Adem Genc and National Australia Bank Limited

[2014] AATA 359

Division GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION

File Number

2013/0203

Re

Adem Genc

APPLICANT

And

National Australia Bank Limited

RESPONDENT

DECISION

Tribunal
Egon Fice, Senior Member

Date 6 June 2014

Place Melbourne
The Tribunal affirms the reviewable decision of the Respondent made on
15 November 2012.
........[sgd Egon Fice]................................................................
Egon Fice, Senior Member
COMPENSATION – Depression and anxiety claim – Injury – Disease – Reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner – Applicant diagnosed with adjustment disorder with anxious mood and depression – Allegations made by employees at a meeting regarding behaviour of the Applicant – Applicant alleged work related harassment and bullying – Formal warning – Independent investigation
Legislation
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) ss 5A, 5B
Cases
Alcan (NT) Alumina Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Territory Revenue (Northern Territory) (2009) 239 CLR 27
Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Reeve and Another (2012) 199 FCR 463
Commissioner of Taxation v Consolidated Media Holdings Ltd (2012) 293 ALR 257
Secondary Materials
Macquarie Dictionary (6th ed, Macmillan Publishers Group Australia, 2014)
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2006 (Cth) Explanatory Memorandum
REASONS FOR DECISION
Egon Fice, Senior Member
6 June 2014

Mr Adem Genc commenced employment with National Australia Bank (NAB) in August 2010. In February 2011 he was promoted to the position customer solutions team leader. In July 2011 Mr Genc had an extended period of sick leave (2 ½ months) due to serious illness. When he returned to work with NAB he was informed that his position had been made redundant due to a restructure. He was placed in what was described as a redeployment programme. In accordance with NAB redeployment policy, Mr Genc was offered and accepted a role as a team leader in the collections contact centre which was, in effect, a demotion. Furthermore, while his previous working hours were between

8 a.m. to 5 p.m., they had changed to 12 p.m. to 9 p.m.
Mr Genc made it clear to his immediate superior, Mr Martin Kelsey, that for personal reasons, he wanted to work the normal day shift between 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. However, according to Mr Kelsey, the only team leader role available was that which he had accepted working the late shift.
On 5 June 2012 Mr Kelsey held what is described as a Skip Level meeting. The purpose of a skip level meeting is to gain feedback from employees on how things were going at an associate level. They were encouraged to explain to their Operations Manager

(Mr Kelsey) the things which they liked and those which they didn’t like and how the company could improve the workplace. In the course of that meeting several employees voiced concerns about Mr Genc’s behaviour as their team leader. Concerned about the allegations made by the employees at the skip level meeting, Mr Kelsey reported to his manager, Ms Teresa Rice, and was told to contact the People Advisory Centre for advice.
After receiving advice, Mr Kelsey held a meeting with Mr Genc on 12 June 2012 regarding the issues raised by members of his team. Although Mr Genc, according to

Mr Kelsey, said little at the meeting, he subsequently claimed that Mr Kelsey had bullied and harassed him. For that reason, Mr Kelsey ceased to be involved in the investigation into the allegations made by Mr Genc’s team members.
Ms Rice claimed that she held a meeting sometime between 13 and 21 June 2012 with Mr Genc at which Mr Kelsey was present to discuss the feedback from the skip level meeting. Subsequent to that meeting, Ms Rice issued a letter to Mr Genc setting out the specific allegations which were of concern, giving him the opportunity to respond in writing by 28 June 2012. Mr Genc duly provided a letter on 28 June 2012 responding to the allegations.
On 17 July 2012 Ms Rice informed Mr Genc, at a meeting, of the outcome of her investigation. She told Mr Genc he would be issued with a formal warning and provided him with a letter to that effect. Mr Genc recommenced sick leave on 17 July 2012.

On 20 July 2012 Mr Genc informed Ms Rice that he disagreed with her findings and requested an independent investigation.
On 7 August 2012 Mr Genc lodged a compensation claim under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (SRC Act). NAB is a licensed self insurer for workers’ compensation purposes under the SRC Act. Mr Genc claimed he suffered depression and anxiety as a result of work related harassment and bullying.
In a letter dated 20 September 2012 Ms Denise Thomas, a NAB Workers Compensation Claim Manager, informed Mr Genc that his claim for compensation had been determined and she found that NAB was not liable to pay compensation for his claimed conditions.
In an email dated 24 September 2012 Mr Genc requested a review of Ms Thomas’ determination. On 15 November 2012 Ms Stephanie Hosking, a NAB Workers Compensation Claims Manager, wrote to Mr Genc informing him that she had affirmed the decision made by Ms Thomas on 20 September 2012.
Mr Genc lodged application by email on 15 January 2013 seeking review by this Tribunal of Ms Hosking’s decision.
I had in evidence medical reports prepared by Dr TJ Entwisle (7 September 2012) and

