Cameron v University of Western Sydney

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Cameron v University of Western Sydney [2021] NSWPIC 498
APPLICANT:	Grant Cameron
RESPONDENT:	University of Western Sydney
MEMBER:	Carolyn Rimmer
DATE OF DECISION:	2 December 2021
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Claim for lump sum compensation following primary psychiatric injury in the course of employment with the respondent from August 2015 to 12 June 2018; liability disputed by respondent on grounds the accepted injury was wholly or predominantly caused by its reasonable actions with respect to performance appraisal in 2018; Held – the applicant’s psychological injury was not wholly or predominantly caused by reasonable action taken by the respondent with respect to performance appraisal in 2018; matter remitted to President for referral to Medical Assessor to determine whole person impairment.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	1. Amend the date of injury in the Application to Resolve a Dispute to a deemed date of injury of 12 June 2018. 2. Amend Application to Resolve a Dispute to add a claim for s 60 expenses. 3. Matter remitted to the President to refer to a Medical Assessor for assessment of whole person impairment as a result of a psychological injury deemed to have occurred on 12 June 2018. 4. All documents attached to the Application to Resolve a Dispute excluding: (a) the report of Dr Martin dated 14 August 2018, and (b) all parts of the report of Dr Anwar dated 7 January 2020 apart from the history in that report, are admitted and are to be sent to the Medical Assessor. 5. All documents attached to the Reply, excluding the report of Dr Bisht dated 8 April 2020, are admitted and are to be sent to the Medical Assessor. 6. Respondent to pay the applicant’s reasonably necessary section 60 expenses on production of accounts, receipts and /or Medicare Notice of Charge.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

The applicant, Grant Cameron (Mr Cameron), was employed by the respondent, University of Western Sydney (the respondent), as a mental health coordinator. The respondent was insured by Employers Mutual (NSW) Limited (the insurer) at all relevant times.
Mr Cameron alleged that he sustained a primary psychiatric injury in the course of employment due to a major restructuring, which resulted in the loss of staff and changes in management, a significant increase in workload, not getting along with a new manager, and feeling he was subjected to unconstructive criticism, micro-managed and excluded from various meetings. The deemed date of injury was 12 June 2018.
Mr Cameron made a claim for lump sum compensation on 21 February 2020.
The respondent disputed liability in respect of the claim for weekly benefits and medical expenses in a section 74 notice dated 3 September 2018 and relied on a s 11A defence.
The respondent issued a section 78 notice dated 7 May 2021.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

The parties agreed that the following issue remained in dispute:
(a) was Mr Cameron’s injury the result of reasonable action with respect to performance appraisal (section 11A of the Workers Compensation Act 1987)?

PROCEDURE BEFORE THE COMMISSION

The parties attended a conciliation conference and arbitration via telephone on 8 November 2021. Mr Cameron was represented by Mr Joseph Hallion, who was instructed by Ms Anna Gordon of Gorman Jones Lawyers. The respondent was represented by Mr Allen Parker, who was instructed by Ms Diane Pritchard of Moray & Agnew Lawyers. Ms Slade from the insurer attended the conference.
In the conciliation and arbitration on 9 November 2021, Mr Cameron sought leave to amend the Application to Resolve a Dispute (ARD) to add a claim for medical expenses. The respondent did not address this application in their submissions on 9 November 2021.
A direction for submissions was issued on 8 November 2021 and following the arbitration as follows:
(a) respondent is to lodge and serve by 12 November 2021 written submissions concerning the applicant’s proposed amendment to the Application and in particular whether the respondent consents to the proposed amendment:
(b) if the respondent does not consent to the proposed amendment, the applicant is to lodge and serve by 19 November 2021 written submissions in reply.
On 11 November 2021 the respondent consented to the proposed amendment to the ARD to add a claim for medical expenses.
The applicant was given leave in the arbitration to amend the date of injury in the ARD to a deemed date of injury of 12 June 2018.
I am satisfied that the parties to the dispute understood the nature of the application and the legal implications of any assertions made in the information supplied. I have used my best endeavours in attempting to bring the parties to the dispute to a settlement acceptable to all of them. I am satisfied that the parties have had sufficient opportunity to explore settlement and that they have been unable to reach an agreed resolution of the dispute.

EVIDENCE

Documentary evidence

The following documents were in evidence before the Commission and taken into account in making this determination:
(a)    ARD and attached documents excluding the report of Dr Martin dated 14 August 2018 and the report Dr Anwar dated 7 January 2020 apart from the history set out in that report;
(b)    All documents attached to the Application to Admit Late Documents dated 20 October 2021 (AALD) filed by Mr Cameron, and
(c)    Reply and attached documents excluding the report of Dr Bisht dated 8 April 2020.
The documents attached to the AALD were identical to the documents attached to the ARD but filed in a different order.
A preliminary issue was raised on 8 November 2021 concerning the number of forensic medical reports relied on by each party.
Clause 44 of the Workers Compensation Regulation 2016 (the 2016 Regulation) provides:
“44 Restrictions on number of medical reports that can be admitted
(1) In any proceedings on a claim or a work injury damages threshold dispute in relation to an injured worker, only one forensic medical may be admitted on behalf of a party to proceedings.
(2) A report referred to in subclause (1) must be from a specialist medical practitioner with qualifications relevant to the treatment of the injured worker's injury.
(3) Where the injury has involved treatment by more than one specialist medical practitioner, with different qualifications, then an additional one forensic medical may be admitted from a medical practitioner with qualifications in that specialty.
(4) In this clause -
"forensic medical report", in relation to a claim or dispute--
(a) means a report from a specialist medical practitioner who has not treated the worker and that has been obtained for the purpose of proving or disproving an entitlement, or the extent of an entitlement, in respect of the claim or dispute, and
(b) includes a medical report provided by a specialist medical practitioner in respect of an examination of the injured worker pursuant to section 119 of the 1998 Act, and
(c) does not include a report from a specialist medical practitioner who has not treated the worker and that has been obtained for the purpose of proving or disproving an entitlement, or the extent of an entitlement, in respect of another claim or dispute.”
Mr Cameron had filed two reports by Dr Takyar dated 24 January 2020 and 9 May 2021, a report by Dr Martin dated 14 August 2018 and a report of Dr Anwar dated 7 January 2020.
Dr Takyar, Dr Martin and Dr Anwar were all psychiatrists. Mr Cameron elected to rely on the reports of Dr Takyar and the report of Dr Anwar but only in respect of the history set out in that report.
The respondent had filed a report by Dr Adam Martin dated 14 August 2018 and a report by Dr Bisht dated 8 April 2020. Dr Martin and Dr Bisht were both psychiatrists. The respondent elected to rely on the report of Dr Martin dated 14 August 2018.

Submissions

The submissions of the parties during the arbitration were recorded and I do not propose to repeat each of the arguments of counsel in these reasons. However, the respondent submitted that the reasonable actions of the respondent in respect of the performance appraisal in 2018 was the whole or predominant cause of Mr Cameron’s psychological injury.
Mr Cameron submitted that the actions of the respondent in respect of the performance improvement plan (PIP) in 2018 were not the whole or predominant cause of Mr Cameron’s psychological injury. Further, Mr Cameron submitted that respondent had not acted in a reasonable manner in respect of the PIP in 2018.

