Workers Compensation Workplace Conduct Proceedings in NSW: IRC Relevant Conduct Certificates Explained

Psychological injury claims are often disputed on several fronts at once. The insurer may say the injury is not work-related, the conduct did not occur, the conduct was reasonable management action, or the events do not fit the new relevant conduct pathway. From 1 July 2026, some of those disputes may need a step in the Industrial Relations Commission before the worker can ask the Personal Injury Commission to decide the workers compensation dispute.

This matters because filing in the wrong place can waste time and create avoidable cost. A worker who has already received a dispute notice should not assume every psychological injury dispute goes straight to PIC. Equally, the worker should not assume every psychological injury claim now starts in the IRC. The trigger depends on the type of injury, the conduct alleged, the insurer decision and the internal review outcome.

The IRC page used for this guide was last updated on 6 July 2026. This post is written from that published procedure and should be treated as general information only, not legal advice about your claim.

Workplace conduct proceedings are a limited IRC pathway for deciding whether the alleged workplace conduct is relevant conduct for a NSW primary psychological injury claim. The phrase relevant conduct covers bullying, excessive work demands, sexual harassment and racial harassment.

The important point is the limit of the IRC role. The IRC is not deciding the entire workers compensation claim. It is not deciding all weekly payment, medical expense, work capacity, permanent impairment or damages issues. It is deciding whether the conduct identified in the claim is relevant conduct.

If the IRC issues a certificate saying the conduct was relevant conduct, the worker gives that certificate to the insurer. The insurer must then issue a decision notice about the claim within seven days after receiving the certificate. If the insurer still disputes liability on other grounds, the remaining dispute may then need to go to PIC.

The IRC pathway is usually relevant only when a sequence of events has already happened. A worker should check the insurer documents carefully before filing Form 67.

In practical terms, the pathway may apply where the worker claims a primary psychological injury caused by relevant conduct, has made a workers compensation claim, the insurer disputed liability, the worker requested an internal review, and the insurer review still disputes the claim on grounds that include saying the conduct was not relevant conduct.

The insurer may dispute more than one thing. The IRC can still be relevant if one of the insurer review grounds is that the alleged conduct was not relevant conduct. But if that issue is not part of the dispute, the IRC may not be able to deal with the application.

• Check whether the claim is for a primary psychological injury, not only secondary symptoms after a physical injury.
• Check whether the alleged cause is bullying, excessive work demands, sexual harassment or racial harassment.
• Check the insurer dispute notice and the internal review decision, not just earlier emails.
• Check whether the review decision says the conduct was not relevant conduct.
• Check whether another forum, such as PIC, is the correct next step for other disputed issues.

Some psychological injury disputes should still go to the Personal Injury Commission rather than the IRC. The clearest example from the IRC guidance is where the insurer rejected the claim because there was not enough information to decide whether relevant conduct occurred. In that situation, the worker may not apply to the IRC for a relevant conduct determination. The dispute should be referred to PIC.

PIC may also be the correct forum where the insurer disputes other workers compensation issues that do not involve the question whether the conduct was relevant conduct. For example, disputes about weekly payments, reasonably necessary treatment, work capacity, medical expenses, WPI or factual causation may require a different pathway depending on the insurer decision.

The practical task is to identify the real reason for the insurer decision. A dispute about insufficient information is different from a dispute saying the conduct was not bullying, not excessive work demands, not sexual harassment or not racial harassment.

Do not file in the IRC just because the claim involves stress or psychological injury. The IRC pathway is a specific relevant conduct certificate pathway.

The IRC guidance says NSW workers, including private sector workers, can make this type of application subject to exclusions. The exclusions are important because the wrong worker category may need a different forum or process.

The listed exclusions include coal miners, volunteers, police officers, paramedics, firefighters, workers who notified the employer of the primary psychological injury before 1 July 2026, and federal government employees. The IRC guidance also notes that federal government employees can pursue disputed workers compensation claims before the Administrative Review Tribunal.

If your employment category is unusual, or your injury notification happened close to 1 July 2026, get advice before assuming the IRC pathway is open.

Relevant conduct has specific categories. The words may sound familiar, but each category still needs evidence. A worker should avoid relying only on broad statements such as the workplace was toxic or management was unfair. The application should identify the conduct, dates or periods, people involved, documents and how the conduct fits one or more relevant conduct categories.

The employer or insurer may also raise reasonable management action. That does not automatically defeat the claim, but it can become a major issue. In simple terms, reasonable management action is management action carried out in a reasonable way and reasonable in all the circumstances.

Form 67 should not be filed as an empty shell. The IRC guidance says the worker must file the application with the claim form, the insurer review decision and all supporting evidence. An application may be rejected if the required supporting documents are missing.