Dr L Congiu (15 March 2013). Dr Entwisle diagnosed Mr Genc as presenting with adjustment disorder with anxious mood while Dr Congiu diagnosed moderately severe adjustment disorder with anxiety and depression. Both psychiatrists were of the view that Mr Genc’s medical condition was contributed to by the stress he experienced at work with NAB. The NAB did not dispute those opinions. However, it contended that the injury or disease suffered by Mr Genc was subject to the exclusionary provision set out in s. 5A of the SRC Act. That is, the injury or disease suffered by Mr Genc resulted from reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner in respect of his employment.
Therefore, the only issue which I am required to determine is whether the exclusionary provision applies in Mr Genc’s case.
THE DEFINITION OF INJURY FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE SRC ACT
For the purposes of the SRC Act, the word injury is used in its ordinary sense (sometimes referred to as injury simpliciter), and also in a composite sense where the word disease is included. The distinction between an injury simpliciter and a disease may be significant in some matters. That is because disease is defined in the SRC Act as an ailment suffered by an employee or the aggravation of that ailment which was contributed to, to a significant degree, by the employee’s employment (s. 5B). By way of distinction, the definition of injury, when that word is used in its ordinary sense, means an injury suffered by an employee which is a physical or mental injury arising out of, or in the course of, the employee’s employment (s. 5A).
Although Ms C Dowsett of counsel, who appeared on behalf of NAB, submitted that
Mr Genc did not suffer an injury simpliciter but rather suffered an ailment and hence a disease which was contributed to, to a significant degree, by his employment with NAB, given that there was no dispute about the significant alteration in Mr Genc’s mental state which both psychiatrists agreed was contributed to by his employment, it is unnecessary for me to explore whether that is correct. The exclusionary provision which is relied on by NAB applies to an aggravation, injury simpliciter and disease. Section 5A of the SRC Act provides:
5A. (1) In this Act:
injury means:
(a)a disease suffered by an employee; or
(b)an injury (other than a disease) suffered by an employee, that is a physical or mental injury arising out of, or in the course of, the employee’s employment; or
(c)an aggravation of a physical or mental injury (other than a disease) suffered by an employee (whether or not that injury arose out of, or in the course of, the employee’s employment), that is an aggravation that arose out of, or in the course of, that employment;
but does not include a disease, injury or aggravation suffered as a result of reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner in respect of the employee’s employment.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) and without limiting that subsection, reasonable administrative action is taken to include the following:
(a)a reasonable appraisal of the employee’s performance;
(b)a reasonable counselling action (whether formal or informal) taken in respect of the employee’s employment;
(c)a reasonable suspension action in respect of the employee’s employment;
(d)a reasonable disciplinary action (whether formal or informal) taken in respect of the employee’s employment;
(e)anything reasonable done in connection with an action mentioned in paragraph (a), (b), (c) or (d);
(f)anything reasonable done in connection with the employee’s failure to obtain a promotion, reclassification, transfer or benefit, or to retain a benefit, in connection with his or her employment.
THE CIRCUMSTANCES GIVING RISE TO THE CLAIM
According to a history given by Mr Genc to Dr Entwisle on 31 August 2012, he joined NAB as a collections team leader in 2010. In February 2011 he was promoted to the position customer solutions team leader. However, in July 2011, he had some 2 ½ months away from work due to a medical condition which necessitated surgery. On his return to work after sick leave, Mr Genc was informed that his position had been made redundant due to a restructure. He was placed on a redeployment programme.
Mr Genc applied for a number of positions within NAB and, although he denied this, it appears he may have used external agencies to look for other opportunities which he might be able to take up (T documents, page 16, 4 January 2012). On 24 January 2012 it appears that Mr Genc was told there was a team leader role available at the collections contact centre (T documents, page 16, 24 January 2012). According to a statement of evidence provided by Mr Kelsey dated 17 September 2013, he had a vacancy for an evening shift team leader in the collections contact centre. According to Mr Kelsey, this role was offered to Mr Genc and he accepted it. The working hours on that shift were between midday and 9 p.m. This role was effectively a demotion from the position he initially held on joining NAB. However, as is stated in a discussion log kept by
Ms Michelle Samson, a senior operations manager with NAB, Mr Genc was made aware that if he did not accept, given that the collections contact centre role was comparable, he would be forced to resign his position within NAB. According to Ms Samson, Mr Genc was grateful for the role as a fall-back position if nothing else became available
(T documents, page 16).
According to Mr Kelsey, Mr Genc told him that he wanted to work day shifts as opposed to the late shift to which he had been allocated. Mr Genc told Dr Entwisle that he had discussed his working hours with Mr Kelsey stating that he couldn’t sustain this for a long period because he had to look after his wife and child (his wife was also suffering from an illness). Dr Entwisle recorded that Mr Kelsey later told Mr Genc that there were no other positions and that perhaps he might want to look for work outside NAB. In his witness statement, Mr Kelsey said that Mr Genc told him he wanted to work day shifts but was told that at that time, there were no available day shift roles in his team. He said that if Mr Genc elected to look elsewhere, he would understand. In his cross-examination, Mr Genc said that he was not told that there was no vacancy at that time in other positions. He also denied that Mr Kelsey could not create a vacancy for him although he agreed that it was not Mr Kelsey’s responsibility to find work for him.
Mr Kelsey said that on 4 June 2012 he informed Mr Genc and his team by email that he would be holding a skip level meeting on the following day. Although Mr Genc, in cross-examination, said he did not recall receiving that email and that his memory was that he was told about the meeting after passing Mr Kelsey in a hallway, that email was in evidence and Mr Genc is named as a recipient. In his witness statement, Mr Kelsey explained that a skip level meeting is a meeting held with associates in the absence of their immediate supervisor to obtain feedback on how things were going in their roles. He said that his task was to specifically ask team members about their leader and whether or not they were receiving the appropriate support and guidance.
Mr Kelsey’s evidence was that during the meeting conducted on 5 June 2012 with
Mr Genc’s team, a number of team members made allegations about Mr Genc’s behaviour. He made notes of those allegations which he attached to his witness statement. In essence, those allegations were:
1When team members sought assistance, they were told to go away in the presence of other team members.
2He told one team member he did not understand why the role appeared to be so hard and suggested the team member was not suited to collections.
3He told two team members if they did not achieve their targets they would have 10% deducted from their QA scores. This was taken by NAB to be threatening towards the team members.
4When a team member did not answer a question put by Mr Genc, he put his foot on the bottom of the team member’s chair shaking it as he kicked it.
Mr Kelsey said he was taken aback by the allegations raised by the team members and therefore contacted his manager, Ms Rice. After receiving advice from NAB’s People Advisory Centre, he arranged a meeting with Mr Genc to discuss the issues raised by his team. This meeting took place on 12 June 2012. Mr Genc’s account of this meeting differs significantly from that given by Mr Kelsey. That is despite the fact that I had in evidence notes which Mr Genc agreed he made in the course of that meeting and file notes made by Mr Kelsey shortly after that meeting was concluded. The handwritten notes made by Mr Genc are dated 12/06/12 while the notes made by Mr Kelsey are not dated. When the handwritten notes were put before Mr Genc in the course of his cross-examination, he agreed that he was the author of that document. In his examination-in-chief, Mr Kelsey also confirmed that he made the file note, which was attached to

Ms Rice’s witness statement, on the day of that meeting.
In his written statement of evidence, Mr Kelsey said that upon seeking counsel about how to best conduct the meeting which took place on 12 June 2012, he was told to let