FINDINGS AND REASONS

Evidence of Grant Cameron

In a statement dated 16 July 2018, Mr Cameron said that he had been employed by the respondent as a mental health and well-being co-ordinator based in Kingswood but responsible for all campuses. He stated that he commenced employment with the respondent in August 2015 and at that time supervised a staff of five. He said that over the last 18 months to 2 years some staff were reallocated to other departments and he also lost responsibility for another staff member.
He wrote:
“When I was suffering depression in about mid‑2017, I fell behind in my clinical notes and I was placed on a Performance Improvement Plan. That was worked through and resolved. I worked with Michelle Hayter‑Falconer, Equity and Diversity, as well as the acting manager of Counselling, Julie Xiberras to achieve the PIP goals and that process resolved in a couple of months.”
Mr Cameron stated he was placed on a PIP on 31 May 2018. He said that he had five managers in the last 18 months to 2 years, namely, Jenny Bains, Mark Kearns, Erin Helleur, Julie Xiberras, and then Nicole Church. He stated that
Ms Church had been his supervisor for about eight months to a year.
Mr Cameron said that he believed his current injury was based on a “complexity of issues”. He wrote:
“As previously stated, I had some issues with depression which were being managed through counselling and medication. At that time in mid 2017 I fell behind in my clinical records and was placed on the PIP by Julie Xiberras. I was trying to manage my depression issues as I was aware of the stigma that those issues may engender. As part of the process for the PIP and as a result of falling behind in paperwork, I had to explain my depression issues to Julie Xiberras and then to Michelle Hayter‑Falconer. … Then we had a different range of managers come in and to each manager I had to explain it again. They were Nicole Church and then Rebecca Ladd, who sits above Nicole.”
Mr Cameron stated that there had been a restructure in the “pipeline” for two to two and a half years with consultations and position papers. He said that this was a university-wide structure with significant emphasis and impact on customer service and student services. He stated that one effect was that his staff numbers had dropped from five to zero and he was currently unsupported by staff. He said that his workload increased because of the additional campuses added to the university. He stated that there were about six or seven campuses when he started and he thought that there were now 11 campuses. He said he was expected to take on increased workload with decreasing staff resources.
Mr Cameron stated that the amount of time he could spend with one student could be significant and on the last day he worked he had four referrals.
Mr Cameron stated that he was on a three month probation period when he started, and then had a six month performance review and then an annual review. He said that up until 2017 his performance appraisals had been fine.
Mr Cameron stated that he had weekly meetings with the Behaviour Risk Review Operations Group (BRROG). He stated that as well as participating in the meeting he had to take the minutes. He said that as he had a large workload, he spoke to Ms Church about the difficulties he was having getting minutes done for the following meeting because of his other obligations and the complexity of the minutes. Mr Cameron said that Ms Church’s direction was that nothing could be done to assist him, and she directed him to have the BRROG minutes available the day following the date of the meeting, which he felt that was an unreasonable target. He stated that in the two week period when he went back to work from 28 May to 7 June 2018, he noted a staff member had been seconded from the Complaints Resolution Unit to take the minutes.
Mr Cameron wrote:
“I felt that Nicole Church was giving me unconstructive criticism in relation to my work and performance when we had meetings together or over the phone. In these conversations about cases she would often devalue my professional judgment. Nicole is a clinical psychologist. I do not think that she fully understands my role as she did not seem to understand the aspect of community engagement responsibilities. She kept saying to me: “What do you do when you go out?” and “I do not understand community engagement.” I explained that I built bridges and gave her a full and comprehensive explanation about building rapport and building effective working relationships with the community mental health, both government and non‑government agencies, such as Headspace, hospitals, crisis lines, Lifeline and others. She insisted that she attend the community engagements with me, not to be an active participant, but to monitor and review my performance. That would have humiliated me. I was told to clear my diary and then consult with her before booking further community engagements, however I went on leave and she never actually went out with me.”
Mr Cameron stated that he believed Ms Church was trying to isolate him by cancelling the Mental Health Combined Services meetings. He said he used to go to campuses and meet with various teams once a month, and there were four or five meetings per month where he supported counsellors, welfare officers and disability advisers. He said if he could not get out to meet people then the clinical and working relationships deteriorated and it was an accepted practice to conduct the meetings. He stated that he was not consulted about having meetings cancelled.
Mr Cameron said that to further restrict him Ms Church sent him an email advising him that he was speaking about the University in derogatory terms and was to cease that practice. He said that he felt he was not derogatory in his comments but he did have a conversation with someone in the tearoom and that person reported that back to Ms Church. He stated he had no opportunity to challenge it, as she did not discuss it with him before sending the email, and this further isolated him within his workplace, as he believed that colleagues were reporting on his actions and private discussions.
Mr Cameron said that there was also another issue when Ms Church tried to cancel his annual leave. He stated he applied for leave as instructed by her well in advance in either late 2017 or early 2018 so she could cover him for the leave, for the period 18 June 2018 to 22 June 2018 for a planned overseas trip. He said that Ms Church knew that he was going and had approved the leave when he had originally requested it. He stated that the week before the trip she attempted to disallow the leave, saying that there was no evidence of leave being approved, and as such she could not approve it now because of the current work situation. Mr Cameron said he directed her to the original approval on Staff‑Online, but that was a considerably stressful period.
Mr Cameron said that information has been withheld from him because he had not had any access to a budget allocated to the team for the last two years. He said that prior to this there was a budget allocated for his team which he managed. He stated that at the time the budget was withdrawn from his responsibility, he asked Ms Xiberras about the budget and she advised information would be forthcoming but it never came.
Mr Cameron stated that he thought the PIP at the end of May 2018 was a punitive action on the part of Ms Church. He stated that it was not an issue in relation to bullying, but in relation to events and circumstances, and he considered it as a punitive intimidating action. He stated that the context for the new PIP dated 31 May 2018 was that of Ms Church raising the issue of her wanting to come to community meetings, a meeting where they discussed two points, the cancellation of the meeting so he could complete minutes to a deadline and being late to one meeting. He said that on 31 May 2018 when they had a meeting where she provided the PIP, there were many other issues. He said that he understood that there was supposed to be an informal process about the issues, prior to being placed on a PIP, and this did not happen for the other issues set out in the PIP. He considered that this was a further attempt to intimidate him because the other seven issues in the PIP were not provided to him before the PIP.
Mr Cameron said that he had been off sick since 12 April 2018 and returned to work on 28 May 2018. He stated that the PIP was provided on 31 May 2018 and he went off sick again on 8 July 2018.
Mr Cameron stated he thought that when he disclosed that he had a mental illness in mid‑2017, the attitude of managers changed. He thought that his professional contribution had been devalued and minimised from that time on. He believed that because of his disclosure he was targeted by management, including by Ms Church.
Mr Cameron stated that he believed Ms Church had set an unachievable goal in the PIP of 31 May 2018. For instance, there was a goal of 50% workload target regarding students, but he told Ms Church that he had no control regarding new referrals and the nature of the work in regard to each student, but Ms Church did not respond.
Mr Cameron stated that towards the end of 2018 he presented to the BRROG “an indication” that international students were disproportionately accessing mental health services within the university. He said that Ms Brackenreg verbally told him in the meeting that it was not his responsibility, and other committees and forums in the university had responsibility for this. Mr Cameron said he felt that this was a devaluing of his opinion and worth.
Mr Cameron stated he had previously achieved all targets and goals and had satisfactory performance prior to 12 April 2018. He said that by that date, due to a combination of issues related to mental health and bullying in the organisational context and by Ms Church, he was unable to carry out his duties and took leave on medical grounds. He said that he then returned to work for a two week period but realised he could not keep coming to work as he could not continue to talk to students about mental health issues. He then commenced his current leave on Friday 8 June 2018.
In a statement dated 6 October 2020, Mr Cameron referred to the statement of Ms Church dated 17 July 2018. He noted that she had indicated she observed him having difficulties taking minutes during the BRROG meetings yet never addressed that with him directly. Mr Cameron said that he had a problem as they were very complex meetings and he was required to participate in the meeting with all the other members and simultaneously write the notes, and this made him anxious because he was missing a lot as people were talking too quickly. He said he had to ask them to slow down and repeat and clarify information. He stated that this was what Ms Church identified as a difficulty, but no help was offered in any form. He said that his physical disability of writing was dismissed, even though the university was aware of it.
Mr Cameron said that it was known by the university that he had a physical injury to his neck and could not type or write for long periods of time. He stated that because of this injury he was provided with a lightweight laptop and software so he could dictate his notes, and everyone knew this.

