Australian Telecommunications Commission v King, F.F.

CATCHWORDS

EMPLOYEES COV€~SATION - Appeal from Abninlstrative Appeals Trlbunal - Incapacity f o r work - Relevance of perknality of

worker in considering capaclty to

work - Enplogment of r? kind ?.ot

commonly available

- m e "odd lot" doctrine - Necessity fcr

TriSunal to conslder possible occupatlons outslde employees

previous experlence

- Inference to

be drawn from fallure of

employer to offer or suggest suitable employment

- Whether

employee suffsrinq mcapaclcy occasior?ed by rnedical crea'iment.

Comwensaticn (Commonwealth

Governnen':

Enwlovees) l - c t 1971, 5 5 . 2 5 ,

2 7 , 39,

47, 50.

Adminlstratlve Aoueals TribuKal Act

1977

5 .44

Anderscn v Australian Postal Commmlsslon (1981) 39 AL2 94,

3avcevlc -7 Commonwealth (1957) 58 CL3 296 appllea. C-2bsc.n v

Commonwealth (AAT No. N841203, 8 March i985, Glscussed.

Appellant

FRANK FPIPJAN KINC

ResFondent

REASONS FOR JUDGYEVT

CORAii:

WILCC'X

U:	29 WJLRCH 1985
PLACE :	SMNEY

This 1 s an appeal pursuanr: to s.44 of tne A?mlnlstra=lve

Appeals Trijunal Act

1975 agalnst a Lman;rnoLs eeclslor! If t5e

Acmlclstratlve Appeals Trljunal

- constitJted by Mr 2 G Baliard

(Senlcr Member), Er D J Xowell and Yrs J H McClmtcck clYe?nbers) -

that the respondent, F r a n K Finnan K m g , 1 s entltlea r o the

payment of co;upensar,lon pursuant to t L e CsnDensatlon

J k -

. <.	(Comrnonwealt5 Government Emalovees) Act 1971.
_.	~ -4

The responaenr: left schocl at the age

cf 15 years, he

then benq in second year at h q h school. In 1967, at '.ne ac;? of

22, he became emplayed

5y che Post Yaster General, the

- 2 -

. .

p r e d e c e s s o r of

=he a p s e l l a n t corporation,

xorlclnq as

linesman

a n d

c a b l e

j o i n z e r .

That

wcrk

I n v o l v e d .

d i g g ~ n g zrer.cT-,es,

ciirnl:1?5

ladders and. 5 c i n ~

doh= manholes.

In Tulp 1 5 7 0 , I n

t h e c o u r s e

i~s.

emploper.t ,

the respondent i n ~ ~ x e d

1115 l e f t kTee,

in ZanEarp

1972 E r M	J Walker, an orthocaed2c	surgeon, cpera ted	on t h e k??e-?.	2
\

He r e - a l l F e d :i=e patelis..

Zr King was cf f W2rk for some thrrs

montns,

durlnq zhic:?

ciae i e was

paFd

compensation,

ace

t n e r

. *

. I

- 3 -

The knee was in plaster for a couple of months but Fr

King dld not immediately return CO work 77ith the appellant. In

.	October 1979 he was elected to be a State Vzce President of hls

. .

. union, a salarled position permitting him to work

frcm home. He

was not requlred to resign from

Telecorn and intended. eventcaily

to return to that employer.

In April

1981 M r K m 3 lost ' n ~ s unlcn

position.

He returned to Teieccm

hut he had various forms cf

leave due to him so that he was not requlred to

reporr: for work

untll March 1983.

On 1 March 1083 he resumed work, Ferforx:lng

clerical duties in relatlon to dockets

lr, the Tel2com head

o c f l c e

In Gosford.

However, these duties requlred

h m

TO slt for

prolo~ged

periods.

Although he was noc speclflcally fcrbldden

break off work and nove around, hls evldence before the TrlSunal

was that che dockets upon which

- he was worklng had to

be returned

to Sydney each afternoon

s o that he was under conslderable

pressure to keep workmg.

?lf K135 found chat hls knee swelled

cons:derably

and =.=S extremely FaiEful. 3e cafisultea Zr Arndt

who certifled, on 4 Earch, thac he was unfit for these ddzles.

Mr Klng dld not work between

4 March and 10 Marc:? 5ut, cn chat

latter day, he reported for work agaln. He worked untli 1 7 Earch

an& then gave "p because of che swelllnq In hls knee.

September 1983 Wr Klng cried work cnce aga~n,

th:s

tlze 7crtln~

2-"

. .

e':	penslon documents. On	t h s bccaslcr? there was no pressure b1~c
-_I

the work was allocatea on the basls thst

13 was nerely f o r the

I _

- I	'	day.	Er King sad to report to hospital EFon	t h e follcwlnq ?a::.
-*I

Tnere is nochin5 to shcw that the work

-doLld have keen avallakle

%.	CO him on a conclnuing basls. Telecom	has not offered Yr	?:n:
.	.'
L4

. _-

i :;i

,>U,

r. ..

