The managing scientist at Queensland's forensics lab wanted to discipline several scientists over an incident in the office dubbed "bin-gate", an inquiry into DNA testing has heard.
Therese O'Connor, a former human resources advisor to the government-run Forensic and Scientific Services facility, recounted the event on Tuesday at a Commission of Inquiry into the lab's processes.
Ms O'Connor said it happened on senior scientist Amanda Reeves's last day at work, as she was cleaning her desk after being made redundant.
Ms Reeves wheeled a confidential bin – a locked bin into which confidential documents are deposited for shredding and incineration – to her desk and emptied folders into it, Ms O'Connor told the inquiry.
"While she was doing that, there were three people standing around talking," Ms O'Connor said.
"I cannot recall who was actually throwing the documents into the bin, or exactly if all four of them were throwing documents into the bin, or whether it was just Amanda."
Managing scientist Cathie Allen later retrieved the documents from the bin and summoned the three workers seen near Ms Reeves's desk for interviews, the inquiry heard.
"My recollection is that Cathie Allen wanted to take disciplinary action against all the participants," Ms O'Connor said.
"What's wrong with throwing confidential documents into a confidential destruction bin? That's what it's for, isn't it?" the Commissioner, Walter Sofronoff KC, asked.
"The implication was they were documents that should have been retained and only destroyed when they met the scheduling requirements," Ms O'Connor said.
Ms O'Connor said she told Ms Allen there was not enough evidence to support a disciplinary process.
"There was insufficient information to be able to substantiate an allegation because we couldn't tell who had thrown what confidential document in the bin," Ms O'Connor said.
The inquiry heard no disciplinary action was ever launched in relation to "bin-gate".
Ms Allen's barrister Matthew Hickey asked Ms O'Connor whether someone in his client's position would be obliged to "gather information in circumstances where suspicion had arisen".
"The suspected destruction of documents which ought not be destroyed is something that a person in Cathie Allen's position should not ignore?" Mr Hickey said.
"Absolutely. If proven it would be a breach of potentially legislation, definitely policy," Ms O'Connor said.
Culture described as 'unhappy, very stressful, dysfunctional'
Counsel Assisting Laura Reece asked for Ms O'Connor's professional view on the lab's culture.
"It would be what we described as a toxic workplace," Ms O'Connor said.
"It's a very unhappy, very stressful, dysfunctional working place," she said.
"There were underlying issues that have never been resolved and when you get a work environment where these issues are allowed to fester and build, the emotional investment in that produces a lot of animosity between certain parties."
Ms O'Connor said she understood relations between Ms Allen and Ms Reeves soured after they both applied for the managing scientist role.
"Cathie was successful and it's my understanding that from then the working relationship between the two of them, and the personal relationship between the two of them, deteriorated significantly," Ms O'Connor said.
Ms O'Connor said Ms Reeves's role was made "redundant effectively" during a restructure, despite plans to re-integrate her into the workplace.
Ms O'Connor said while she was based at the lab, scientists confided in her with concerns about processes, including the DNA testing of bones.
"They would always request that the matter was confidential and I was not to take any action," Ms O'Connor said.
"They were fearful of Cathie Allen, and that if they made a complaint they may be treated the same way as Amanda [Reeves]," she said.
Not using bleach to clean instruments 'a given', supervisor says
The lab's former evidence recovery supervisor Allan McNevin was grilled about changes to cleaning processes that had potentially caused the contamination of bone samples.
The inquiry heard Mr McNevin recommended using bleach or TriGene, a type of disinfectant, followed by ethanol, to clean bone crushing equipment.
But Mr McNevin's instructions about the procedure did not warn staff against using bleach, which causes corrosion, on metal tools.
The inquiry previously heard concerns rusty equipment was contaminating bone samples following the protocol change.
Mr McNevin said he assumed those receiving his instructions would know to use TriGene, which does not cause corrosion, on metal.
"Why not just say that in your email?" Counsel Assisting Michael Hodge KC asked.
"Sorry but it seemed pretty obvious to me when I was writing the email," Mr McNevin replied.
"My apologies if it's not obvious to anyone else. I also assumed for any of the laboratory staff, it would be obvious as well, because like I said, that's the way we do things across multiple areas of the laboratory," he said.
"Isn't that the kind of thing you put into a document? Do not use bleach on metal instruments?" Mr Sofronoff asked.
"Isn't the notion that you do not use bleach for metal instruments something that's fundamental to the new process that you're introducing?"
"I think Commissioner because it's that fundamental to laboratory processes it's a given," Mr McNevin said.
"Lots of things are 'given' that are in instructions in the form of standard operating procedures," Mr Sofronoff said.
"Truck drivers are told not to get into a cabin without having three points of contact. That's a given. But they're told it," he said.
The inquiry continues.