Mr Cameron said that he was aware of the official division of his workload but there were no clear guidelines as to what constituted student‑related as opposed to staff‑related workload. He stated he would spend a lot of time with staff, counselling them, providing them with information, supporting them with understanding severe mental illness in the learning environment, but often that was not classified as student support. He said that there was an ambiguity as to what it was, so when they wanted to calculate it in terms of his student load and other workloads, depending upon who did the calculation and what they based it on, it might show higher or lower figures. Mr Cameron said he was not concerned about the right division but was just trying to support everyone that needed support within the organisation. He stated that for example a 25% workload involvement with community agencies throughout the year often was not possible because he was dealing more with staff issues. He said that if you were dealing with someone who did not know anything about schizophrenia, and they had a schizophrenic person in their class, you had to spend a lot of time with them. He stated that there needed to be phone calls, follow‑ups, checking and reviewing, and this was not being taken into consideration when looking at the division of his workload. He stated because this work did not have a student name, he could not put a student number into the system as he was seeing a staff member and that did not fit within the criteria. He said that one of the other issues was that the computerised system was always breaking down, and it did not cater to him being at different colleges. He said he could not be at one campus and do clinical work there, and then put his work into the computer because it would not log on, and he would have to wait until he got back to the base campus, do his notes and files, and he was always playing “catch up”.
Mr Cameron stated that he did receive an orientation and induction program and he said that his first three managers were happy with what he was doing. He stated that his performance was satisfactory for the first two years of his employment, and the problems started when the employer began to implement the university restructure, which was when he was “sidelined” and his section diminished. He stated he did not get budget allocations for two years and it was hard to try and run a mental health section with no formal budget in place, as he did not know how much he could spend on services and support.
Mr Cameron said that he believed he had a good working relationship with Ms Xiberras and disagreed that he was passive‑aggressive to her. He stated that he had weekly meetings with her, and she helped him organise some of his notes which he had fallen behind with. However, he said that more psychologists in the Counselling Unit were further behind in their notes than he was, but they were all part of a team and could cover for each other. He stated that he was just one person and if a call came in for an emergency, he had to leave everything as it was. He stated that once he had caught up on his notes he put in as much effort as he could using free time and weekends to keep his notes up to date.
Mr Cameron stated in relation to Ms Church’s complaint about him refusing to attend and meet with a student, that he had never refused to attend and meet with a student, but had actually suggested a different approach. He stated he thought it was better for the unit manager, Ms Church, to meet with the student first, and for him to be in attendance at the faculty. He said that Ms Church took his suggestion as him not being prepared to do what she thought was his job, when in fact it was a professional discussion. Mr Cameron said that because of the seriousness of the issue he thought the manager should sit in and do the initial interview and he would be there in support if necessary. He stated he was always available for consultation and was always on the phone and always on one of the campuses. In relation to being late for meetings he stated that he did get delayed in traffic on one occasion going to the Parramatta campus and then had problems finding a parking station. He said that he thought he was late for a meeting twice in four years but had attended 100‑500 meetings. He stated that Ms Church had been late for meetings. He said that he could not control what happened in Parramatta with the traffic on one occasion as there had been an accident and he was simply stuck in traffic. He said that he called to inform her he was running late, and she informed him that the student was a no‑show.
Mr Cameron said that Ms Church in her statement did not comment or respond to his allegations about unconstructive criticism but merely pointed out that other staff considered her to be extremely supportive.
In relation to attending to community agency meetings, Mr Cameron stated that he had difficulties getting there on two occasions over three years. He said that this appeared to be enough for Ms Church to decide she wanted to attend and sit in and observe him, which was a condemnation of his professional ability. He suggested to her there could be other ways in which she could determine whether he was effective at what he did rather than sit there and watch, such as asking for evaluations to be done, or a video or recording. He stated that
Ms Church was not interested when he suggested other ways to evaluate his performance and insisted on two occasions in attending meetings but not participating.
In terms of struggling with taking the notes or minutes of meetings, Mr Cameron said
Ms Church certainly knew he was struggling but would not provide any assistance. He said these meetings were serious meetings about issues that involved violence, aggression, mental health avoidance, medication issues, interpersonal issues, AVOs, and what could go wrong in an education setting with people who were disturbed because of their mental health situation. He stated Ms Church was aware that he was struggling but did nothing to help him, and instead used it as a means of reprimanding and bullying him.
In relation to the meeting at Redbank House, Mr Cameron said he left late from the University because he was trying to complete the BRROG minutes to meet the deadlines given to him. He stated that he had problems using the satellite navigator and was taken to the wrong place and it took him some time to find the location. He said he then had problems getting into a parking area. He stated that he had to see two people and had arrived about half an hour late. He said he the waited for an hour and 20 minutes for them to finish what they were doing, and he was told they were very busy, so he gave them a shortened version of his presentation. He stated that he also tried to develop a rapport with them and in the end asked them questions and whether they needed anything else before leaving. Mr Cameron said that Ms Church did not want to hear his explanation about being late or why he shortened the presentation.
Mr Cameron said that because of the pressure of trying to get the BRROG minutes delivered, he decided to cancel an appointment with Headspace at Mt Druitt. He said that they were having a meeting but he was just another participant. He said that he called up and apologised and rescheduled to attend at another time. Mr Cameron said that by this stage he was suffering from anxiety and depression and was on medication and having treatment, but it felt as though he was not getting any sort of support help from his employer. He stated that every time he asked for help it was turned into a negative where he was the problem. He said he got calls at all times of the day and evening and was expected to turn up to critical incidents, suicides, attempted suicides, missing persons, crises with students, violence and threats of aggression towards the staff and students. He said that despite him being very active and doing “everything and beyond”, the general tone from management was that he was not doing what he was supposed to do, whereas he thought he was going over and above for the majority of cases and only in very few instances did he have a difference of opinion with management as to how to go about addressing issues.
Mr Cameron said most of his colleagues were not trained in psychopathology, in which he was trained. He said that most of his colleagues were psychologists, welfare officers and social workers, and did not have a great deal of knowledge about what the nature of mental illness was, and while able to say what the clinical features were, a lot of them did not have the experience about how that impacted in the real world, how delusions and hallucinations manifest and what one needed to say and how to interact to gain cooperation. Mr Cameron said that was his job and “they” wanted him to do consultations via telephone, Zoom and email. He said that it he tried to do it that way he was just “a voice at the end of the phone who they did not trust”. He said that many times after hours he was at the University and, on one occasion, he even paid for a student to catch a train to Newcastle in the middle of winter because they could not get him accommodation on campus.
Mr Cameron said he had many examples of him doing this sort of thing but that was never acknowledged or balanced against the relatively small issues. He said that management was watching him all the time and harassing him, and he did not know who to trust. He said his anxiety increased because he could not say the things he wanted to or needed to.
Mr Cameron wrote:
“Management at the time knew I was going through mental health issues. I had a full two‑hour counselling session with the person who reported me for being passive aggressive with her. I was giving her an update and the more I talked about what was bothering me, the more my anxiety came, and I had a full‑on panic attack in front of her in her office. She observed it and I talked to her about it. I talked to Julie about the medication I was on and the problems I was experiencing. She no longer works at the University but she was the one I had the discussion with and she used her psychological training and skills and helped ground me again so I could leave the office and get home. I knew she kept records of our meetings. I knew that there was a new manager coming in. If there is any concern about a member of staff, it is expected that this information should be passed on to ensure that this member gets effective support. My session with Julie would have taken place in late 2017, I think. One of the reasons I got identified was that my clinical notes were falling behind and that was the first instance that drew the University’s attention to me. It was prior to Julie leaving and it was one of the first things (sic) when I experienced difficulties because of my mental health, my anxiety and panic attacks due to the university restructure.”
In relation to the BRROG minutes, Mr Cameron said that for about three years the minutes were satisfactory. He stated he was always the person responsible for taking these notes even though he asked for the chair to be circulated, that would occur for about five or six weeks and then it would come back and stay with him. He said Ms Xiberras made the decision for the minutes to stay with him. He was told that it was not appropriate for a third person to come in and take minutes because it was a contravention of privacy and confidentiality for someone to sit and listen to the issues discussed in the meeting. Mr Cameron said he did not think this was correct, because the information was circulated anyway, among appropriate people in the university, and note‑takers who were employees of the respondent had the same professional considerations about privacy and confidentiality.
Mr Cameron stated that Ms Church admitted she was aware of his deteriorating wellbeing through other people’s reporting. He said that as a professional trained in mental health,
Ms Church should have dealt with these reports and offered him help instead of continuing with her bullying behaviour.
In respect of the PIP in 2018, Mr Cameron said this was presented to him as a method of making him comply with the way the managers wanted him to work without him having the opportunity to present his strategies. He said he had done this with previous managers, and they had agreed with his approach. He said Jenny Bains, Mark Kearns and Erin Helleur agreed with his style and system of working out to reach people and attending sessions in person. He stated that when it came to Ms Xiberras and Ms Church, they wanted him in the office working by phone, fax, zoom and email, and would often say: “You have to work smarter”.
Mr Cameron stated he did not think this approach was very smart but rather dangerous and would lead to problems if people were not given the support they needed. He stated that the initial agreement was that he could visit the campuses, but then the campuses grew from 7 to 12, and there was an explosion of his workload. He stated that mental health issues had been skyrocketing and he was focusing on what could be done to get the students to achieve the educational outcomes, pass their courses, and go on to lead a productive life.
In relation to the meeting on 28 May 2018, Mr Cameron said he was at his lowest point at that stage, and was extremely ill, could not drive and could not concentrate, and was having regular panic attacks.
In relation to the mental health combined service meeting, Mr Cameron said he co‑ordinated meetings on different campuses with different classifications of staff. He stated that he was building this up and it was developing, but Ms Church cancelled the meetings which devalued his position in the eyes of other staff in the mental health team. He said that the meetings were productive and there were often good interactions and outcomes for staff and students. He said he never referred to the respondent in derogatory terms but talked about what the union believed to be the reason for certain actions, and as a union representative he had the right to share that information with other people in the meeting. He said that he did not mention this once the meeting was called together but was in a conclave when he explained why the meetings were no longer going ahead and how disappointed he was. He said that he did not make a comment about Ms Church, who had cancelled them.
In relation to his annual leave, Mr Cameron said that Ms Church claimed she did not try to cancel it, but he maintained she did. He said that this was just another issue she was trying to control and she knew he had provided the necessary documentation and information. However, Mr Cameron said that nevertheless she sent him a very stern email advising that the leave was not approved. He said that she knew he was not well.
In relation to budgets, Mr Cameron said that Ms Church was aware of the situation as she was the one who allocated the budget and he had numerous emails constantly querying his budget and how much he could spend on health promotions, pamphlet productions and casual staff working events. He said he would get emails back saying it was being worked on.
Mr Cameron said all his past performance appraisals confirmed his record keeping and clinical and administrative work were exemplary, and he disagreed with Ms Church’s opinion about his performance. He said that his transparency and accountability through his diary was no better or worse than any other staff member, and he would put in where he was, the time he was travelling, and who he was meeting. He said he was always available on his mobile phone.
Mr Cameron said he did lose one counsellor who came to provide debriefing sessions and counselling sessions to counselling staff. He stated that positions were taken away from him, and he was told it was a better fit to have some of the people working for other department heads under the overall restructure. He said Emma Taylor worked for him as a part‑time mental health adviser but took six months leave of absence and was never replaced. He said that he had to pick up her three campuses while she was on leave. Mr Cameron said he had informed the University that it would be a challenging task for him but nothing was done and he got no relief. He said he discussed it with his manager and
Ms Brackenreg. He said that he still received some part time administrative support, but it was reduced. Mr Cameron said that he knew his statistics showed increased numbers, long time spent, more complex situations with overseas students who were living alone, isolated with relatively few resources, and had about a 5:1 ratio of mental illness compared to the general Australian population. He stated that there were many international students who had problems, but the respondent did not want to acknowledge that this was occurring.
In relation to the statement of Susan Folkes dated 19 July 2018, Mr Cameron stated that she said he made an inappropriate referral to Human Resources (HR) regarding time sheets and flex leave for one of his staff, Rowena Saheb. He said that he was directed by his management to go to HR and make the issue known, and then bring Ms Saheb in for a counselling session and explain what she needed to do to complete proper time sheets. He said that it was not true he allowed Ms Saheb to come to work too early as she actually came to work at times to suit her because of her childcare and put it under flexible arrangements which were approved in writing. He stated that he never approved flex leave without approval of management. He stated that he gave Ms Saheb as much direction, supervision and information as necessary to complete these tasks and at a later date she was moved to a different reporting line, not because of her time sheets but to do with a change in her line of responsibility that was felt to be better suited for the delivery of her role.
In a statement dated 8 March 2021, Mr Cameron stated that he sustained a cervical injury in 2008 and underwent two laminectomies. He was subsequently treated with pain medication and in 2011 returned to work on normal duties at TAFE as a psychiatric consultant. He said that during this period he developed depression for which he was treated with medication by Dr Higginbotham. He said he was prescribed with Aropax and then Effexor for depression which developed from an adjustment disorder, but this resolved. Mr Cameron stated that in 2016, Dr Scott prescribed Oxazepam for management of his anxiety.
Mr Cameron said that after leaving TAFE he went overseas with his wife for two months and then returned and was offered a role as the mental health and wellbeing co‑ordinator for the staff and students with the respondent. He said that that he reported to the manager of counselling services, Mark Kearns. Mr Cameron said he continued to attend Dr Higginbotham over this period, but his attendances were for his physical injuries. He said that in October 2015 he attended on Dr Higginbotham reporting an onset of depression and anxiety which was increasing and disturbing his sleep and concentration.
Mr Cameron said the role with the respondent represented a dramatic increase in clinical assessments and clinical interventions for students with serious mental health issues, compared to his previous role which had been in teaching and developing curriculum.
Mr Cameron wrote:
“8.     The pressure associated with the role was vastly different to what I had been accustomed to in the past, assessing, screening and referring for clinical education support when at TAFE. At TAFE I was supported by up to 20 psychologists, social workers and mental health teachers in addressing students’ needs for about 10,000 to 20,000 students. I was now working more campuses and about 45,000 students with a multidisciplinary team of 4 comprising a social worker, 2 wellbeing officers and a half day a week administrative support.
9.     I formed the view that the mental health model was dysfunctional and very tribal between disciplines and I sensed and perceived from the outset an antipathy towards me as I was not a psychologist. I had my initial training as a registered psychiatric nurse also with qualifications in general nursing, mental retardation and degrees in Social Welfare, Graduate Diploma in Education, and a Master of Science in Mental Health. However, I had not undertaken formal psychologist (sic)study.
10.    My initial introductory period was difficult, and I struggled to arrange professional introductory meetings with other faculty staff. After a few weeks I came to the realisation or at least perception that my difficulties were not due to work demands, but an unwillingness among my peer professionals to accept my appointment and engage in any sort of collaboration and co‑ordinated response to the problems on campus. …”

