Brisbane doctor wins appeal against disciplinary action over flirtatious texts with OnlyFans worker
A senior Queensland Health administrator has successfully fended off disciplinary action after the health service uncovered his flirtatious texts with an OnlyFans worker.
A senior Queensland Health administrator has successfully fended off disciplinary action after the health service uncovered his flirtatious texts with an OnlyFans worker.
Dr Craig Margetts appealed to the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission earlier this year after his employer Metro North Hospital and Health Service (MNHHS) made a disciplinary finding over his “inappropriate text messages” with a female OnlyFans worker.
The director of medical services reliever, who has worked for Queensland Health for 24 years, had flirtatiously suggested the OnlyFans worker should come work with him after she told him she was applying for an admin role at a health facility.
According to MNHHS decision-maker Chief Medical Officer Dr Liz Rushbrook, Dr Margetts had told the woman – referred to in court documents by her pseudonym “ABW” – that, if he were her interviewer, he would “have very strict uniform requirements”.
“And of course, if it’s me interviewing you, you should proceed to take your knickers off put them on the (desk) with your legs apart,” Dr Margetts had said.
Dr Rushbrook found he had “inappropriately and improperly attempted to leverage [his] position and senior leadership status with the Health Service to inappropriately engage with a member of the public”.
She alleged Dr Margetts had admitted to her during a meeting in June 2023 that he had intentionally informed ABW of his role to “build trust with her”.
On appeal, Dr Margetts had denied making that admission or that he had told ABW of his role with MNHHS.
Member Peter O’Neill delivered a decision before the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission on Monday, November 10, determining that a disciplinary finding was not substantiated on the evidence.
“It is somewhat difficult to understand how this became a work related matter which justified a disciplinary process being commenced against (Dr Margetts),” Mr O’Neill said.
He noted Dr Margetts’s relationship with ABW had commenced in January 2023 through ‘Secret Benefits’, an online dating website. ABW had disclosed to Dr Margetts that her partner knew she was dating other men.
“Their relationship progressed and they began messaging in WhatsApp where they shared details about themselves, their interests and their personal lives,” Mr O’Neill said.
Mr O’Neill said Dr Margetts had “vaguely disclosed” to ABW that he worked in healthcare administration, but there was no evidence he told her he worked for MNHHS.
He said ABW’s husband had later wanted an apology from Dr Margetts for infidelity – months after Dr Margetts and ABW amicably broke up. This had prompted the “heated” text exchange in which Dr Margetts had used “insulting, demeaning and rude language” towards ABW and her husband.
Relating to that exchange, Dr Rushbrook had found that Dr Margetts had engaged inappropriately with both ABW and her husband by asking her about her sexuality and calling her husband a “pimp”.
Dr Margetts had argued on appeal that Dr Rushbrook failed to take into account the “private, consensual and intimate nature of their relationship”.
He argued she should have found “the communications were appropriate to the standard romantic relationship between two consenting adults”.
MNHHS emphasised during the appeal proceedings that there was a high level of responsibility on public sector employees to ensure that their private conduct does not bring the employer and their employment into disrepute.
“ (MNHHS) contends that (Dr Margetts) acted inconsistent with the professional office he holds when making statements that were socially offensive, perceived as threatening and directed at an individual with mental health concerns,” Mr O’Neill said.
Mr O’Neill determined that Dr Margetts’ conversation with ABW about interviewing her was “clearly a fantasy scenario” rather than a serious proposal.
“The conversations between the Appellant and ABW were consensual and intensely personal,” he said.
“In my view they had no relationship to the Appellant’s employment with MNHHS.”
Mr O’Neill said he was also not satisfied that there was enough evidence that Dr Margetts had made an admission during the June 2023 meeting.
“Even if I was satisfied to the relevant standard that this had occurred, I am not satisfied that this would be a sufficient link to the employment to ground a disciplinary process being commenced against the Appellant in respect of his private conduct,” he said.
Mr O’Neill set aside Dr Rushbrook’s decision and found that the allegations were unsubstantiated.
