Avoiding conflicts of interest in secondary employment

On review, the employee submitted there was no conflict of interest in the two roles, and they did not consider a reasonable person would perceive there was a conflict. The employee explained they had worked for the APS agency for a number of years, and had also worked for the secondary employer for a similar period, without incident. Previous managers had approved the secondary employment requests. The employee submitted the secondary employment had no negative impacts on their APS agency workplace attendance or performance.

In our view, the employee was an experienced employee with a good performance record. There was no information to suggest the employee had acted inappropriately or had disclosed any sensitive information to their secondary employer. We concluded there was no actual conflict of interest in the employee engaging in the two roles.

We also considered whether there was a perception of a conflict of interest. We considered whether a reasonable member of the Australian public would think the employee may be improperly influenced in the performance of their public duties, owing to their private interests. We considered whether the possibility existed in a real sense. We concluded there was a real possibly that a member of the public may consider that the employee was in a position to disclose sensitive information obtained in the course of their duties to an outside organisation. That organisation was in an industry where access to that sensitive information could give rise to a significant competitive advantage. As such we concluded there was a perception of a conflict of interest that had not been otherwise mitigated.

We concluded that the decision to decline the application was reasonable and appropriate as the employee had not implemented any strategies to mitigate the perceived conflict. We therefore recommended the decision to decline the application be approved.

We also recommended the employee and agency discuss what strategies the employee could implement to reduce or avoid the perception of a conflict, with a view to reaching an agreement. The employee’s manager responded positively, indicating they were happy to discuss mitigation options with the employee.