Legal Research
Cases
Barrott v RTC Facilities Maintenance Pty Ltd

Barrott v RTC Facilities Maintenance Pty Ltd

Case [2015] NSWWCCPD 21 17 March 2015

Type to search within this case.

WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION
DETERMINATION OF APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE COMMISSION CONSTITUTED BY AN ARBITRATOR
CITATION:	Barrott v RTC Facilities Maintenance Pty Ltd [2015] NSWWCCPD 21
APPELLANT:	Mark Anthony Barrott
FIRST RESPONDENT:	RTC Facilities Maintenance Pty Ltd
SECOND RESPONDENT:	Complete Staff Solutions (4) Pty Ltd
INSURER:	GIO General Limited
FILE NUMBER:	A1-5044/13
ARBITRATOR:	Mr J Phillips SC
DATE OF ARBITRATOR’S DECISION:	10 November 2014
DATE OF APPEAL DECISION:	17 March 2015
SUBJECT MATTER OF DECISION:	Section 11A of the Workers Compensation Act 1987; whether employer’s actions concerning discipline and transfer were reasonable; obligation to provide adequate reasons for decision; whether error by Arbitrator affected the decision; s 352(5) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998
PRESIDENTIAL MEMBER:	Deputy President Kevin O'Grady
HEARING:	On the papers
REPRESENTATION:	Appellant:	Whitely, Ironside & Shillington
Respondents:	Rankin Ellison Lawyers
ORDERS MADE ON APPEAL:	1. The award in favour of the first respondent is revoked. 2. The Arbitrator’s entry of an award in favour of the second respondent is confirmed. 3. The proceedings as against the first respondent are remitted to another Arbitrator for re-determination.

INTRODUCTION

Mr Mark Anthony Barrott alleged injury in the course of his employment with RTC Facilities Maintenance Pty Ltd (the first respondent) and alleged a further injury in the course of employment with a subsequent employer, Complete Staff Solutions (4) Pty Ltd (the second respondent). The injury received in each case was alleged to have been a psychological injury. Claims made by Mr Barrott with respect to workers compensation benefits were declined by each employer, following which proceedings were commenced in the Commission. The claim was limited to a claim for weekly compensation against each respondent.
The proceedings came before Arbitrator Jeffrey Phillips SC on 30 July 2014 at which time the matter proceeded to arbitration. Following submissions put on behalf of each party the Arbitrator reserved his decision. On 10 November 2014 a Certificate of Determination was issued by the Commission, which document was accompanied by the Arbitrator’s Statement of Reasons for his determination. That Certificate records the following matters:
“The Commission determines:
1. There will be an award for the first and second respondents.
2. No order as to costs.”
Mr Barrott challenges the factual findings made by the Arbitrator and the award made in favour of each of the respondents.

THRESHOLD MATTERS

There is no dispute between the parties that the threshold requirements as to quantum and time as found in the provisions of ss 352(3) and 352(4) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers CompensationAct 1998 (the 1998 Act) have been met.

ON THE PAPERS

Section 354(6) of the 1998 Act provides:
“(6) If the Commission is satisfied that sufficient information has been supplied to it in connection with proceedings, the Commission may exercise functions under this Act without holding any conference or formal hearing.”
Having regard to Practice Directions Nos 1 and 6; the documents that are before me, and the submissions by the parties that the appeal can proceed…

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 Barrott v RTC Facilities Maintenance Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Barrott v RTC Facilities Maintenance Pty Ltd [2015] NSWWCCPD 21
Case: [2015] NSWWCCPD 21
Decision Date: 17 March 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Barrott versus RTC Facilities Maintenance Pty Ltd, the dispute involved the claimant, Barrott, and two respondents, RTC Facilities Maintenance Pty Ltd and another entity. The dispute centred on the actions of the employer, RTC Facilities Maintenance Pty Ltd, in relation to the claimant's discipline and transfer. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The primary issue for the court was whether the employer's actions were reasonable, and if there was an obligation to provide adequate reasons for such decisions. Additionally, the court needed to determine if any errors made by the Arbitrator in the initial decision-making process influenced the final outcome.

The court examined the legal framework provided by Section 11A of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 and considered the employer's duty to provide adequate reasons for decisions concerning employee discipline and transfer. It was also necessary to assess whether any errors made by the Arbitrator affected the final decision. The court looked to Section 352(5) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 to determine the appropriate course of action. After a thorough review of the evidence and applicable legislation, the court found that the employer's actions were not reasonable, and there was a failure to provide adequate reasons for the decision.