Mr Genc know that he came to him without judgement but that he needed to discuss some issues which had been raised by his team in the recent skip level meeting. He said he recalled Mr Genc taking notes at that meeting although he did not say much.
In his file note, Mr Kelsey said that he told Mr Genc that he came to the meeting to provide him with feedback from his team and that it was not his intention to pass judgement. The file note also states that he pre-positioned Mr Genc to let him know that some of the feedback from the team would be challenging and that it was the opinion and reflection of his team’s perceptions of him as a leader. The brief notes made by Mr Genc of the criticisms of his leadership style levied by members of his team appear to accord with Mr Kelsey’s file note. In his file note Mr Kelsey also recorded that Mr Genc took about a page of notes. That statement is plainly correct.
In his file note Mr Kelsey said he provided Mr Genc with some feedback regarding the claim that his team would be amber gated in certain situations and percentages deducted off QA. He noted that Mr Genc said that the feedback was taken out of context. Nevertheless, Mr Genc did refer to that issue in the notes he made in the course of the meeting.
Mr Kelsey also recorded that he told Mr Genc that he did not expect him to shoulder all of this alone and asked how he could help. According to Mr Kelsey, Mr Genc replied that there wasn’t anything he could do. Mr Kelsey also noted that Mr Genc became very quiet during the course of the discussion and at one point began defending some of the concerns and complaints raised by his team members. Mr Kelsey said he told Mr Genc he did not need to defend any of those claims because he was there to provide the feedback from his team and not to make a judgement. Despite what was said in

Mr Kelsey’s notes, when asked in cross-examination whether Mr Kelsey told him he was there to support him, Mr Genc responded: no. He also said that he was not given sufficient feedback by Mr Kelsey in the course of the meeting.
Mr Kelsey noted that he had a general chat with Mr Genc about different learning styles and that an understanding of these may help him. He said that he mentioned modifying his coaching style to the individual audience would help. In his notes, under the heading Action Items For Adem, Mr Genc noted: coaching style – personalise & modify.

Mr Kelsey also referred to the fact that he thought there was an opportunity to re-engage with the team and discussed a complaint that a team member had not had a coaching session for some months. Mr Kelsey suggested that could be overcome by him explaining to a team member that they should have a coaching moment to address concerns that the team member may have. In his notes, Mr Genc referred to engagement and a knowledge quiz. That appears to accord with what is said in Mr Kelsey’s notes. In fact, there is nothing in Mr Genc’s notes which contradicts anything set out in

Mr Kelsey’s file note of that meeting. In concluding, Mr Kelsey said that he let Mr Genc know that he would be in touch with him again in a couple of days to see where he was at.
There was nothing in either Mr Kelsey’s or Mr Genc’s notes of the meeting of

12 June 2012 which would suggest that any discussion took place about Mr Genc’s concern regarding working the late shift as is suggested he told Dr Congiu in the course of this consultation on 1 November 2012. Dr Entwisle’s report of his consultation with Mr Genc states that Mr Genc told him he spoke with Mr Kelsey about his work hours approximately 1 month after he commenced the role, which was on 28 February 2012. According to Dr Entwisle, it was in the course of that conversation that Mr Kelsey said there were no other positions available to Mr Genc and perhaps he might like to look outside NAB. Mr Genc is also recorded as having told Dr Entwisle that another team member requested a change in working hours and that request was granted. However I had no evidence about the granting of such a request.
Nor is there anything in Mr Kelsey’s file notes suggesting Mr Genc was prevented from responding to the allegations made by his team members other than the fact that

Mr Kelsey told Mr Genc he did not need to defend himself against those allegations at that time because that was not the purpose of the meeting. Although Mr Kelsey said in his written statement that Mr Genc told him he wanted to work day shifts, in his examination-in-chief, he could not recall when that conversation took place. When asked if he recalled how he responded to that request, Mr Kelsey said he didn’t have a role for Mr Genc on a day shift although he would help find a role even if that included looking outside NAB. In fact, in his written statement, he said he told Mr Genc that if he elected to look elsewhere, he would understand.
It appears from the documents in evidence that following the meeting held on

12 June 2012 with Mr Kelsey, Mr Genc sought a meeting with Ms Rice which took place, according to Mr Genc, on 13 June 2012. In her witness statement, Ms Rice said she was uncertain about the date of that meeting but believed it was between 13 and 21 June and that Mr Kelsey was also present at that meeting. According to Ms Rice, she spoke with Mr Kelsey shortly after the skip meeting which was held on 5 June 2012 about Mr Genc’s request to change his working hours. She said at that meeting, Mr Genc denied the allegations made by his team members in respect of his conduct and also denied that Mr Kelsey had met with him and provided him with feedback. In fact, in a subsequent letter dated 28 June 2012 to Ms Rice, Mr Genc said:
As I have already mentioned to you, I feel Martin Kelsey is bullying me, and these allegations derived from feedback at the skip level meeting, are framed to discredit my reputation and me. I have already informed you of the discussions I’ve had with Martin regarding my need to change working hours due to family commitments. At the last meeting I had with Martin on 04/06/12, I asked Martin if he had the chance to look into a suitable arrangement to support me in these circumstances, as a few weeks prior (perhaps 4 – 6 weeks earlier) to this Martin said to leave the matter with him and he’ll see what he can do. Martin said that ‘I can’t manufacture a role for you and I was told ‘perhaps you should start to look at other options outside of NAB’ and suggested I seek employment outside NAB. I feel I am being victimized as a result of coming to Martin with a request to support me during a difficult time and not being able to cater for me. I made you aware of this on 13/06/12 and sought your support in this matter. I was first made aware of the existence of allegations against me of misconduct on 21/06/12 by you and wasn’t provided with the details of the allegations until 22/06/12.

In a letter which is dated 17 July 2012 but which was in fact issued by Ms Rice to

Mr Genc on 22 June 2012, Ms Rice set out four allegations relating to him breaching NAB’s Code of Conduct (Personal Conduct) and NAB’s Group Discrimination & Harassment Policy. The four allegations set out in that letter arose out of what was said to Mr Kelsey in the course of the skip level meeting held on 5 June 2012. Ms Rice asked Mr Genc to provide a response to the allegations by the close of business on 28 June 2012. She also cautioned Mr Genc that the issues were of serious concern to NAB and that his written response would be used in determining any further action which may be taken including disciplinary action which may include the termination of his employment.
Despite what Mr Genc said in his letter of 28 June 2012 regarding having told Ms Rice about allegations of bullying and harassment by Mr Kelsey, in her statement of evidence Ms Rice said she did not recall Mr Genc raising this with her prior to the letter of 28 June 2012. She also said she was aware that Mr Genc alleged he had made a complaint about Mr Kelsey before 22 June 2012 in an email and that she had failed to act on it. She said she did not recall receiving an email of that kind from Mr Genc. She said she checked all of her emails and asked security to check both Mr Genc’s and her emails including deleted files but no email was found.
Mr Genc responded to the allegations made against him in the letter dated 28 June 2012, part of which I have quoted above. He denied all of the allegations made by his team members and stated that the allegation of his harassment of team members was not put to him by Mr Kelsey in the course of the feedback meeting held on 12 June 2012.
Ms Rice met with Mr Genc on 17 July 2012 when she presented him with NAB’s response to his letter of 28 June 2012. Mr Genc agreed that he had received the letter at that meeting and pointed out that the 4^th allegation referred to by Ms Rice was now different to the allegations set out in the 22 June 2012 letter. In the earlier letter, the allegation was about Mr Genc placing his foot on the bottom of a team member’s chair, shaking it as he kicked it. In her response, Ms Rice referred to Mr Genc’s letter of