Mr Cameron stated when he attended Dr Higginbotham in October 2015, “any sort of impediment to me demonstrating my ability to realise the job expectations started to prey on my mind”. He said that as he encountered more difficulties and felt a sense of being marginalised by his peers, he perceived the difficulty of possibly being part of an agenda to have him fail. He said his capacity to manage and resilience in the face of this exclusion and workload was deteriorating.
Mr Cameron stated he had left TAFE because of a restructure and specifically raised in the pre‑employment interview the question of whether a restructure was taking place or anticipated and was assured that it was not. He said that about a year later, his suspicions that developed after with the respondent that there was a process came to fruition in August 2017, and this changed again the dynamics and interaction between the group.
Mr Cameron said the role was not as he had anticipated, and he found he was being given restricted access to students and staff. They wanted him to liaise electronically rather than face to face. He said the argument was that he would save movement between campuses and time, and there would be better use of time optimising his expertise, but this was contrary to his belief. Mr Cameron said there was an obvious philosophical clash about how to deliver mental health care, but this went beyond abstractions to one where he felt personally derelict in his role of helping people in crises.
Mr Cameron said that from the outset his judgment as to where he was most needed was being second‑guessed by management. He said his attendances occurred due to contact from students and faculty staff who identified as needing help. He said he would receive calls on his mobile whenever he was needed or there was thought to be a risk and he would go to a campus to assess the student with a view to diffusing any crisis and encouraging counselling and greater acceptance of mental health support. He said the overseas students were a high proportion of the students he had to deal with as they were isolated and marginalised, and ignorant of health services and support. He stated that he felt personally conflicted between what professionally he knew his obligations were and compassion for the students, and the business model he was being asked to support. He said the mantra was to do it smarter, there were other ways to assist students, but the prime motivating factor for this was finance and not through any re‑imaging of delivering the service to provide better outcomes than the traditional clinical assessment evidence‑based interventions. He said he found himself waking up at night and dwelling on the conflict between what professionally he knew was right and what the manager’s expectations were. He said he could not reconcile the two and started to experience symptoms of depression which he recognised from previous episodes that had been managed through short term medication.
Mr Cameron said the onset occurred about six to eight weeks after he commenced employment with the respondent and his wife observed his disposition was changing and he was appearing more despondent.
Mr Cameron said he felt the symptoms and his deteriorating condition had got to a stage in October 2015 where he required medical assistance if he was to continue to work. He said he needed to work due to having taken on a large mortgage which required both him and his wife to work.
Mr Cameron said he attended his GP, Dr Higgenbotham, in October 2015 complaining of depression and anxiety. He said he was prescribed Aropax and later Effexor for depression and anxiety as a result of the onset of symptoms that developed after three months of having worked for the respondent. He said he returned after three weeks and Dr Higginbotham increased the dosage to 40mg but instead of alleviating his symptoms it caused a further deterioration. He said that it did have more of a therapeutic effect and he continued to experience symptoms of less severity which enabled him to manage his work.
Mr Cameron said that after Dr Higgenbotham retired at the end of 2015, he started seeing Dr Badham, who prescribed an anti‑depressant as well as pain medication. He said that he then saw Dr Scott on his wife’s recommendation in early 2016. He said Dr Scott prescribed Pristiq on 27 January 2016 with a dosage of 100mg which provided some benefit, and also Oxazepam for anxiety and panic attacks. Mr Cameron said that this coincided with the end of university holiday when he experienced less anxiety, but with the prospect of work he experienced an escalation of symptoms of worrying, fearfulness, and episodes of panic attacks and went to Dr Scott.
Mr Cameron stated that when he returned to work things continued as they had before, and he found himself struggling to perform because of the conflict about how he believed the work should be done. He stated he managed during this period through the flexibility associated with attendances and by working around where he attended in order to conceal the problems he was having. He stated that his condition was exacerbated by having to use pretexts to avoid managers and meetings, and he would schedule sessions with students and appointments to avoid contact with the stressors of his condition. Mr Cameron said his strategies for dealing with decompensation caused him to come to greater conflict with managers as they did not approve of him travelling off site.
Mr Cameron said that he was experiencing more physical symptoms such as nausea, sweating, and even defecating as a result of a sense of fear and foreboding. He said that during this period he became more occupied with what might be raised in meetings and would ruminate on what would be said and how he would respond. He said that this distracted him from what ought to have been focussing on and affected his overall general wellbeing. Mr Cameron also stated that often he struggled with concentration and recall. He said that around this time his “admin” support was reduced to half a day per week. He said that he would not manage to record clinical notes and follow up matters which contrasted with his capacity at performing when he started. He said that he started to feel as though his functioning became more and more compromised and complaints and demands about how he was performing escalated. Mr Cameron said that throughout 2016 the physical symptoms associated with his anxiety became more persistent and intrusive, and interfered with his daily functioning. He said his panic attacks increased in severity and frequency.
Mr Cameron stated that on 15 August 2016 he was travelling on Northern Road to attend a meeting about student needs when his anxiety resulted in him experiencing actual faecal incontinence. He stated that he experienced a sense of humiliation and then a sense of panic about how he would attend the meeting and how he would attract more criticism and trouble. He rang his wife who provided him with assurance and encouragement and came to assist him. He said she arrived half an hour later with a change of clothes and took control of the situation, and he managed to go to the meeting but had no recollection of what happened.
Mr Cameron said he suffered faecal incontinence again, but because he was alert to the risk of it happening, he modified his movements and actions to take the risk into account. He said he could not tell anyone at work and was anxious to conceal his problem. Mr Cameron said he did not take time off but managed his symptoms through the flexibility of flexi hours and management of his diary. He said that when things got particularly bad, he used his wife’s health as a pretext to take leave.
Mr Cameron said that there remained in his experience considerable stigma amongst mental health professionals regarding colleagues who had mental health conditions, and he believed his role would have been impossible to perform if he identified his condition to his managers. He stated that he was determined to avoid this disclosure.
Mr Cameron wrote:
“Throughout late 2015 to 2016 I struggled with my condition and tried to manage work however, the difficulties in managing at work was caused by the work itself. By the time I was being informed of steps of performance and certainly by August 2017, I had been experiencing symptoms, taking medication, and on occasions been unable to even attend work. The emails associated with the performance management just exacerbated me and made my life at work much worse but by that stage I was already injured.”
Mr Cameron stated that some staff made comments about opioid use and clinical practice being incompatible, and that any practitioner in any acute phase of a mental health condition should not be practising. He stated that at no point was his clinical provision ever questioned or challenged, but he felt once his mental health condition was disclosed his employment would be in severe jeopardy.

