Blake and Telstra Corporation Ltd - [2000] AATA 209

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2000] AATA 209

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )

) No Q99/368 & Q97/1272

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION )

Re ALLAN HARTLEY BLAKE
Applicant

And TELSTRA CORPORATION LTD
Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Miss WJF Purcell (Senior Member) Dr EK Christie (Member) Dr JM Lawrence (Member)

Date17 March 2000
PlaceBrisbane

Decision The Tribunal affirms the decisions under review.

(Signed)
WJF PURCELL
(Senior Member)
CATCHWORDS
COMPENSATION – liability for compensation – 'mental injury' – depressive disorder – whether arose out of course of employment – distinction drawn between work and failure to be recognised, rewarded or obtain promotion or benefit at work
Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 ss.4,14, 24
Federal Broom Company Ltd v Seimlitch (1964) 110 CLR 626
Golds v Comcare [1999] FC 1481 (28 October 1999)

REASONS FOR DECISION

17 March 2000 Miss WJF Purcell (Senior Member) Dr EK Christie (Member) Dr JM Lawrence (Member)

These are applications for review of two decisions of the respondent's (Telstra's) Compensation Division. The first decision of 21 October 1997, affirmed a delegate's decision of 30 June 1997, that Telstra was not liable to pay compensation to the applicant in accordance with s.14 of the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (the Act) in respect of major depressive disorder sustained allegedly on 9 April 1997. The second decision of 17 March 1999, affirmed a decision of a delegate that Telstra was not liable to pay compensation for permanent impairment pursuant to s.24 of the Act, on the basis that liability to pay compensation pursuant to s.14 of the Act had not been accepted.
The evidence before the Tribunal comprised the documents lodged pursuant to s.37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (the T Documents) together with exhibits tendered by the parties. Mr Logan of counsel appeared for the applicant, who gave oral evidence and called his treating psychiatrist, Dr M. Foxcroft, and work colleagues, Messrs Petrovanski and Salisbury. Mr Salisbury gave evidence by way of telephone link-up. Ms Ford was counsel for Telstra which called Dr J. Reddan, psychiatrist, Mr Myors, the applicant's superior, and Mr Shephard, a work colleague.
The applicant, who is now 52 years of age, undertook his initial training with the Post Master General's Department (as it was then) in the early 1960s, and obtained his technical officer certificate in the field of electronics and communications, whilst employed by the Australian Broadcasting Commission at Toowong. He conducted then, his own business, servicing electronic organs and instruments. In 1989 he joined Telstra (then known as Telecom) as a level 4 technical officer at Woolloongabba, Telstra's Service Database Section. Initially he was the only member in the section.
Telstra developed the "One 3" and "One 800" number services in the early 1990's. In early 1993 the applicant and another officer, Alan Judson, became members of the Brisbane Service Data Base Group with line control to the Brisbane Manager of the Network and Technology Group, and functional control to the National Manager, Mr Myors. Their function involved the…

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 Blake and Telstra Corporation Ltd

Details

AGLC: Blake and Telstra Corporation Ltd [2000] AATA 209
Case: [2000] AATA 209
Decision Date: 17 March 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Blake, an employee of Telstra Corporation Ltd, brought an action before the court to claim compensation for a depressive disorder he developed as a result of his employment. The central dispute was whether the depressive disorder arose out of the course of his employment with Telstra, thus making the corporation liable for compensation under the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988. The case was heard at the Federal Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the court was to determine if the depressive disorder was sufficiently connected to Blake's employment with Telstra to warrant compensation. The court had to consider whether the disorder arose out of Blake's employment or if it was due to the failure to be recognised, rewarded, or promoted, which are not compensable under the Act. This required a nuanced understanding of the distinction between adverse workplace conditions and the employee's personal aspirations or expectations.

The court examined the statutory provisions under the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988, particularly sections 4, 14, and 24, which outline the conditions for compensable mental injuries. In making its decision, the court referenced the principles established in Federal Broom Company Ltd v Seimlitch and Golds v Comcare. It found that the depressive disorder did not arise out of Blake's employment but rather from the personal disappointment of not being recognised or rewarded as he had hoped. Consequently, the court held that Telstra Corporation Ltd was not liable for compensation for Blake's depressive disorder.

The Federal Court of Australia dismissed Blake's claim for compensation. The court determined that the depressive disorder did not stem from the employment itself but rather from Blake's personal expectations and disappointments regarding his career progression. As such, the court ruled that Telstra Corporation Ltd was not liable for compensation under the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988.

Orders