The evidence should help the IRC understand the alleged conduct and why it is said to be relevant conduct. That means evidence about what happened, who was involved, when it occurred, how often it occurred, how the worker responded, and what records support the account.

Evidence filed late may require permission from the Commission after conciliation and can delay the hearing. The safer approach is to prepare the application carefully before filing.

• The workers compensation claim form and relevant annexures that describe the conduct.
• The insurer review decision disputing the claim or an aspect of the claim.
• Signed statements or affidavits from the worker and relevant witnesses.
• Annexures and exhibits such as emails, rosters, messages, workload records, complaints, meeting notes and investigation records.
• Medical evidence about the primary psychological injury and its connection to the alleged conduct.
• Certificates of capacity, GP notes, psychologist or psychiatrist material and rehabilitation records where relevant.
• A chronology that separates bullying, excessive work demands, sexual harassment or racial harassment from general workplace conflict.

Form 67 is the IRC application to determine relevant conduct. The worker files the form and supporting material with the IRC Registry. The application must also be served on the respondent. The IRC guidance says service can be by email where the insurer or employer uses email to communicate with the worker about the claim.

A respondent served with the application must file an Appearance - Workplace Conduct Jurisdiction, Form 68, within seven days. The respondent must indicate whether it takes a jurisdictional objection and briefly state the basis on which the claim is disputed.

The application is allocated to an IRC member for conciliation. Conciliation is an attempt to resolve the dispute without a formal hearing. If the matter cannot be resolved, it proceeds to arbitration. Practice Note 38 also refers to a consent pathway for parties to skip conciliation and proceed directly to hearing.

At arbitration, the IRC decides whether the conduct the subject of the claim was relevant conduct. It can issue a certificate saying some or all of the claimed conduct was relevant conduct, and/or some or all was not relevant conduct. It gives reasons for the determination.

The certificate is legally binding. It can be appealed only with leave to the Full Bench of the Commission. It cannot be reviewed or re-decided by PIC.

This means the IRC certificate is a gateway issue. It answers the relevant conduct question. It does not itself award weekly payments, treatment expenses, permanent impairment compensation or work injury damages.

Keep the forum distinction clear: IRC decides the relevant conduct certificate issue. PIC deals with workers compensation disputes that remain after that certificate process, where PIC is the correct forum.

If the IRC decides the conduct was not relevant conduct, the worker may not be entitled to further workers compensation for that injury. This is a serious outcome and is one reason the evidence needs to be prepared properly before filing.

If the IRC decides the conduct was relevant conduct, the worker must give a copy of the certificate to the insurer. The insurer must then issue a decision notice about the claim within seven days after receiving the certificate.

The insurer may still dispute liability on other grounds. If that happens, the worker may need to apply to PIC for determination of the remaining disputed issues. The IRC guidance says the IRC does not refer files to PIC and has no power to deal with ongoing workers compensation disputes after the certificate issue.

• Relevant conduct certificate issued: give it to the insurer promptly.
• Insurer decision notice due: within seven days after the insurer receives the certificate.
• Insurer accepts liability: compensation may be payable according to the claim and the scheme rules.
• Insurer still disputes on other grounds: PIC may be the next forum for those remaining issues.
• Certificate says conduct was not relevant conduct: get advice urgently about the consequences and any appeal pathway.

The new pathway creates a procedural trap for workers who act quickly but file in the wrong place or file without the right material. The application is not just a complaint about unfair treatment. It needs to show the relevant conduct issue and support it with evidence.

Workers should also avoid treating the IRC certificate as the whole claim. Even a favourable certificate may be followed by an insurer decision that disputes causation, incapacity, treatment or another legal issue.

• Filing in the IRC before requesting an internal review of the insurer decision.
• Filing in the IRC when the insurer only said there was not enough information to decide relevant conduct.
• Using broad labels such as bullying without examples, dates, documents and witness detail.
• Leaving out the insurer review decision or claim form from the Form 67 material.
• Assuming the IRC can order weekly payments or medical expenses.
• Missing the distinction between primary psychological injury and secondary psychological symptoms after physical injury.
• Ignoring reasonable management action as a possible issue.

NSW Work Injury Claims can help injured workers understand whether a psychological injury dispute appears to belong in the IRC, PIC or another pathway. We can review the dispute notice, internal review decision, medical evidence and the alleged conduct before the worker takes the next procedural step.

Where ILARS funding is approved and the worker is eligible, legal costs and necessary disbursements may be covered for disputed workers compensation matters. Funding is not automatic and depends on approval and the claim circumstances.

If your claim involves bullying, excessive work demands, sexual harassment or racial harassment, and the insurer has disputed liability, the first step is to identify the exact reason for the insurer decision. From there, the evidence and forum can be planned more safely.

This information is general in nature and is not legal advice. You should obtain advice about your own circumstances before filing in the IRC or PIC.