28 June 2012 stating:
Your response received on 28^th June 2012, is in some part believed to be dishonest in particular to not been given the feedback on 12 June 2012.
The new 4^th allegation raised by Ms Rice appears to be based on the following statement made by Mr Genc in his 28 June 2012 response, where he said:
I was first made aware of the existence of allegations against me of misconduct on 21/06/12 by you and wasn’t provided the details of the allegations until 22/06/12.
The allegations of misconduct were made clear to Mr Genc in the course of the feedback meeting between Mr Kelsey and Mr Genc on 12 June 2012. In his response of

28 June 2012 Mr Genc also said that allegations of harassment made by his team members against him were not put to him by Mr Kelsey when he delivered feedback on 12 June 2012. While the evidence does not indicate that allegations of harassment were made by team members against Mr Genc, their complaints about his behaviour towards them were clearly put to him. Therefore, I find that Ms Rice had a sound basis for inserting the new 4^th allegation. It was incorrect of Mr Genc to state that he first became aware of the allegations of misconduct against him on 21 June 2012. In my opinion, he must have been aware that the allegations made by his team members amounted to misconduct even though it may not have been expressly stated to be so.
After setting out concerns which were raised regarding Mr Genc’s conduct, in her letter of 17 July 2012 Ms Rice said she was satisfied his conduct was in contravention of NAB’s code of conduct. She then said that the letter constituted a formal warning and that any further breaches of the code of conduct might result in further disciplinary action being taken including a review of his employment with NAB. Ms Rice also said in her written statement of evidence that Mr Genc was told he would be rated as Amber and would receive a D for behaviour. That would result in any short-term incentive payment to which he may have become entitled being reduced by 25%.
Following the 17 July 2012 letter, Mr Genc sent an email to Ms Rice on 20 July 2012 stating he did not agree with her findings. Mr Genc described being dismayed by being called dishonest and indicated that this point was raised in a conversation he had with

Ms Rice on 13 June 2012. He described the feedback given by Mr Kelsey from the skip level meeting as incorrectly labelled as evidence of allegations of misconduct.

He pointed out that the feedback given to him by Mr Kelsey did not constitute a warning; was not a discussion about his performance; and was not about allegations made regarding his behaviour.
With respect to Mr Genc, the feedback which he was given at that skip level meeting did include allegations regarding his inappropriate behaviour towards team members.

In fact, as best I am able to ascertain from the evidence, that is primarily what the meeting was about. The file note made by Mr Kelsey during the course of that feedback meeting makes it clear he was at pains to point out to Mr Genc that the purpose of the meeting was to provide feedback from team members and not to make a judgement about his behaviour or conduct. He also made it clear that the feedback would be challenging and that the content was the opinion and reflection of his team’s perceptions of him as a leader. Mr Genc then requested that the matter be investigated by an independent third party. He also requested that a formal complaint which he had raised about Mr Kelsey in his letter of 28 June 2012 be investigated by an independent third party.
According to Mr Genc, he was of the view that Mr Kelsey was bullying him and that the allegations about his conduct which were given to him at the skip level meeting were framed to discredit his reputation. Mr Genc was also of the view that he was being victimised as result of asking Mr Kelsey to support him during what he described as a difficult time and not being able to cater for him. I understood that to be a reference to a change in his working hours which he requested and which Mr Kelsey said he could not accommodate.
In his email of 20 July 2012 Mr Genc also noted he was providing Ms Rice with a certificate of capacity as well as his WorkCover claim. He indicated that he was suffering from stress.
Ms Rice responded to Mr Genc on 23 July 2012 indicating he was entitled to follow the dispute resolution process to her next level manager, Ms Rachel Round. Ms Rice also referred to Mr Genc’s complaint against Mr Kelsey and asked whether there was anything he would like to add. Ms Rice pointed out that at the outcome meeting held on 17 July 2012 she discussed with Mr Genc his complaint against Mr Kelsey and had formed the view that the evidence did not substantiate legal grounds for a bullying claim. She pointed out that further information might assist if a formal complaint against

