Baldwin v Greater Building Society Ltd

Link copied
Case Copied 48 min read
WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION
DETERMINATION OF APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE COMMISSION CONSTITUTED BY AN ARBITRATOR
CITATION: Baldwin v Greater Building Society Ltd [2011] NSWWCCPD 18
APPELLANT: Jo-Anne Maree Baldwin
RESPONDENT: Greater Building Society Limited
INSURER: QBE Workers Compensation (NSW) Ltd
FILE NUMBER: A2-5136/10
ARBITRATOR: Ms C Rimmer

DATE OF ARBITRATOR’S DECISION:

DATE OF APPEAL HEARING:

17 September 2010

23 March 2011

DATE OF APPEAL DECISION: 30 March 2011
SUBJECT MATTER OF DECISION: Psychological injury; whether employer’s conduct with respect to performance appraisal and discipline was reasonable; non-compliance with s 74 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; unsatisfactory pleadings
PRESIDENTIAL MEMBER: Deputy President Bill Roche
HEARING: Oral
REPRESENTATION: Appellant:

Mr W Carney, instructed by
P K Simpson & Co

Respondent: Mr B Odling, instructed by Sparke Helmore Lawyers

ORDERS MADE ON APPEAL:

Time to appeal is extended until 12 November 2010.

The Arbitrator’s determination of 17 September 2010 is revoked and the matter is remitted to a different Arbitrator for determination of the applicant worker’s entitlement to weekly and other compensation.

The respondent employer is to pay the appellant worker’s costs of the appeal, as agreed or assessed. Costs of the first arbitration are to follow the event of the second arbitration.

BACKGROUND

  1. The appellant worker, Ms Baldwin, started work for the respondent, Greater Building Society Limited, as a branch supervisor on 3 September 2007. After an initial training period, she filled in at the Lake Haven branch for a worker on eight months’ maternity leave. At the end of her period at Lake Haven, the respondent transferred her to work as a branch supervisor at the Gosford branch.

  2. Ms Baldwin failed to follow the respondent’s procedures on three occasions in March 2009. Her failures were:

    (a)     on Monday 9 March 2009, auditors found Ms Baldwin to have $638 above the permitted cash limit in her teller’s cash drawer;

    (b)     on Thursday 12 March 2009, she failed to process a “cash float transfer” on her terminal and did not count the “bulk coin”, which resulted in a “false balance”, and

    (c)     on Tuesday 17 March 2009, Ms Baldwin’s balance was short by $20. On 18 March 2009, she balanced her account by having another staff member transfer $20 from the worker’s account to the “terminal”.

  3. Because of these failures, the respondent removed her as a branch supervisor on 30 March 2009 and told her that she would be placed as a member services officer (a teller) at another branch. Ms Baldwin said she felt “disgraced and humiliated” by the respondent’s actions. She stopped work immediately and has not returned to work since. She submitted a claim form on 8 April 2009 in which she said that she received a psychological injury “through harassment and victimisation at work”.

  4. The respondent’s insurer, QBE Workers Compensation (NSW) Ltd, disputed liability in a s 74 notice dated 27 May 2010 on the grounds that:

    (a)     Ms Baldwin had not received an injury;

    (b)     if she had received an injury, employment…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Baldwin v Greater Building Society 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
[2011] NSWWCCPD 18
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Baldwin initiated proceedings against Greater Building Society Ltd, claiming damages for psychological injury caused by the employer's conduct during performance appraisal and disciplinary processes. The dispute was heard and determined by the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The court was required to decide whether the employer's actions were reasonable, particularly in the context of the employer's obligations under section 74 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998. Additionally, the court needed to consider whether the pleadings were satisfactory and if the Arbitrator had correctly exercised their discretion in making their determination.

The court found that the employer had not acted reasonably and had failed to comply with the statutory obligations outlined in section 74 of the Act. Furthermore, the court identified deficiencies in the pleadings that did not sufficiently disclose a cause of action. The Arbitrator was also found to have exercised their discretion incorrectly in failing to consider all relevant evidence and factors. As a result, the Arbitrator's determination was revoked, and the matter was remitted to a different Arbitrator for a new determination regarding the worker's entitlement to compensation. Additionally, the court extended the time for appeal and ordered the employer to pay the worker's costs of the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

Time to appeal is extended until 12 November 2010.

The Arbitrator’s determination of 17 September 2010 is revoked and the matter is remitted to a different Arbitrator for determination of the applicant worker’s entitlement to weekly and other compensation.

The respondent employer is to pay the appellant worker’s costs of the appeal, as agreed or assessed. Costs of the first arbitration are to follow the event of the second arbitration.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.