Allen v Workers' Compensation Regulator - [2018] QIRC 41

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:	Allen v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2018] QIRC 041
PARTIES:	Allen, Karen Lee (appellant) v Workers' Compensation Regulator (respondent)
CASE NO:	WC/2016/243
PROCEEDING:	Appeal
DELIVERED ON:	28 March 2018
HEARING DATES:	14, 15, 16 November 2017
MEMBER:	Deputy President O'Connor
ORDERS:	1. The appeal is allowed. 2. The decision of the respondent dated 23 November 2016 is set aside. 3. The application for compensation made by the appellant is one for acceptance. 4. The respondent is to pay the appellant's costs of and incidental to this appeal to be agreed or, failing agreement, to be the subject of a further application to the Commission.
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION – APPEAL AGAINST DECISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION REGULATOR– Where injury exists – Whether injury excluded under s32(5) of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 – Where injury arises from management action – Appeal allowed
LEGISLATION: CASES:	Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld), s 32, s 549 Allwood v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2017] QIRC 088 Blackwood v Mahaffey [2016] ICQ 010 Canadian General Electric Company Limited v The Ontario Labour Relations Board (1956) OR 437 Commonwealth of Australia v Lyon (1979) 24 ALR 300 Davis v Blackwood [2014] ICQ 009 Hatzimanolis v ANI Corporation Ltd (1992) 173 CLR 473 McMah and Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) [2014] QIRC 013 O'Brien v Q-Comp (2007) 185 QGIG 383 Read v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2017] QIRC 072 Q-COMP v Rowe (2009) 191 QGIG 67 Theiss Pty Ltd v Q-COMP (C/2010/11)
APPEARANCES:	Ms K. McConaghy, Counsel, instructed by Sunshine Coast Legal for the appellant. Mr A. Johnson, Counsel instructed directly by the respondent.

Reasons for Decision

Parents' and citizens associations are bodies established at each state primary and high school to provide auxiliary support to the school. P&Cs are separate legal entities from the school to which they are attached and they are capable of employing a large number of people and turning-over not inconsiderable sums of money in the course of a school year. The executive committee of a P&C is a volunteer body which operates flexibly and within the relative time-constraints of its officers. The breadth and manner of the support provided by a P&C can vary greatly, but their general remit usually extends to the operation a number of businesses and fundraising endeavours. Individually they may operate in the form of a uniform and book shop, a tuckshop, the organisation of an annual school fête and other similar fundraising activities. Some P&Cs do more and operate, for example, before-and-after-school and vacation care services. The Eumundi State School P&C was one of those P&Cs which ran a greater number of businesses.
Ms Karen Lee Allen, is employed by the Eumundi State School P&C as its Operations Manager. The role of the Operations Manager is multifaceted but its primary task was to enable the Executive of the school's P&C to effectively carry-on its businesses and fundraising.
The issue giving rise to this appeal stems from a meeting held on 15…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Allen v Workers' Compensation Regulator

Details

AGLC: Allen v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2018] QIRC 41
Case: [2018] QIRC 41
Decision Date: 28 March 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Allen v Workers' Compensation Regulator, the appellant, who was employed by the Eumundi State School P&C, sought to appeal a decision made by the Workers' Compensation Regulator. The appellant, previously an Operations Manager for the P&C, claimed that she suffered a personal injury that arose from her employment, which was an adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the appellant's injury was excluded under s 32(5) of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003, considering the injury arose from a management action.

The court examined the nature of the appellant's employment and the circumstances leading to her injury. The appellant had a long history with the P&C, having served as the President for five years before her employment as Operations Manager. Over time, her role expanded significantly, encompassing various responsibilities such as managing the uniform shop, overseeing all P&C businesses, and handling bookkeeping. Despite the expansion of her duties, the appellant maintained a positive working relationship with the P&C Executive, receiving no disciplinary actions or criticisms.