Mr Kelsey were to be made.
On 13 December 2012 Ms Rice wrote a letter to Mr Genc regarding his sick leave entitlements and whether he was entitled to prolonged sick leave. Ms Rice summarised his absences from 17 July 2012 as follows:
(a)recommenced sick leave on 17 July 2012 and did not apply for prolonged sick leave;
(b)reminded on 23 July 2012 of his entitlement to apply for prolonged sick leave;
(c)on 23 July 2012 Mr Genc advised that he wished to lodge a workers compensation claim;
(d)on 2 August 2012 Mr Genc was again reminded of his right to apply for prolonged sick leave;
(e)Mr Genc continued to receive unpaid sick leave and finally contacted Ms Rice and applied for prolonged sick leave on 8 October 2012;
(f)Mr Genc provided information from Dr A Mohtaji indicating he was suffering from depression and anxiety;
(g)Mr Genc’s prolonged sick leave application was approved as of 8 October 2012;
(h)Dr Entwisle provided a diagnosis of adjustment disorder with anxious mood;
(i)Mr Genc advised Konekt, a rehabilitation provider, that he did not believe he had any capacity to work at the present time;
(j)Konekt contacted Mr Genc’s psychiatrist, Dr Congiu, on 26 November 2012 who advised Mr Genc may not have capacity for work for a very long time; and
(k)on 13 December 2012 informed Mr Genc that NAB found it necessary to review his ongoing employment because it was of the view that he was unable to carry out the inherent requirements of his role as the ECO Interchange Team Leader.
On 20 December 2012 NAB terminated Mr Genc’s employment on the grounds that, due to his significant absences from work, it was of the view that he was unable to fulfil the inherent requirements of his role.
REASONABLE ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
The proper construction of the exclusionary provisions set out in s. 5A of the SRC Act was discussed in detail by the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia (Gray, Rares and Tracey JJ) in Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Reeve and Another (2012) 199 FCR 463. Gray J explained that the central word in the exclusion is the noun action and that it must have a relationship with the employment of the particular person concerned. His Honour went on to say, at 473:
The use of the word “administrative” in the exclusion is significant. In accordance with normal principles, it is not to be assumed that a word in a legislative provision has no function to perform. The word “administrative” must have been inserted to distinguish the kind of action to which the exclusion is directed from other kinds of action that might also be taken with respect to the employment of a particular employee. Such action that is not “administrative” could be operational, in the sense that it relates to the activities or business of the institution or enterprise in which the employee is employed.
Further, his Honour then said, at 474:
In the case of s 5A(1) of the SRC Act, the requisite effect is given if the provision is seen to apply to action taken in respect of the administration of the relationship of employer and employee as between the particular employee making the claim, in his or her capacity as employee, and the employer in its capacity as employer.… It is what is done with respect to the employment relationship that the particular employee has with the employer that is excluded from the definition of “injury”, unless the action taken was not reasonable, or was not reasonably taken.
The distinction between action taken in respect of operational matters in which the employee is engaged and matters dealing with the employment relationship was also emphasised by Rares and Tracey JJ where they said, at 483:
The qualification in the final phrase of the exclusion in s 5A(1) is important. It requires that the action be taken “in respect of the employee’s employment”. That qualification distinguishes the criterion of the exclusion in s 5A(1) from an action or circumstance that the Act uses to impose liability, namely an action or circumstance that arises out of, or in the course of, the employee’s employment. This suggests that the Parliament intended that the exclusionary action be specific administrative action directed to the person’s employment itself, as opposed to action forming part of the everyday duties or tasks that the employee performed in his or her employment or job. The action must be “in respect of” something that exists – the person’s employment. That is, the action must be something different to the duties and incidence of that employment or, as s 5B(2)(b), provided “the nature of, and particular tasks involved in, the employment”. Rather, the administrative action in the exclusion must take the employment as a factum and operate in respect of whatever its duties, incidence, nature and tasks may be. Thus, “employment”, as used in s 5A, is concerned with the conditions in which the employee works, the terms of his or her engagement and his or her duties: cf John Holland Group Pty Ltd v Robertson (2010) 185 FCR 566 at [72]-[73] per Dowsett J, with whom Spender J agreed.
As I understood Mr Genc’s claim, it has two aspects. The first involves his allegation that Mr Kelsey bullied and harassed him. This claim arose out of Mr Kelsey’s inability or unwillingness to change Mr Genc’s working hours so that he could work the day shift rather than the late shift. In fact Mr Genc appeared to be submitting that Mr Kelsey could have changed his working hours but chose not to do so. Mr Genc seemed to be concerned that having made that request, Mr Kelsey suggested that if working the late shift did not suit Mr Genc, he should seek work outside NAB. While Mr Genc saw something sinister about this suggestion, it appears from the evidence that this only became apparent to Mr Genc following the skip level meeting and the feedback he was given by Mr Kelsey following that meeting.
However, Mr Kelsey’s evidence was that he did not have day shift roles available in his team at the time that Mr Genc was on redeployment. His previous position had been abolished and unless a position was made available for him, his employment with NAB would have concluded in any event. There did not seem to be any controversy about Mr Kelsey’s evidence that the only team leader role available in Collections at that time involved working the late shift. In fact the evidence discloses that after Mr Genc returned to work with NAB and he was placed on redeployment, he applied for a number of positions within NAB without success. Furthermore, despite his denial, there is also evidence that Mr Genc had engaged external agencies to look for other opportunities and the log kept by Ms Samson states Mr Genc applied for roles outside of NAB including an electricity company and a telco (T documents, page 16). Given that evidence, I find

