. The former has a defence. The latter has an exposure.
|
|
|
| Skodel Case Analysis |
Hazards & Risk Factors |
|
|
Alleged psychosocial hazards at play
Based on reported facts and court filings · Managing Psychosocial Hazards at Work Code of Practice
| 01 |
Bullying
Alleged pattern of repeated on-air criticism and belittlement; prior regulatory sanctions for demeaning conduct on the same program
|
High
|
| 02 |
Conflict or poor workplace relationships and interactions
Reported interpersonal tensions alleged to have escalated over time and been known to management
|
High
|
| 03 |
Poor organisational justice
WHS complaint alleged to have been raised; contract reportedly terminated shortly after with no documented alternative process offered
|
High
|
| 04 |
Poor organisational change management
Termination of a 27-year working relationship communicated via ASX announcement; no reported process offered prior to exit
|
Mod-High
|
| 05 |
Job demands
Reported high-pressure live environment with public performance scrutiny and prolonged uncertainty following the February incident
|
Mod-High
|
|
|
|
| Free Discussion |
Limited to First 5 |
|
|
SM
|
Sam McKenzie
Director of Psychosocial Compliance, Skodel
Former Acting Lead Counsel, Internal Review Unit · WorkSafe Victoria
|
Sam joins Skodel from WorkSafe Victoria, where he acted as Lead Counsel for the Internal Review Unit. He is offering a free 20-minute discussion to provide a brief assessment of your current system for identifying, assessing, controlling, and reviewing psychosocial risks, and what a regulator could expect to see at each stage.
|
20 minutes, no obligation |
|
Assessment of your current system against what regulators could expect to see at each stage of the risk management process |
|
Practical guidance on gaps in documentation, controls, and consultation |
Limited to the first 5 organisations.
Book a time with Sam →
|
|
|
|
| |
.png)
.png)
.png)