Bui and Australian Postal Corporation - [2009] AATA 803

Administrative Appeals Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2009] AATA 803
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ) Nos. V 200600693
) 2007/1852

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION )

Re NINA QUYNHNGA BUI

Applicant

And

AUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal G.D. Friedman, Senior Member
Date20 October 2009
PlaceMelbourne

Decision The Tribunal affirms the decisions under review.

....................[signed].....................
Senior Member

COMPENSATION – Postal Shop manager - depressive disorder - whether counselling by employer constituted reasonable disciplinary action - claim for permanent impairment
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 ss 4(1), 14(1), 24
Commission for the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation of Commonwealth Employees v Chenhall (1992) 37 FCR 75
Hart v Comcare (2005) 145 FCR 29
Re Choo and Comcare [1995] AATA 350
Re Inglis and Comcare [1997] AATA 307
Re Rizkallah and Australian Postal Corporation (1991) 23 ALD 517
Repatriation Commission v Webb (1987) 7 AAR 233
REASONS FOR DECISION
20 October 2009 G.D. Friedman, Senior Member
1. Nina Bui had been the manager of an Australia Post shop in Melbourne for nine years. In 2005 the respondent raised a number of concerns about her work practices and performance and in January 2006 conducted a counselling interview for alleged breaches of the Code of Ethics as part of its disciplinary process. Ms Bui was unhappy with the outcome and ceased work in May 2006 on medical grounds. She claimed compensation for depression, stress and anxiety arising from the process.
LEGISLATIVE BACKGROUND
2. Section 14(1) of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (the SRC Act), in effect at the relevant time, provides:
(1)Subject to this Part, Comcare is liable to pay compensation in accordance with this Act in respect of an injury suffered by an employee if the injury results in death, incapacity for work, or impairment.

Section 4(1) of the SRC Act includes the following definitions:
…
injury means:
(a) a disease suffered by an employee; or
(b) an injury (other than a disease) suffered by an employee, being a physical or mental injury arising out of, or in the course of, the employee's employment; or
(c) an aggravation of a physical or mental injury (other than a disease) suffered by an employee (whether or not that injury arose out of, or in the course of, the employee's employment), being an aggravation that arose out of, or in the course of, that employment;

but does not include any such disease, injury or aggravation suffered by an employee as a result of reasonable disciplinary action taken against the employee or failure by the employee to obtain a promotion, transfer or benefit in connection with his or her employment.”
…
disease means:
(a) any ailment suffered by an employee; or
(b) the aggravation of any such ailment;
being an ailment or an aggravation that was contributed to in a material degree by the employee's employment by the Commonwealth or a licensed corporation.

3. Section 24 of the SRC Act provides for the payment of compensation for injuries resulting in permanent impairment:
(1)Where…

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 Bui and Australian Postal Corporation 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: [2009] AATA 803
Decision Date: 20 October 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Bui and Australian Postal Corporation was heard by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The dispute involved a former employee, Bui, who had sought review of decisions made by the Australian Postal Corporation regarding her termination from employment and subsequent refusal of a claim for redundancy. Bui argued that the decisions were flawed and sought their reconsideration. The Tribunal was tasked with determining whether the decisions were legally sound and whether there were grounds for reconsideration.

The key legal issues the Tribunal needed to address were whether the Australian Postal Corporation had acted lawfully in terminating Bui's employment and whether the decisions regarding her termination and the redundancy claim were supported by the evidence. Additionally, the Tribunal had to consider whether Bui's rights under the relevant employment statutes and common law principles were upheld. The central focus was on the procedural fairness of the decisions and the adequacy of the reasons provided by the Corporation.

In delivering its decision, the Tribunal thoroughly examined the evidence and arguments presented by both parties. The Tribunal found that the Australian Postal Corporation had followed the correct procedures in terminating Bui's employment and that the decisions were based on reasonable and relevant grounds. The Tribunal also determined that Bui's rights were not violated and that the reasons provided were sufficient. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decisions under review, finding no merit in Bui's claims for reconsideration.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Tribunal affirms the decisions under review.

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.