Mr Kelsey’s evidence was forthright when he told Mr Genc there were no other positions available for him as a team leader other than the position which he was able to offer which involved working the late shift.
The second part of Mr Genc’s claim against Mr Kelsey arises out of the feedback given to him following the skip level meeting held on 5 June 2012. In fact, Mr Genc was critical of Mr Kelsey for holding the skip level meeting when he did. In cross-examination he described the timing as unusual. Mr Genc went so far as to say that he was not informed that the skip level meeting would take place on 5 June 2012. Mr Genc said he found out about the meeting after being told about it by Mr Kelsey when they passed in a hallway. However, I had in evidence an email from Mr Kelsey dated 4 June 2012 addressed to Mr Genc and other addressees in which he stated that he intended to commence business skip level meetings that week and would commence with Interchange Team 4 (Mr Genc’s team) on the following evening, 5 June 2012. As to the timing of that particular meeting, Mr Genc agreed that skip level meetings were a regular feature of his employment with NAB. In his examination-in-chief, Mr Kelsey said that there was no set cycle for those meetings although they were held annually. There is nothing in the evidence to suggest that the skip level meeting held on 5 June 2012 was somehow contrived to discredit Mr Genc.
Mr Genc was highly critical of the way in which the feedback meeting was conducted. In particular, he was critical because he said he was not permitted to answer the allegations of serious misconduct put to him by Mr Kelsey. He told Dr Entwisle in the course of his examination on 31 August 2012 that he was told to listen when he attempted to raise his concerns. He repeated this statement in his letter of 28 June 2012. Furthermore, in an email to Ms Rice dated 20 July 2012, Mr Genc said:
I am further dismayed by being called dishonest (you raised this point in reference to my concerns regarding Martin and the conversation that took place between you and I on 13/06/12, and the incorrect and retrospective labelling of the feedback from the skip level provided to me by Martin Kelsey on 12/06/12 as evidence the allegations of misconduct were delivered to me. The feedback Martin delivered to me as evidenced by the photocopy of my notes did not constitute a warning, nor bear any evidence that it was a performance discussion, or that any allegations were made about my behaviour.
However, Mr Kelsey’s evidence tells different story. In his statement of evidence made on 17 September 2013 Mr Kelsey said that he commenced the skip level meeting by asking the usual questions about members roles (what they liked what they did not like). Mr Kelsey said that during the course of the meeting, Mr Genc’s team started to make allegations about his behaviour. He made notes in the course of that meeting which were in evidence. The relevant parts of his file note made shortly after the feedback meeting read as follows:
I let Adem know that the content of the feedback had been a bit of a surprise to me, as it was not what I was expecting. I went on to state that I came to the meeting to provide feedback from his people and that my intention was not to pass judgement. I pre-positioned Adem to let him know some of the feedback would be challenging and that the material was the opinion and reflection of his team’s perceptions of him as a leader.…
I provided Adem with an extensive list of feedback from his team members… I went on to say that I had an obligation to Adem ensure he was treated fairly and objectively.
I had observed that Adam had become very quiet during the course of our discussion.
During the course of our discussion Adem began defending some of the points his team had made, I let Adem know that I did not need him to defend any of the points, what I needed him to understand was that, this feedback was the perception of his people and I was (sic) reminded him that I was there to provide the feedback and not to make a judgement.
The notes Mr Genc made during the feedback meeting were also in evidence and they do not contradict Mr Kelsey’s file notes of that meeting. They indicate that Mr Genc was given information from his team members regarding allegations about his behaviour and leadership style. Although Mr Genc was correct in stating that Mr Kelsey did not accuse him of misconduct, nor did he say that it was a performance appraisal, nevertheless the statements made by various members of his team were put to him and they could clearly be characterised as misconduct. As Mr Kelsey said in his file note of that meeting, its purpose was simply to provide the feedback and not to raise allegations of misconduct. It follows I cannot find that there was any improper conduct by Mr Kelsey in the course of conducting the skip level feedback meeting. As Mr Kelsey said in his evidence, he was not there to judge Mr Genc’s behaviour but rather to explain the allegations made by his team members and to make some suggestions which might help him in his communications with those persons. The fact that misconduct allegations based on statements made by team members were subsequently made against Mr Genc by Ms Rice cannot reflect on Mr Kelsey’s conduct of that meeting.
The first question I am required to answer regarding Mr Kelsey is whether his conduct in respect of the matters I have raised above constitutes administrative action. In my opinion, it does not. Nor for that matter, do I consider that Mr Kelsey harassed or bullied Mr Genc.
The reason why I find that Mr Kelsey’s conduct does not constitute administrative action is that the conduct complained of is properly described as operational action rather than administrative action. In fact, it is on all fours with the factual situation dealt with by the Full Court in Reeve’s case. Mr Reeve was a bank branch manager and several times a week, telephone conferences were held between the area manager and managers of various branches in the area. In those conferences the performance of various branches was discussed. The discussion included the results of customer satisfaction surveys conducted for the bank by an external company. On one morning there was a telephone conference where Mr Reeve had to report a lending referral outcome to all of the other branch managers in the area and to be questioned by the area manager. He found this to be stressful. He felt embarrassed and humiliated. Later on the same day he received the results of a customer experience survey and the results were poor. He was aware there would be another telephone conference in the following week and he did not feel he could face that conference and began contemplating suicide.

In this case, skip level meetings were part of the normal operations conducted by NAB. They were held annually on a date determined by the relevant manager. As expected, the manager was required to provide to the team leader feedback from team members to enable the team leader to evaluate his or her performance. While Mr Genc may have felt humiliated and disappointed by the feedback from his team members, it nevertheless amounted to part of the normal operations undertaken by NAB in the conduct of its business. That feedback meeting could not properly be classified as an appraisal of

Mr Genc’s performance and Mr Kelsey made that clear in the course of the meeting. He was not there to judge Mr Genc. Nor could it be described as counselling action even though Mr Kelsey attempted to make positive suggestions about how Mr Genc could improve his leadership style. That was not its purpose or function.
As to the bullying and harassment claims, the actions Mr Genc complained about simply do not fit the description. The word bully is defined in the Macquarie Dictionary as: 1. a blustering, quarrelsome, overbearing person who browbeats smaller or weaker people. The word harass is relevantly defined as: 2. to disturb persistently; torment. I also had in evidence NAB’s discrimination and harassment policy. It states that harassment occurs where a person is made to feel intimidated, embarrassed, humiliated offended by another person because of certain grounds or attributes. I find that there is nothing in the actions of Mr Kelsey when dealing with Mr Genc, including his request to be transferred to a different shift, which could properly be described as bullying or harassment. The actions or inaction of Mr Kelsey do not fit the description of either complaint.
Given my findings regarding the claimed administrative action and bullying and harassment relating to Mr Kelsey, it necessarily follows that Mr Genc’s claim in respect of those matters cannot form the foundation for his compensation claim.
The second aspect of Mr Genc’s claim has to do with the formal complaint made against him by Ms Rice alleging he had contravened NAB’s discrimination and harassment policy. It arose out of the feedback obtained from Mr Genc’s team members following the skip level meeting. It was only on 22 June 2012, when Ms Rice sent Mr Genc a letter outlining NAB’s concerns, that allegations of a breach of the discrimination and harassment policy were raised. This action taken by NAB is properly described as administrative action in the sense referred to by the Full Court in Reeve. It was action taken in respect of Mr Genc’s existing employment and is different to the duties and incidents of that employment. It is concerned with the terms of his engagement and his duties. It plainly carried the threat of disciplinary action in the event that the allegations were substantiated. The question which then arises is whether that action was reasonable.
The expression reasonable administrative action is not defined in the SRC Act. It must therefore be given its ordinary meaning in the context in which it appears in the Act.