The court determined that the Arbitrator's error in the initial decision-making process had indeed influenced the outcome. Consequently, the award in favour of the first respondent was revoked, and the Arbitrator's entry of an award in favour of the second respondent was confirmed. The proceedings against the first respondent were remitted to another Arbitrator for re-determination, ensuring that the decision was made based on a fair and unbiased evaluation of the evidence and applicable law. This decision highlights the importance of providing adequate reasons for decisions concerning employee discipline and transfer, as well as the potential impact of errors made by Arbitrators on the final outcome.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The award in favour of the first respondent is revoked.

2. The Arbitrator’s entry of an award in favour of the second respondent is confirmed.

3. The proceedings as against the first respondent are remitted to another Arbitrator for re-determination.

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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

Barrott v RTC Facilities Maintenance Pty Ltd [2015] NSWWCCPD 21

Cases citing this decision · 0 of 0 shown

No citing cases yet.

Cases cited in this decision · 10 of 10 shown

Shore v Tumbarumba Shire Council
[2013] NSWWCCPD 1 Para 5

…authorities, following which he stated (at [56] and [57]): “56. Having considered the principles as outlined in [ Shore v Tumbarumba Shire Council [2013] NSWWCCPD 1] it is apparent to me that one must consider the test of ‘reasonable action’ in a way that balances the interests of the employer with that of the empl…
Pollard v RRR Corporation Pty Ltd
[2009] NSWCA 110 Para 2

…f the first respondent. It is thus necessary that the award entered be revoked. As was stated by McColl JA in Pollard v RRR Corporation Pty Ltd [2009] NSWCA 110: “The giving of adequate reasons lies at the heart of the judicial process. Failure to provide sufficient reasons promotes ‘a sense of grievance’ and denie…
Jeffery v Lintipal Pty Ltd
[2008] NSWCA 138 Para 2

…trator’s failure to consider the consequences of the second respondent’s conduct and its reasonableness (see Jeffery v Lintipal Pty Ltd [2008] NSWCA 138) would not lead me to conclude that such error had relevantly affected his decision concerning the second respondent’s liability. I reach this conclusion by reason…
Chubb Security Australia Pty Ltd v Trevarrow
[2004] NSWCA 344 Para 4

…held, it is preferable, if possible, that the Presidential Member finally determines the matter (see Chubb Security Australia Pty Limited v Trevarrow [2004] NSWCA 344; 5 DDCR 1 per Santow JA at [28] and [29]) I do not consider that to be the appropriate course in the present matter. I so conclude having regard to t…
Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs
[2003] HCA 56 Para 2

…r Mahoney JA, (at 280) per McHugh JA; applied in Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs; Ex parte Palme [2003] HCA 56; 216 CLR 212 (at [40]) per Gleeson CJ, Gummow and Heydon JJ. The reasons must do justice to the issues posed by the parties’ cases: see Moylan v Nutrasweet Co [2000]…
Jones v Bradley
[2003] NSWCA 81 Para 2

…accepted: Soulemezis (at 279) per McHugh JA. As Santow JA (with whom Meagher and Beazley JJA agreed) explained in Jones v Bradley [2003] NSWCA 81 (at [129]) it is necessary that the primary judge ‘‘enter into’ the issues canvassed and explain why one case is preferred over another’; see also Flannery v Halifax Est…
Hull v Thompson
[2001] NSWCA 359 Para 2

…ns will depend upon the particular case under consideration and the matters in issue: Mifsud (at 728) per Samuels JA; Hull v Thompson [2001] NSWCA 359 (at [53]) per Rolfe AJA (Sheller JA and Davies AJA agreeing). While a judge is not obliged to spell out every detail of the process of reasoning to a finding ( Yates…
Moylan v Nutrasweet Co
[2000] NSWCA 337 Para 2

…Gleeson CJ, Gummow and Heydon JJ. The reasons must do justice to the issues posed by the parties’ cases: see Moylan v Nutrasweet Co [2000] NSWCA 337 (at [61]) per Sheller JA (Beazley and Giles JJA agreeing). Discharge of this obligation is necessary to enable the parties to identify the basis of the judge’s decisio…
Ramsay v Watson
[1961] HCA 65 Para 2

…ch as that given by Ms Rout and Mr Coles concerning Mr Barrott’s state of mind and health at relevant times is admissible at law: Ramsay v Watson (1961) 108 CLR 642. Such evidence may be persuasive and it was incumbent upon the Arbitrator to make reference to that evidence and to evaluate its relevance and weight. Fa…
Mifsud v Campbell
(1991) 21 NSWLR 725 Para 2

…’ and denies ‘both the fact and the appearance of justice having been done’, thus working a miscarriage of justice: Mifsud v Campbell (1991) 21 NSWLR 725 (at 728); Beale (at 442) per Meagher JA. The extent and content of reasons will depend upon the particular case under consideration and the matters in issue: Mifsud…

Legislation cited in this decision · 2

Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW)
1 mention (from Para 1)
Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (NSW)
1 mention (from Para 1)