Evidence of Jacqualyn Cameron

In a statement dated 17 February 2021, Mrs Cameron said that she had been married for 38 years and was a registered nurse who had practised for 40 years in child and family health. She said that her husband had suffered during their marriage episodes of depression on about three occasions where he was prescribed medication and the condition resolved after some months. She said that Mr Cameron experienced a bout of depression during his employment with TAFE in about 2012 but after he left TAFE they went on holiday. She said that at the time he applied for the position with the respondent he felt he was suited for the role and enthusiastic and excited. Mrs Cameron wrote: “He was not suffering any depression or any psychological symptoms at the time and appeared to me in a very uplifted mood”.
Mrs Cameron recalled that he commenced work in about August 2015 with the respondent. She said that shortly after starting he complained about his role because he felt it was not what had been explained to him and there was some conflict between how he saw himself as a clinician and the business model under which he was to provide the services. She said that within about six months of him commencing with the respondent his mood had changed and he had trouble sleeping and getting out of bed and appeared to be worried all the time, was disappointed and lacked motivation. She stated that by Christmas 2015 Mr Cameron was disengaged, withdrawn, and his mood was flat. She said that he was distracted and became more agitated as the return to work approached.
Mrs Cameron said she became concerned about how he would cope after Dr Higginbotham retired, and encouraged him to see Dr Scott. She stated that she went with him to see Dr Scott because she wanted to provide Dr Scott with some background and to make sure he was clear about what was happening. She wrote:
“I recall my concern was Grant seemed to have lost all confidence, was withdrawn, seemed to be worrying about decision making, and doing things without prompting and being followed up. I had over the previous months observed him to become unkempt, disengaged, withdrawn, and self‑isolating. He could not sleep through the night, was panicky about events we had arranged even if he knew about them, he would not wish to attend at the last moment. I was concerned about how he would manage at work given his difficulties in coping over Christmas.”
Mrs Cameron said that at the consultation with Dr Scott, she provided the background of partial periods of depression and her observations since Mr Cameron commenced in the new position in August 2015 of a gradual change from the uplifted in mood. She said that Dr Scott made a diagnosis of depression and prescribed medication. She said that at the time she hoped the medication would be for a short period, but they had a mortgage and her husband could not stop working, and that was an added pressure.
Mrs Cameron stated that Mr Cameron’s functioning deteriorated on his return to work. She said that she observed him during this period to be less motivated and sometimes she worried he would not get out of bed if she went to work so she would coax him out and make sure he went to work. Mrs Cameron said that over the next months there was a gradual deterioration in his functioning, and he gradually lost interest in doing anything. She said that there were occasions when before he went to work, he was so distracted and agitated about some upcoming meeting or something he had done or was meant to do that he would be shaking. She said that it eventually got to the stage where he would work himself up into such a point of anxiety, he was becoming incontinent.
Mrs Cameron wrote:
“The first time I became aware of this was some time in mid‑August 2016. To the best of my recollection it was on 15 August 2016. I made a note of the day at the time as I had to leave work to go to his assistance. On that occasion he was travelling on the Northern Road and I recall he was attending a meeting about which he was very anxious. He called me to tell me he had defecated himself and was on the side of the road and needed help.”
Mrs Cameron said that her husband was adamant that he should still attend the meeting and carry on work. She stated that she knew this happened on another occasion but there may have been more occasions, but he did not want her to know.
Mrs Scott said there were days when her husband would not go to work and he would take those days off using the pretext he was looking after her.