As the High Court of Australia (French CJ, Hayne, Heydon, Crennan and Kiefel JJ) said in Alcan (NT) Alumina Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Territory Revenue (Northern Territory) (2009) 239 CLR 27, at 46 – 47:
This Court has stated on many occasions that the task of statutory construction must begin with a consideration of the text itself (105). Historical considerations and extrinsic materials cannot be relied on to displace the clear meaning of the text (106). The language which has actually been employed in the text of legislation is the surest guide to legislative intention (107). The meaning of the text may require consideration of the context, which includes the general purpose and policy of a provision (108), in particular the mischief (109) it is seeking to remedy.
Furthermore, the High Court of Australia (French CJ, Hayne, Crennan, Bell and Gageler JJ) said in Commissioner of Taxation v Consolidated Media Holdings Ltd (2012) 293 ALR 257, at 268 – 269:
“This court has stated on many occasions that the task of statutory construction must begin with a consideration of the [statutory] text” (59). So must the task of statutory construction end. The statutory text must be considered in its context. That context includes legislative history and extrinsic materials. Understanding context has utility if, and in so far as, it assists in fixing the meaning of the statutory text. Legislative history and extrinsic materials cannot displace the meaning of the statutory text. Nor is their examination an end in itself.
Section 5A of the SRC Act was introduced by the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2006. The Explanatory Memorandum accompanying the Bill stated:
The new definition retains all the elements of the existing definition of injury but extends the exclusionary provisions.
The existing definition of injury excludes any disease, injury or aggravation suffered by an employee as a result of reasonable disciplinary action taken against the employee or failure by the employee to obtain a promotion, transfer or benefit in connection with his or her employment. The new definition makes it clear that the exclusions will extend to all reasonable management activities.
I should also point out what Rares and Tracey JJ said in Reeve’s case at 486:
Here, the purpose of s 5A was to broaden the exclusion of matters from the previous definition of “injury” so that an employer would not be unduly inhibited in taking reasonable administrative action in respect of an employee’s employment. The Parliament sought to ensure that an employer would be freer to deal with an employee, by taking disciplinary action or deciding to deal with that employee as an individual in respect of his or her employment, than had been the case under what it considered were narrow judicial interpretations of the old exclusion in s 4(1).
It seems to me that in considering whether the action taken by NAB was reasonable administrative action, I should consider the question of reasonableness in the context in which the action took place. It is a question which is specific to Mr Genc’s circumstances resulting from his employment.
NAB has established a Code of Conduct for its employees. Mr Genc was aware of the Code of Conduct. In its opening paragraph, it states:
Our Code of Conduct (Code) clearly states the standards of responsibility and ethical conduct expected. Maintaining professional and ethical conduct at all times is the responsibility of every employee (permanent and temporary) as well as contractors, consultants and directors working at NAB in the Australian geography.…
The Code is underpinned by trust and a belief that all employees and customers should be treated with respect and dignity and is supported by real case examples and a number of more detailed policies to help you understand the conduct expected and the consequences of breaching the Code.
Breaches of the Code will be investigated and may result in disciplinary outcomes or termination of your employment with NAB.
It is essential that you become familiar with the Code.…
NAB also has an established employee complaints procedure. Under the paragraph headed Requirements, it states:
Complaints of discrimination, harassment or workplace bullying will be taken seriously and handled impartially, confidentially and, as much as possible, in a timely manner.
Both the Complainant and the Respondent to a complaint will be given the opportunity to put their position forward.
The complaints procedure provides for an investigation officer to be appointed. The investigation officer is required to interview parties to a complaint and any relevant witnesses and may make findings in relation to the complaint. If discrimination, harassment, workplace bullying or other inappropriate conduct is found to have occurred, the investigation officer may recommend appropriate action, including disciplinary action.
NAB has published a performance management document which refers to a Compliance Gateway. Under that heading, it provides:
Employees must ensure they meet the minimum policy and compliance standards expected of NAB employees. These include obligations set by laws, regulators, contracts, industry standards, internal policy, procedures and codes.
Breaches of minimum standards will result in an Amber or Red rating that may directly impact an employee’s performance and subsequent reward outcomes for the year.
Performance outcomes are assessed by an examination of what is achieved against scorecard objectives and how it was achieved assessed against the enterprise behaviours. The document then states:
These performance outcomes are determined by the people leader based on feedback and evidence captured by the people leader throughout the year. People leaders will document the rationale for performance outcomes as appropriate to ensure they can substantiate the outcomes at a roundtable of their peers, and can explain the rationale for the outcome to their employee at an Outcome Conversation.
NAB also has a document entitled NAB Compliance Gateway Framework. Its stated objective is to ensure consistent application of the Compliance Gateway. It is said to define and measure the minimum level of compliance expected from NAB employees towards, amongst other matters, the code of conduct and corporate social responsibility requirements. It states that people leaders are required to apply a fair process by ensuring that the employee has been given an opportunity to explain an alleged non-compliance before applying an amber or red Compliance Gateway rating. It also states, in a footnote, that:
Poor behaviours and disciplinary behaviour breaches previously covered by the behaviour gate (e.g. bullying, harassment) will be managed through the Compliance Gateway process as a ‘breach’ of the Code of Conduct.
Mr Kelsey’s evidence was that after the skip level meeting involving Mr Genc’s team, he contacted his manager, Ms Rice, and she told him to contact the People Advisory Centre for advice and to meet with Mr Genc to discuss the issues raised by his team. The documents in evidence also disclose that Mr Kelsey conferred with Ms Laura Jones, a consultant with Workplace Relations at NAB, who suggested he request further information from the team members. The documents indicate that Mr Kelsey sought further information from Mr Genc’s team members regarding the allegations which they raised at the skip level meeting. This request appears to be in accordance with the questions raised by Ms Jones. The additional information obtained by Mr Kelsey was passed on to Ms Rice.
Following discussions with Ms Rice, Ms Jones drafted a letter setting out the allegations made by team members and sent that to Ms Rice together with a conduct of interview protocol. She advised Ms Rice to provide 24 hours’ notice of any meeting she intended to have with Mr Genc and also pointed out that Mr Genc should be given the opportunity to bring along a support person if he so desired. Ms Rice then issued the letter of 22 June 2012 setting out the four allegations of misbehaviour.
Following Mr Genc’s response to the allegations made by his team members, Ms Rice met with Mr Genc on 17 July 2012 advising him that his conduct had contravened NAB’s Code of Conduct and that he would be issued with a formal warning. He was provided with a letter setting out Ms Rice’s findings following her investigation.

As I have already mentioned above, the 4^th allegation had altered since Ms Rice issued her letter on 22 June 2012 because, according to Ms Rice, at the meeting held with Mr Genc which occurred between 13 and 21 June 2012, Mr Genc said that he had not been provided with feedback from Mr Kelsey regarding the allegations.
Although Mr Genc complained about the inclusion of this new allegation, to which he said he had not had the opportunity to respond, as I have set out above, it is clear that he repeated statements that he wasn’t provided with details of the allegations expressed by his team members until 22 June 2012 in his 28 June 2012 response letter. Given the file note made by Mr Kelsey of the 12 June 2012 feedback meeting, and Mr Genc’s own notes regarding that meeting, his claim that he was first made aware of the existence of allegations of misconduct against him on 21 June 2012 and details of those allegations on 22 June 2012 is clearly incorrect. It was, in my opinion, appropriate for Ms Rice to point that out in her letter of 17 July 2012.
In her letter of 17 July 2012 Ms Rice also said that Mr Genc would be rated as Amber on his Compliance Gateway. He was also told that his Short Term Incentive for 2012 would be reduced by 25% and he would be rated as ‘D’ on his Behavioural Gateway. All of these actions are in accordance with NAB’s comprehensively documented procedures for dealing with precisely the nature of the claims made against Mr Genc. Furthermore,

