I think this was actually a better question when it still had all the variables $\omega$, $R$, $L$, and $C.$
Eliminating those variables eliminates one of the sources of ambiguity inherent in the original problem, which is that we don't know which of the two quantities $\omega^2 RLC$ or $R$ is greater.
The problem is the in the conversion of
$p + iq$ to $\sqrt{p^2+q^2} \, e^{i \arctan(q/p)}.$
That formula is correct only when $p > 0.$
If $p < 0$ a correct formula is
$$p + iq = \sqrt{p^2+q^2} \, e^{i (\pi + \arctan(q/p))}.$$
And of course if $p = 0$ neither formula works at all.
So if you have $b - ic,$ where $b$ and $c$ are positive,
you have the case $p = b > 0$, so
$$b - ic = \sqrt{b^2+c^2} \, e^{i \arctan(-c/b)}.$$
But when you look at $-b + ic,$ you now have the case $p = -b < 0,$ so
$$-b + ic = \sqrt{b^2+c^2} \, e^{i (\pi + \arctan(-c/b))}.$$
You applied the wrong formula to the case $-b + ic,$ and that's where the extra $\pi$ comes from.
In your original exercise, you had the expression
$\left(R - \omega^{2}RLC\right)+i\omega L$
in one case and
$\left(\omega^{2}RLC - R\right)-i\omega L$
in the other.
If $R - \omega^{2}RLC > 0,$ then $\omega^{2}RLC - R < 0,$ and vice versa.
That is, one of these expressions is the $p > 0$ case
and the other is the $p < 0$ case.
The plain arc tangent formula only works in one case;
the other case needs some modification, such as adding $\pi$ to the arc tangent.
(Subtracting $\pi$ works equally well, because that's the same as adding $\pi$ and then subtracting $2\pi$.)
That's why there's a difference of $\pi$ between the angles you found in your results. The correct result is the one where you applied your formula to
$p + iq$ where $p > 0.$
In the other case your angle is shifted by $\pi$ radians.