Evidence of Nicole Church

In a statement dated 17 July 2018, Ms Church said that she had been Mr Cameron’s supervisor since about August 2017. She stated that she was the team leader of counselling services and reported to Ms Brackenreg. Ms Church wrote:
“I am unaware of any episodes of depression for the claimant. He has never disclosed to me that he suffers from depression and no staff member has told me that the claimant suffers from depression. Neither has he disclosed to me any history of anxiety, however I had my own assumptions based on his performance during the Behaviour Risk Review Operations Group (BRROG) meetings. Part of his role was to take the minutes and he was slow and he appeared to struggle on the recall of what had been said and I had to frequently stop and restate what had been discussed so that he could catch up the minutes. His hands would shake while taking minutes. This led me to believe that he was suffering some sort of anxiety, but he has not disclosed anything of that nature to me.”
Ms Church said that on 9 May 2018 she received an email from Ms Folkes in HR who advised that Mr Cameron had some additional disclosure of which they were hitherto unaware. She said the email did not discuss the new disclosures but was in reference to his existing workplace accommodation. She said she was not aware of the adjustments as part of that workplace accommodation except that Mr Cameron required a lighter laptop, which was provided, as well as voice recognition software.
Ms Church stated that Mr Cameron’s core responsibilities as mental health co‑ordinator were to complete risk and safety assessments for any students, and he also provided consultations to staff in relation to student matters. She wrote:
“22. My understanding is that 50% of his workload should be direct student contact. He also has community liaison with external agency stakeholders. That would take about 25% of his workload. Ideally that meant physically attending the worksites of stakeholders or emailing the stakeholders to advise them of our services. He should also take feedback from the stakeholders about their functions and operations. This feedback should be given to the University staff so that they understand what opportunities or options are available to help support our students.
23.The remaining 25% would be working within the University providing information regarding the University’s Mental Health and Well‑being strategy to Staff and Schools within the University. In an ideal situation he would go out and meet the staff and discuss strategies and hand out booklets that we have at hand and provide consultation.
24. The claimant is responsible for responding to any mental health crisis. He is not tied to appointments and is required to respond quickly to a crisis. He also consults staff who have need of guidance and consultation, in relation to any students. He has a role fostering and building community partnerships and bringing that information back to the broader team.”
Ms Church stated that Mr Cameron’s former manager was Ms Xiberras. She said that during the period of handover in about July 2017, Ms Xiberras advised that Mr Cameron had been passive‑aggressive to her and she was also conducting weekly meetings with him in regard to his performance. Ms Church said that in the period when Ms Xiberras took some leave and she was acting in her role, she was aware that Mr Cameron was in the final stages of the process of getting his clinical notes up to date and she had weekly meetings to discuss that process. She said that after that she asked on a regular basis and he advised her that he was up to date with his notes.
Ms Church said that on about 15 February 2018 she was in a BRROG meeting where one counsellor explained a difficult situation with a student, and they decided to make a risk assessment. Ms Church said she asked Mr Cameron if he would conduct that assessment and he refused. She then requested he attend in close proximity as her support and he agreed, but at the time of the assessment did not turn up. She said she later called him and he said he was stuck in traffic.
Ms Church said Mr Cameron alleged that she gave him unconstructive criticism in relation to his work and performance. She responded by saying that most of her staff would consider her to be extremely supportive and denied the allegation.
Ms Church said that Mr Cameron said she did not understand the aspect of community engagement responsibility and kept asking him what he did when he went out. She noted that he said she insisted that she attend community engagements with him, not to be an active participant but to monitor and review his performance. Ms Church said that on 22 February 2018 she discussed attending community engagement meetings with him because his diary showed half days blocked out for some of those meetings, and she had no idea what went on or how they were conducted. She said she did voice her lack of understanding of the agendas and outcomes of the meetings. She said that she asked Mr Cameron if she could come with him to the next community engagement meeting and he flatly refused. Ms Church said she then consulted with her manager, Ms Brackenreg, and was advised that she could reasonably ask Mr Cameron for her to attend. Ms Church stated that she then spoke to Mr Cameron and insisted that she accompany him. She said Mr Cameron agreed but subsequently he went on leave and she did not have an opportunity to go to one of the meetings with him.
Ms Church said that at the BRROG of 22 February 2018 Mr Cameron was having difficulty keeping up with the minutes and focussed on insignificant issues and left out significant issues.
Ms Church stated that on 23 February 2018, Sumithira Joseph from Redbank House rang her to advise that Mr Cameron was late for a meeting with staff, and when he arrived he was there for 10 minutes and spoke about his university role for two minutes and for the remainder of the time spoke about a trip to India he intended to take. Ms Church said that Ms Joseph was extremely dissatisfied.
Ms Church stated that on 2 March 2018 Mr Cameron was scheduled to have a meeting at Kingswood with her and Ms Stenko, who had been providing admin support to him and to other areas. She said she arrived at 9.00am for the meeting scheduled at 9.00am but by 9.20am Mr Cameron had not arrived. She said she rang and told her that he had forgotten about the meeting and was at Campbelltown. She said she asked him to come to Kingswood and he arrived one and a half hours later.