I " \-

- & -

- 5 -

absence cf any clear cut psychiacric

disturbance, he shows the lnevlta3le

effects of a Sattle wlti?? Serslstent

pain and disability. I strongly

suspect that this

nan will never be

. able to work again in

a normal

employment sltuation. Not the lecist

of his difflculties are hkelp tcj be

interpersonal ones.'

In evzdence he said the appllcanc vas not

able to work agaln in normal employment

situations. The applicant had. been

demoralzzed by events,

was despor.dent and

resiqned to Invalidity; before

his acclaent

he had probably only cope5 marginally In r:he

work situation for lnterpersonal reascns.

Thls would have been exacerbated by

h l s paln

and physlcai dlsabillty and mace

ir: nore

difflcult for hlm to get cn wlth fellow

workers and employers and thls wculd have qot

worse m t h each iallure of an operaclon.

Gluffrlda clc not see che aFpllcant as havlnq

a psychologlcai cor.ditlon and >e could nor:

offer hlm treatment.

The applicant's

symptons were more conslscent with not cap'nq behaviour. Thts cculc not be recarced as a disease or illness as such.

Dr Gulffrlda dld not regard psycfilacry as a relevant dzsc;pllne for deailnq wlth the

appl-cant's problems.

. . .

i4.	On Dr GlLffrlda's evldence the apllcant

1 s totally lncapaclzated pr1nc:pally

because

of hls personality.

While that xould nct

quallfy hlm for the Invalid Fenslon . . . %ne

test of ;ncapeclty for compensatlon purposes

1 s nor: the same.

The test for compensatlon

purposes 1 s loss of wages.

. . . " [The

Trlbmal referred to the wcrds

of illson Z l n

"15. Leavlnq Dr Gluffrlda's evlLence on one

slde for the moment we were lm2ressed by xi-

evlaer.ce of Dr Arndt. Notwlckstandlnq that

the evldence of a famlly general praczltloner

1 s llkely to favour an appllcznc, it 1 s clear

on chese facts that

Dr Arndt had an

unrlrralled knowledge of the appl;ca!it's knee corditior. Xe are sf the -new that 3r Arndt did not let 5 1 s poslclm as fam1i:J pnyslclan nfluence h l s rvldence.

- 6 -

- 7 -

-	On all those facts the applicant is galifled

to be deemed totally incapacitated under

seccion 26 of the Act.

Xe so flnd and we s o

deem the appllcanc.

Counsel for the appellant empicpnr attacks these

fmdlnqs on two qrcunds.

Firstly, Le says, tine evlder,cc csmsels

the conclusion that the respondent

was fit for LndrJor clerlcsl

work and that

:he Trlbunal erred In taking lnto acccunt what

says 1s an irrelevank conslderatlon, namely tne	reSpmdenC's
personality;

- 3 -

t '

- 9 -

attentlon - ;n

respecc of the maczer of "empLoyment of a k n c

that is not

comrronly avaliable" - to the types

of work comprlsee

in the respondent's work hiscory.

It was sald that, whllsr- ir; 15

correct to consider prevlous emplopent, lt' 1 s erronecus CO

consider cnly such exnplo-penc for the pursoses of 5 . 2 6 .

As a general proposltlon, ~t must

be correct c 2 say zkaz

the Tribunal is not conflned to chose fields of employment 13

w h c h a particular appizcant has prev1ousi;r 5een engaqed. It

not hificult to imaglne cases 12 whch ~ t -

wz11 apzear tkac t?-e

appllca.?t is able to carry ouc particular xork although ?e has

never 2cne so In the past. But, upon an aFped., =he Tribunal's

apprcach must be ccnsldered 13 the cantext cf the case before 1:.

3-e Trlbunal was

here considerlng t:",E caze of a particular

applicant for ccmpensation,

w;th parzicular d1sabll:cles an2

ot3er relevant c5arazterlstlcs

ar.d with a Fartlcclsr enFi3ymeT-c

experlence.

It was uncerszsndable thirt the Trlbural shoulc

address itself primar1l:i to chose ;obs ~n r.;lat;cn

to whl::?

che

res3cndent; had hac pas: esperlenco.

It dld not decllze to

conslaer other poss~blllties

offere6 or sugqested 5 y t k e

emplozler; zhere were none.

In Sncerson Mor1xg J 2p::?d

r;o 3 . 2 6

the approach taken in the "oLd lot" line ;If autbL-:t?: thz5

~n 3

L.,

>'_I

:c4 -...

case $Liere che employer cor.ten<s tnat a worker 1s r.ot

- - <

.-.	incapacitated because cf his abi;lr ;y C O perfarx scms workthe x d s

rescs upon

:he

Enplcyer to show that- such w c r X LS avallxjle. j--

._a

LI'

5or.our quoceci an< sp9llrd -,he c;ords

of gl:<?z CJ arc % I t E c c ;n

3aucev:c

v Cornnorwealth ( 1 9 5 7 ) ca CLF 295 as p? 333-304:

. .

- 10 -

- 11 -

P-us t ra l ia

!N34/203, 8

Karch

1985) the A d n l n l s t r a t l v e Ap2ea2.s

T r lbuna l has

s u g g e s t e d t h a t

the

"odd

l o t " d o c t r i n e

?as

Been

superceded, i n the contexrr cf Commonwealth Gover?ner?t employee's

compensatlon, by 5-26 of the Act .