Ms Rice offered him support in implementing steps to address the matter to ensure that he could successfully complete the Compliance Gateway Action Plan activities. He was also cautioned that any further compliance breaches would result in further disciplinary action being taken.
Given the evidence I have referred to above, I find that NAB acted in accordance with its stated policies and procedures in dealing with the allegations levied against Mr Genc by his team members. It follows that I find the actions of NAB in dealing with those allegations constituted reasonable administrative action.
WAS THE REASONABLE ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION TAKEN IN A REASONABLE MANNER
I am not able to find any fault with NAB regarding the manner in which the administrative action against Mr Genc was taken. After Mr Kelsey became aware of the allegations made by his team members, he provided feedback to Mr Genc making it abundantly clear that he was not being judgemental but simply conveying the allegations made by a number of persons in his team.
After Mr Kelsey discussed the matter with his immediate superior, Ms Rice, and after receiving advice from Ms Jones, he made further enquiries regarding the allegations. Upon receiving that further information, the matter was then handed over to Ms Rice. Being satisfied that there was substance to the allegations made by Mr Genc’s team members, Ms Rice put those allegations to Mr Genc in writing, allowing him ample time to respond. After receiving and considering Mr Genc’s response, Ms Rice arranged for a meeting with Mr Genc on 17 July 2012 at which she handed him the letter setting out the conclusions she had reached following her investigations.
Although Mr Genc complained about the fourth allegation having altered after he had provided his response, Ms Rice explained that the original fourth allegation had been dropped because the person making the allegation was not available to confirm the incident which was described to Mr Kelsey in the course of the skip level meeting. However, in his response Mr Genc expressly denied being made aware of the allegations of misconduct made against him until 21 June 2012. That was despite Mr Genc’s handwritten notes of the meeting between himself and Mr Kelsey on 12 June 2012 plainly indicating that he was given feedback regarding the allegations of misconduct. Hence the addition of the new fourth allegation. While it could be said that Mr Genc ought to have been given the opportunity to explain that statement, I do not consider that to be a significant interference with Mr Genc’s rights. He was given the opportunity to explain what he meant in his response letter at the meeting held on 17 July 2012.
Following the meeting with Ms Rice on 17 July 2012 Mr Genc wrote to her indicating he disagreed with her findings. Furthermore, Mr Genc raised the allegation of him having made a dishonest statement regarding being made aware of the allegations of misconduct by Mr Kelsey on 12 June 2012. He said:
The feedback Martin delivered to me as evidenced by the photocopy of my notes did not constitute a warning, nor bear any evidence that it was a performance discussion, or that any allegations were made about my behaviour.
With respect to Mr Genc, Mr Kelsey made it clear that he was providing feedback about allegations of misbehaviour by Mr Genc towards some of his team members. It could not have been described in any other way. Furthermore, Mr Kelsey made it plain that he was not being judgemental at that time but was merely telling him what his team members had said about him. The meeting was not about providing him with a warning nor did it constitute a performance discussion.
Mr Genc also requested that the matter be investigated by an independent third party.

Ms Rice responded by email dated 23 July 2012 stating she would pass on his concerns to her next level manager, Ms Rachel Round. This was in accordance with NAB’s dispute resolution procedure. Ms Rice also acknowledged Mr Genc’s complaint of bullying and harassment by Mr Kelsey and asked Mr Genc to provide any further information he wished to add. She repeated what she had said at the outcome meeting on 17 July 2012 that the evidence he had supplied regarding Mr Kelsey’s behaviour did not constitute bullying. Nevertheless, she said that further information would be appreciated to enable Mr Genc to raise a formal complaint against Mr Kelsey.
The evidence I have referred to above clearly points to Ms Rice following NAB’s procedure when dealing with complaints of bullying and harassment. At all times,

Mr Genc was fully informed of the allegations made against him and given a reasonable opportunity to respond in writing and also at a face-to-face meeting. Accordingly, I find that the reasonable administrative action taken against Mr Genc by NAB was conducted in a reasonable manner. That administrative action was plainly in respect of Mr Genc’s employment.
CONCLUSION
There was no disagreement between the two medical experts who diagnosed Mr Genc as having an adjustment disorder with anxious mood and with depression. Nor did the medical experts disagree about the cause of his condition. They were both of the view that it was contributed to by stress he experienced while working at NAB.
As far as Mr Genc’s claim that he was bullied and harassed by Mr Kelsey is concerned, I have found that the actions of Mr Kelsey relied on by Mr Genc did not amount to bullying or harassment. While I have also found that the conduct of the skip level feedback meeting could not properly be described as administrative action, I have found that what occurred at that meeting cannot properly be described as bullying or harassment.
The remaining only issue before me was whether the exclusionary clause set out in s. 5A of the SRC Act applies to the disciplinary action taken subsequent to the skip level meeting. I have found that the exclusionary clause does apply in Mr Genc’s case. The stress Mr Genc experienced which contributed to his medical condition arose out of reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner in respect of his employment. Therefore, his claim does not fit within the definition of an injury as that expression is defined in s. 5A of the SRC Act.
I find that the determination made by Ms Hosking, a NAB Workers Compensation Claims Manager, on 15 November 2012 was correct. I affirm that decision.

I certify that the preceding 84 (eighty -four) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member Egon Fice
...[sgd].....................................................................
Associate
Dated 6 June 2014

Dates of hearing 28-29 April 2014

Representative for the Applicant Self-represented

Counsel for the Respondent Ms C Dowsett

Solicitors for the Respondent Sparke Helmore

[2014] AATA 359

6 June 2014

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Employment & Labour Law

Legal Concepts

Administrative Action

Reasonable Opportunity

Disciplinary Action

Exclusionary Clause

Stress at Work

Division	GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION
File Number	2013/0203
Re	Adem Genc
APPLICANT
And	National Australia Bank Limited
RESPONDENT

Tribunal	Egon Fice, Senior Member
Date	6 June 2014
Place	Melbourne

Dates of hearing	28-29 April 2014
Representative for the Applicant	Self-represented
Counsel for the Respondent	Ms C Dowsett
Solicitors for the Respondent	Sparke Helmore