The court determined that the appellant's injury was not excluded under s 32(5) of the Act. The appellant's injury was found to be an adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood, which arose from her employment. The court held that the appellant's employment was the major significant contributing factor to her injury. Moreover, the conduct of the meeting on 15 July was deemed to fall outside what might be considered a "blemish," reinforcing that the injury was work-related.

Ultimately, the appeal was allowed, and the decision of the respondent was set aside. The application for compensation made by the appellant was accepted, and the respondent was ordered to pay the appellant's costs of and incidental to this appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal is allowed.

2. The decision of the respondent dated 23 November 2016 is set aside.

3. The application for compensation made by the appellant is one for acceptance.

4. The respondent is to pay the appellant's costs of and incidental to this appeal to be agreed or, failing agreement, to be the subject of a further application to the Commission.

Background

Background to the litigation

For the reasons that follow, I find that the appellant suffered a personal injury; the injury arose out of, or in the course of the appellant's employment; the appellant's employment was the major significant contributing factor to the injury; and, the appellant's injury was not excluded by operation of s 32 (5) of the Act.Background The appellant was first employed by the Eumundi State School P&C as the Operations Manager on 1 January 2006. Prior to that she had served as the President of the Eumundi P&C for five years and had held other roles while her children were at the school.[1] Her last day at work was the 9 August 2016.[2] [1] T 1-48, Ll 33-43.[2] T 1-48, Ll 45-46. At the time that the appellant commenced her employment the P&C Executive was comprised of Jane Laird (President), Sheree Orr (Secretary) and Leona Seib (Treasurer). The recruitment process for her position was an advertisement to which the appellant responded by sending her resume to the appropriate address. The appellant was then interviewed by the aforementioned members of the P&C executive. The role as it then was reported to the President and/or the Executive.[3] The reporting involved the preparation of a monthly financial report for presentation to the P&C members at the monthly meeting. [3] T 1-49, L 22. The position description for the appellant's role at the time of her initial employment extended to book keeping at the P&C for eight hours a week.[4] However, over time and with the change of executives the role of operations manager expanded. In time the appellant eventually became responsible for the uniform shop, and then all businesses for the P&C including the tuckshop, after school care, the market car parks, all fund raising events, as well as book keeping and secretarial work.[5] The appellant's most recent position description dated 8 January 2015, is lengthy in its duties, responsibilities, and expectations. It is clearly a full time management position.[6] The role of operations manager was guided by the P&C's constitution and Education Queensland's accounting manual.[7] The operations manager supervised staff, needed to have an understanding of employment awards, workplace health safety, food handling standards, and policies and procedures concerning after school care.[8] The accounts of the P&C are audited annually.[9][4] T 1-50, Ll41-42. [5] T 1-50, Ll43-47. [6] Exhibit 1. [7] T 1-53, LL 29-32. [8] T 1-53, Ll 33-38. [9] T 1-53, Ll43. The appellant's evidence was that she has had, in the main, a positive working relationship with members of the P&C Executive over the course of her employment.[10] She was never disciplined or given any warnings in the performance of her duties. The appellant gave evidence that over the course of her employment she was never criticised by a P&C President.[11] [10] T 1-54, Ll 9-11.[11] T 1-54, Ll 26-31. The appellant's contract of employment lists the prior review dates (First reviewed 29.11.2007, 2nd Review 28.5.2008, 3rd Review: 12.10.2011, 4th Review: 8.01.2015).

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Whilst I accept that management action need only be reasonable and does not need to be perfect the conduct of the meeting on 15 July falls outside of what might be considered a "blemish".[67][67] McMah and Simon Blackwood (Workers’ Compensation Regulator) [2014] QIRC 013, [37].Conclusion On the evidence before the Commission, I am satisfied that the appellant suffered an adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood; the injury arose out of, or in the course of the appellant's employment; the appellant's employment was the major significant contributing factor to the injury; and the appellant's injury was not excluded by operation of s32 (5) of the Act.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.