Ms Church stated that on 7 March 2018 Mr Cameron missed a meeting with Headspace in Mt Druitt. She said she received a call from Mr Angus, the team leader, and he advised they were all sitting waiting and asked where Mr Cameron was. She said she rang Mr Cameron and he said he had instructions from her to have the BRROG minutes completed as a priority, and he had voice mailed Headspace advising that he had cancelled the meeting. Ms Church said that she had been asking Mr Cameron to get the minutes for BRROG out in a timely fashion and he had been tardy with the minutes, which were critical for the next meeting. She stated that the explanation from Mr Cameron that he was cancelling a Wednesday meeting to do the minutes for the last Thursday BRROG meeting was a further indication of his tardiness and he had had a diary entry for Monday of that week to do the minutes.
Ms Church stated that these events raised flags with her about Mr Cameron’s performance and she conducted a series of informal discussions with him, including one on 8 March 2018 where she directly discussed her concerns of community engagement.
Ms Church stated that on 3 April 2018 she received a communication from a staff member which disclosed issues about Mr Cameron, his conduct in combined service meetings, and expressed concern for his wellbeing. She said she discussed all these concerns with
Ms Brackenreg. Ms Church said that she then met with Ms Folkes at HR and discussed the events and her concerns. She said that Ms Folkes suggested that they start a formal PIP for Mr Cameron, and she mentioned that to him in an email sent on 9 April 2018. Ms Church said she was aware he had already been informally performance managed by Ms Xiberras and she was aware of a development plan that had not actually sighted the plan.
Ms Church stated that a meeting between her, Mr Cameron and Ms Folkes was scheduled on 13 April 2018 and she advised him that it was the first formal meeting under the Professional Staff Agreement of 2014, clause 14.5 Unsatisfactory Performance. She said
Mr Cameron agreed to attend the meeting but on 12 April 2018 he took sick leave and did not return to work until 28 May 2018.
Ms Church said that on 28 May 2018 she emailed Mr Cameron and reiterated the need for a meeting and rescheduled it for 31 May 2018. She said that the meeting went ahead and Mr Cameron was provided with the PIP. She said that he wanted to discuss the direction which Mental Health Team was taking due to the restructure, but she wished to keep that issue separate from the performance issues. She said he did not see any issue with his performance at all and he appeared to have no concept that any of the issues raised were a problem. She said that all nine issues written into the PIP had previously been discussed with Mr Cameron on an informal basis, and none were new issues.
Ms Church said that Mr Cameron did not sign the PIP but asked for clarification and changes and, in particular, wanted a change to issue six, namely a clearer process for cancelling BRROG meetings. She stated they agreed to make the changes. Ms Church said that issue seven related to a target of 50% student workload and he wanted that to be implemented by the end of June. She said that Mr Cameron became upset at the end of the meeting as he disagreed with a lot of the issues and gave excuses for being late and other “low” performance and did not believe they were worthy of this level of concern. She said that Mr Cameron took 1 June off on leave and attended a workshop the following Monday and Tuesday. She said he worked the next Wednesday and Thursday and then commenced personal leave on 8 June 2018. She said that 11 June 2018 was a public holiday and he submitted a WorkCover certificate on 12 June 2018 advising that he had come to work that morning but left at 10.00am to see his doctor.
Ms Church noted that Mr Cameron had said he spoke to her about the difficulties he had getting minutes done following the BRROG meeting and her direction that nothing could be done to assist him. She stated that taking the minutes of the BRROG had always been his role and assistance was given to him during the meeting as to what needed to be recorded. She said these were dot points, not a recording of the conversation, and it was not a complex task. She stated that he was able to block out hours in his diary to do the minutes and she direct him to get the minutes out by COB the day following the meeting in order to give all members time to action the minutes. She said that due to the sensitive nature of the topics discussed they could not have “admin support” in the room taking minutes.
Ms Church said that Mr Cameron said she cancelled the mental health combined services meeting which isolated him from other staff. Ms Church stated that she had numerous complaints from staff that the meetings were unsatisfactory and they started to avoid the meetings. She said that one document showed that Mr Cameron was the only person present at a meeting on 9 April 2018.
Ms Church said that Mr Cameron alleged he received an email from her advising that he was speaking about the University in derogatory terms and was to cease that practise. Ms Church said she did email him concerning his comments in an open forum campus on 7 June 2018 when he criticised her decision to cancel the mental health combined service meetings as it was an inappropriate forum to raise the issue.
In relation to Mr Cameron’s allegation that she tried to cancel his annual leave, Ms Church said that she did send him some emails questioning his leave as it was not in her calendar and she asked questions that would assist her to locate the request for leave. She said that she subsequently located the leave and approved it. She said that she was not trying to cancel the leave but was just asking for details about the approval.
Ms Church said that Mr Cameron stated that information had been withheld from him as he had not had any access to a budget allocated to the team for the last two years. She stated that she was not aware that prior to that there was a budget allocated to the team and he managed it.
Ms Church said that the PIP plan instituted at the end of May 2018 was not a punitive action on her part, but it was a last resort after many attempts to address concerns of low and inadequate performance. She said this was reasonable managerial action entirely in line with their policy.
Ms Church noted that the applicant alleged that he had lost a number of staff, who he had supervised since he started work for the respondent. Ms Church stated that she was sure that there were never five members of staff ever reporting directly to Mr Cameron and two of the positions he referred to were counsellors and he did not supervise them. She said there had always been an “admin support” but one particular “admin support” officer had resigned. However, she stated that the mental health co‑ordinator still received admin support.
Ms Church stated that Mr Cameron did complain generally that his workload had increased as he was expected to do work across all campuses. She stated that his role and workload was unaffected by staff changes and the statistics regarding occasions of servicing clients showed significant underperformance.

Evidence of Ellen Brackenreg

In a statement dated 17 July 2018, Ellen Brackenreg said that she was the Executive Director of Student Services at the respondent. She said that Ms Church, Acting Team Leader in Counselling, was Mr Cameron’s immediate supervisor and Ms Church reported to her. Ms Brackenreg stated that she had known Mr Cameron for several years although had not had frequent contact with him. She said that she saw him in the context of the BRROG meetings and the mental crises in which he may be involved. Ms Brackenreg said that she also provided guidance to Ms Church on occasion.
Ms Brackenreg stated that she was unaware of any episodes of depression that Mr Cameron had, and he had never disclosed to her that he suffered depression, and no staff member had told her that he suffered from depression. She said that Ms Xiberras, a former supervisor of Mr Cameron, did advise her that she thought Mr Cameron might suffer from anxiety, but did not provide any details. Ms Brackenreg stated that she was aware that he had a workplace accommodation and used voice recognition software called Dragon and as part of that accommodation he would have had to provide evidence and/or medical documentation to the Equity and Diversity to enable the adjustments to be put into place. She stated that he could disclose anything that he wished to discuss, but she was not aware of any disclosure, nor would she be told.
Ms Brackenreg stated that there were yearly performance reviews conducted by Mr Cameron’s supervisor but she was only aware of the review done in 2017 for year 2016, which she described as nondescript. She said that review was conducted by Erin Helleur.
Ms Brackenreg stated that Mr Cameron had the following supervisors: Jenny Bains, Erin Helleur, Julie Xiberras, and now Nicole Church, who took up the role of acting team leader in October or November 2017.
Ms Brackenreg stated that she and Ms Folkes from HR had looked at Mr Cameron’s performance review as they were going down the path of a formal PIP as per the enterprise agreement. She stated that was after they tried informal performance management. She stated that Ms Xiberras had worked with Mr Cameron to develop a development plan to work through some of the issues that had been identified in about April 2017. She noted that one of the issues was case notes not being written up since October 2016 and another was that people were often unaware of where Mr Cameron was.
Ms Brackenreg stated that Mr Cameron worked under an enterprise agreement and the agreement stated the process for formal management but they always went down the path of informal performance management first. She stated she was aware that Ms Xiberras conducted the informal process first and that evidence was the development plan. Ms Brackenreg stated she was unaware of whether Mr Cameron had ever made any complaints about his working conditions. She stated that she was aware that another mental health advisor, Emma Taylor, resigned in April 2018 but then returned as a casual. She stated that Ms Taylor had reported to Mr Cameron and she returned to the respondent’s employment after he commenced leave on 12 April 2018.
Ms Brackenreg confirmed that Mr Cameron complained about Ms Sahib and advised she was difficult to manage. She stated that Ms Xiberras had a discussion with Mr Cameron and Ms Sahib and when things did not improve they looked at changing her reporting line to ease the situation. She said that there was then a restructure and Ms Sahib ended up reporting somewhere else and took her workload with her. Ms Brackenreg stated she was unaware of any other complaints Mr Cameron may have made about his work duties or conditions.
Ms Brackenreg stated she had been asked to comment on Mr Cameron’s allegation that when he started work with the respondent he supervised a staff of five. She stated that she could not recall five members of staff ever directly reporting to Mr Cameron, and that when he first started he did not have anyone directly reporting to him. She stated that the mental health and wellbeing health promotion co‑ordinator was Ms Sahib, who later ended up reporting elsewhere. She said that she was unaware of a projects officer and Ms Taylor was a mental health advisor. She stated that they were in the process of employing one staff member to replace her position, and they had another vacant position in counselling which had nothing to do with Mr Cameron’s role. She said that he did not supervise counsellors but acted as a consultant to counsellors for their clients who might have a mental health issue. She said he also consulted with disability advisors and welfare officers. She said that mental health advisors’ positions would report to a team leader of counselling and part of the restructure was to move that position back to where it used to report before it reported to Mr Cameron. She said the workload moved with the position and, in her view, a decrease in staff did not mean an increase in Mr Cameron’s workload as the positions took the workload with them. She stated that in relation to administrative support the particular admin support officer had resigned but the mental health co‑ordinator still received admin support.
Ms Brackenreg stated that in regard to workload she had accessed the system data and collected the data for the client load which was part of Mr Cameron’s role. She said she had figures for all of 2017 and the year to date for 2018. She stated that Ms Xiberras had identified that Mr Cameron had not been updating his case notes since 2018 but believed that all client case notes were updated as part of the development plan of April 2017.
Ms Brackenreg wrote:
“42. The data shows that for 2017, the claimant has 190 ‘occasions for service’.” An “Occasion for service” is any client interaction and is made up of face to face appointments, telephone appointments, online appointments and meetings, and case consultations, telephone calls, emails and other correspondence. The yearly total hours for these activities is 87 hours.
44. The 2018 year to date figures are “occasions of service”, 67 and hours total 24.75.”
Ms Brackenreg stated that through discussions with Ms Church she had been aware that there had been very little progress over a number of issues and they sought the advice of HR and decided to implement a PIP. She stated that as per the enterprise agreement, Mr Cameron was advised of the PIP and given a date for meeting and advised he could bring a support person. She understood that he then took leave prior to the meeting and when he came back from leave on 28 May 2018, he then attended the meeting and was given the PIP on 31 May 2018.
Ms Brackenreg stated that Mr Cameron requested a meeting with her following a discussion with HR, but she attempting to keep the issue of restructure and his performance issues separate and was waiting for the PIP meeting to take place. She said that he then took leave and the meeting did not occur.
Ms Brackenreg stated that Mr Cameron said that he presented to the BRROG at the end of 2017 an “indication” that international students were disproportionately accessing mental health services. She stated that at each meeting, Mr Cameron would provide statistics for the previous three months and, in this particular report, there were proportionately a larger number of international students who had come to the attention of the BRROG. She recalled that Mr Cameron suggested that a group be established to look at international student support but advised him at the time that an international student support group already existed made up of stakeholders, and it was more appropriate that the established group look at this issue rather than another group.

