Baikie v Goodman Fielder Pty Ltd - [2006] NSWWCCPD 164

WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION

DETERMINATION OF APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE COMMISSION CONSTITUTED BY AN ARBITRATOR

CITATION:Baikie v Goodman Fielder Ltd [2006] NSWWCCPD 164
APPELLANT:  Malcolm Baikie
RESPONDENT:  Goodman Fielder Ltd
INSURER:Goodman Fielder Ltd
FILE NUMBER:  WCC2087-05
DATE OF ARBITRATOR’S DECISION:          26 May 2005
DATE OF APPEAL DECISION:  27 July 2006
SUBJECT MATTER OF DECISION: Section 11A of the Workers Compensation Act 1987
PRESIDENTIAL MEMBER:  Acting Deputy President Julian Martin
HEARING:On the papers
REPRESENTATION:  Appellant:      Makin & Co
Respondent:   Sparke Helmore Solicitors

ORDERS MADE ON APPEAL: The decision of the Arbitrator dated 26 May 2005 is confirmed.

No order as to the costs of the appeal.

BACKGROUND TO THE APPEAL

On 23 June 2005 Malcolm Baikie (‘Mr Baikie’) sought leave to bring an ‘Appeal Against Decision of Arbitrator’ in the Workers Compensation Commission (‘the Commission’) against a decision, dated 26 May 2005.

The Respondent to the Appeal is Goodman Fielder Ltd (‘Goodman Fielder’).

Mr Baikie was born on 21 September 1954 and is 51 years of age. He is single and at the time of the Arbitration hearing claimed no dependents. Since leaving school Mr Baikie has worked for several employers in the accounting services area.

Mr Baikie commenced employment with Goodman Fielder in March 1998 and was made permanent in March 1999. His health was good when he commenced employment with Goodman Fielder, although his general practitioner, Dr Kariappa, has noted that he was always an anxious person.

At Goodman Fielder Mr Baikie worked in accounting services. He regularly gave a fellow employee, Aurora Buenventura, a lift to Revesby Railway Station after work. Mr Baikie claims that in January 2001 there was a disagreement between himself and Miss Buenventura whilst travelling in his car after work and thereafter their friendship ended.

In the months after this disagreement Mr Baikie felt he was the subject of a campaign by Miss Buenventura to intimidate him. In May 2001 Miss Buenventura made a written complaint about Mr Baikie to his supervisor, John Hall. Mr Baikie was not provided with a copy of this complaint and felt victimised. He consulted Dr Kariappa on 24 May 2001 complaining of stress and stomach pains.

A series of meetings were arranged by management to deal with the problem between Mr Baikie and Miss Buenventura and things seemed to settle down. In November 2001 a further issue developed between Mr Baikie and Miss Buenventura over the positioning of a Christmas tree in the office which resulted in a further meeting arranged by management in late November 2001.

Again matters settled down until 7 May 2002 when Mr Baikie attended an annual work performance review with his supervisor, John Hall. Mr Baikie was told at this meeting there had been some adverse comments about him from fellow staff.

On 22 May 2002 a further meeting was called and Mr Baikie was issued with a formal written warning and advised that he would be counselled weekly over a three monthly period. The warning refers to Mr Baikie…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Baikie v Goodman Fielder Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2006] NSWWCCPD 164
Decision Date: 27 July 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Baikie v Goodman Fielder Pty Ltd, the appellant, Malcolm Baikie, sought to appeal a decision of the Workers Compensation Commission against a decision made by an arbitrator. The primary issue was whether the Arbitrator erred in finding that Baikie's psychiatric injury was due to reasonable actions taken by Goodman Fielder, thereby excluding his entitlement to workers' compensation under section 11A of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. Baikie argued that the Arbitrator failed to adequately consider the bullying he experienced from his supervisor and co-workers, which he claimed was the true cause of his injury. Goodman Fielder contended that the Arbitrator's findings were based on a reasonable interpretation of the evidence.

The appeal was determined on the papers, as both parties agreed that there was sufficient information available for the Acting Deputy President to make a decision without a formal hearing. Baikie argued that the Arbitrator did not properly consider the medical evidence of Dr. Chee, but the Acting Deputy President found that Dr. Chee's report supported the Arbitrator's conclusion. The Acting Deputy President held that the Arbitrator's findings regarding the reasonable actions taken by Goodman Fielder were supported by the evidence and did not contain any legal, factual, or discretionary errors. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the Arbitrator's decision was upheld.

The final orders confirmed the decision of the Arbitrator, with no order as to the costs of the appeal. The Acting Deputy President Julian Martin concluded that the Arbitrator had correctly applied the provisions of section 11A of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 and that the actions taken by Goodman Fielder were reasonable, thereby excluding Baikie's entitlement to compensation.

Orders