Reierence

w a s mace

t o t'ze

iacr:

chat ,

i n i n t r o d u c m g the Compensation

(Comvonwealzk

ETplcyees!

B i l l - which subsequently

became

t?e

Act

t o e a c h

t h e Y ~ u s e s

Par l1aner . t

the

responszble

NlnLsters

each re fer red

It as

belng inyerded

t o

cod i fy

the

law

r e l a t i n g t o x o r k e r s c c m p e n s a z l m

f c r Commonwealth

employees.

T5e

Tr lbkna l

a l s o r e f e r r e d

t o an

explana tory memcrar.dum orcduced B?

t h e Goaerrmenr;

and

c l r r u l a - e d

t o xenbers

ci che Parllamenr: whcc;?,

I n r e l - t l c r .

10 c l a u s e 20

the Ell1 sald:

mere

o j l l g a c i o n ,

u n d e r

the

Act ,

upon

a n e q l c l r e r

t o provide

to an incapac l ta ted worker eap loyment

wlthi?. h15

c a p a b l l l t l e s :

c f .

s.11(2)

the Xorkers '

Coapensa t lm

>.CL

1935

(NSW).

aut

it does n o t fallow t h a t the f a z l u r e of

t h e employer

t o o f f e r s u i t a b l e

employment

1 s

i r r e l e v a n t

t o

c o n s l d s r a t l s n

che

second

qdesricn ar lsmg Ln:'.er

5 . 2 6 .

Moder:!

szsnclar2.s 3f

l n d u s t r l a l r e s p c n s i b l l l t y

demand

<;?at emplcyers

actempt,

'&ere

p o s s i b l e ,

t o

r e d e p l o y I n

s u l t a b l e

p o s l t 1 3 n s ? e r s o n s

xko,

hz-;lzT

been

i n ju red du r lng

che

course of

thelr

emplsylnenr;,

are

capagle

- 1 5 -

eye

o r

the l o s s of a leq .

Secz lon

39(14) prov ides chzc -In amscnt

of compensacion

referred

in t h e s e c t i o n ‘‘19

n o t 2a;;aLJ.e

i n

resFpect

a n I n j u r y

so long 3 s the employee IS,

o r 1 s 1i:rcl:i

t c

become,

t o t a l l y i f i c a p a c l t a t e d f o r

work

wnere

ci?e

Lncapacity

r e s u l t s ,

cr ,

~f L t occurs ,

will

resul t ,

i n x h o l e o r :n

par t f r c x

chac 1n;ury.” Howeoer, the Act

recognis2s

t;?- g o s s l b l l l t y

t k a t ,

notwithstanding

c h a t p r o v l s l o n ,

fmplcyee

nag

suffer

);ozal

~ncapac lc : r i n r e spec t

ln]ur:r

f o r Gjhlcfi he

has

a l r e a d y

recelvei

s .39-compensac1on.

The

compenseclon may

5 s p a l 2

I n

e r r c r o r t he empioyee ‘ s cond ic i sn

nay

wovsel:

a f t e r

rece:;?t

5iT

:?lm

t h e 5 . 3 0 conpensat lcn.

If he qoes cr. 70 j econe zocaLl:r

l z c a p a c l t a t e d f o r work.,

and

zh2

1ncaFac:t:r

1 s

1:kely

CO”- ’ - ’

..--..de

: n t e f l n i c e l y ,

h e

1s e n t i t i e d cc conFensazion 1-neer

);;?e k t w ~ t : ~

some

Zdjustnenr:

t o t h e

zmounc

:;?e

b e r e f l t t o r e f l z c t

;:?P

payment

has

already recelvec’,:

see 5 . 5 0 .

A f u r t h e r

p o s s l 5 l l i t g

addi fxonal

xcapac

lcy

resu1t

:ng

r?n

-he

empl3ye

uneerqolng med:cai

c r e s t r e n t w h l c 5 It w a s reascnaLle :2r

213

o j t a l n ;n

r e s p e c t of

t h e zn2dr-y.

Settlor 47 re lesrarcly crcv:dec

t h a t

IF,

a f t e r t;le

rnakznc

d e c e r n x a t l s n u n d e r

S. 3 0 ,

“t;-.e

znployee

lxdergoes

medlcsl

2rea;menc

I n r e l a t l c n

:ha:

In?Lr: i

. . . any

ZncapacltIi

the

ernFlcyee

f3r

:;or4

r3sulz:rg

from t h a t

meclrzl

t r s q t n e n z

. sha l l ,

f o r

t h e

pcrpmJses af this .?c=, >e

I..

---

deemee ‘ ~ c

have

resu l ted

rom kha

;ury”

anc

c o n g e n s a ~ l ~ ~

_ ,

,ayablz

ur.der 5 . 4 5

(ccta!.

~ n c a ~ e c ~ t y ) o r

S. G5 :Fart:al

l n c a p a c l t y ) a s

c;?e

case ;nay

be.

- 1 7 -

[1985] FCA 120

29 Mar 1985