Evidence of Susan Folkes

In a statement dated 19 July 2018 Susan Folkes, senior HR partner for the respondent, stated she had known Mr Cameron since about May 2017 when she became involved in a communication matter between Mr Cameron and Ms Sahib. She stated that Ms Sahib reported to Mr Cameron at the time and he had issues in regard to her timesheets and flex leave. She said that Mr Cameron raised these issues to the Executive Director of HR bypassing the reporting line, which was an inappropriate course of action, and that he needed his manager’s approval for any excessive flex.
Ms Folkes said she became involved in the matter and discussed it with Mr Cameron. She said he had allowed Ms Sahib to come to work too early in the morning and an inappropriate time and he said that he had discussed this with Ms Sahib but still allowed for the early starts. Ms Folkes said she advised him that he needed to speak in a more frank manner and explain she needed to start at appropriate times in line with the enterprise agreement. She said that Mr Cameron said that he would speak to Ms Sahib but continued to approve excess flex carryover. She said that Mr Cameron’s timesheet approvals did not match his alleged discussions with Ms Sahib, nor did they comply with the enterprise agreement. She stated that Mr Cameron was unable to give Ms Sahib a direction in regard the timesheets and flex issues and subsequently Ms Sahib was moved to a different reporting line for these matters and reported directly to Ms Xiberras.
Ms Folkes said that because of these interactions with Mr Cameron she began to make further enquiries into his performance and was advised by Ms Brackenreg that Ms Xiberras was working with him and had informally counselled him and that she had initiated a development plan in line with section 48.4 of the Unsatisfactory Performance contained in the Professional Staff Agreement 2014. She said that at that stage HR were not involved in the matter and it was being dealt with informally.
Ms Folkes stated that she was unaware of Mr Cameron having any episodes of depression and he never disclosed to her that he suffered from depression. She said no staff member had told her that he suffered from depression. She said she had concerns over his behaviour such as not coming to appointments and had feedback from staff that they had lost faith in Mr Cameron as he was unable to respond to questions they had asked. She said that she contacted Leanne Kent in about April 2018, who was Manager, Equity and Diversity Projects. She said she expressed her concern to Ms Kent that there may be some underlying condition which was affecting Mr Cameron, and Ms Kent advised she would speak to him and subsequently told Ms Folkes that she had spoken to him and given him every opportunity to disclose any issues affecting him and he did not disclose anything.
Ms Folkes stated she was aware that Mr Cameron had a workplace accommodation and used voice recognition software and had a modified computer.
Ms Folkes stated she recalled an incident where she was in a meeting with Ms Church and they were advised that there had been a crisis for a female student. She said that Mr Cameron had not acted but simply reported the event to them and arranged for someone else to go and see the student several hours later, and this was an unacceptable action on his part. She stated he should have gone straight to the student and conducted a mental health assessment.
Ms Folkes stated there were yearly performance reviews conducted by Mr Cameron’s supervisor and she was aware of one done in 2017 for the year 2016. She recalled that the review comments were “meets expectations”, which was the middle range of the three choices of comment.
She stated that she met with his supervisor, Ms Church, on many occasions and during these meetings concerns about Mr Cameron’s performance were raised as he had recently failed to attend two separate external community liaison meetings. She stated she met with Ms Church in March 2017, when she provided further examples of Mr Cameron’s failure to do tasks.
Ms Folkes stated that she prepared a PIP in line with the Professional Staff Agreement 2014 section 48.5 which stated that where a supervisor could not informally resolve instances of unsatisfactory performance then the supervisor would formally interview the employee giving the employee a chance to respond. She said a record of the first formal interview with a supervisor would be made and in this instance that record was the PIP. She stated that Ms Church sent a letter to Mr Cameron inviting him to an interview which was scheduled on 13 April 2018, but he did not attend as he was on sick leave.
Ms Folkes stated that Mr Cameron returned to work on 28 May 2018, Ms Church advised him of a new meeting date on 31 May 2018. She said that Mr Cameron attended the meeting on 31 May 2018, as did Ms Church. She said the only records taken of the meeting were the PIP itself, and Mr Cameron did not sign it as he wanted modifications made. She stated that in the meeting they went through the PIP issues and he was asked for feedback, which he gave. She said Mr Cameron gave numerous examples of why he had not attended appointments such as failure of his satnav, heavy traffic, getting lost and lack of parking. She said he gave one of these examples for each of the numerous examples that Ms Church presented to him, and he gave one example of making a bad judgement in reference to a missed meeting where he chose to complete the BRROG minutes instead.

In relation to employment issues in 2015, Mr Cameron’s account was corroborated by the evidence of his wife. Mrs Cameron is a registered nurse, who has practised for 40 years in child and family health, and I was impressed by her observations and placed considerable weight on her evidence. Mrs Cameron said that her husband was not suffering any depression or any psychological symptoms at the time he commenced employment with the respondent in August 2015 and appeared to her to be in a “very uplifted mood”. She said that shortly after starting work with the respondent he complained about his role because he felt it was not what had been explained to him and there was some conflict between how he saw himself as a clinician and the business model under which he was to provide the services. She said that within about six months of him commencing with the respondent his mood had changed and he had trouble sleeping and getting out of bed and appeared to be worried all the time, was disappointed and lacked motivation. She stated that by Christmas 2015 Mr Cameron was disengaged, withdrawn, and his mood was flat.
Mrs Cameron said she was becoming concerned about how he would cope and after Dr Higginbotham retired, and she encouraged him to see Dr Scott. She stated that she went with him to see Dr Scott because she wanted to provide Dr Scott with some background and to make sure he was clear about what was happening. She wrote:
“I recall my concern was Grant seemed to have lost all confidence, was withdrawn, seemed to be worrying about decision making, and doing things without prompting and being followed up. I had over the previous months observed him to become unkempt, disengaged, withdrawn, and self‑isolating. He could not sleep through the night, was panicky about events we had arranged even if he knew about them, he would not wish to attend at the last moment. I was concerned about how he would manage at work given his difficulties in coping over Christmas.”
Mrs Cameron said that Dr Scott made a diagnosis of depression and prescribed medication.
Dr Higgenbotham, in his clinical records, noted that he saw Mr Cameron on 21 October 2015 and wrote: “Temaze x 100, 5‑6/52 depression, early waking, loss of interest, withdrawn, anxiety ++ Rx Aropax 20”. Dr Higgenbotham did not comment on the cause of the depression and anxiety, however, his clinical notes in general were extremely brief and provided little detail.
Dr Scott in his clinical records dated 27 January 2016 noted that he prescribed Pristiq and Temaze and made a diagnosis of anxiety and depression.
Dr Takyar, in his report dated 9 May 2021, noted that Mr Cameron had seen his general practitioner on 21 October 2015 and was diagnosed with anxiety and depression. Dr Takyar noted that Mr Cameron in his statement of 8 March 2021 reported he had work related issues prior to seeing his GP and within about three months of starting work with the respondent. Dr Takyar concluded that the information suggested that this was a work related psychiatric condition from his employment with the respondent, which culminated in treatment commencing in about October 2015, prior to performance management. He considered this was a new depressive episode and new anxiety as the pre‑existing condition had recovered. He expressed the view that that this condition developed in the context of the circumstances noted in his original report in relation to clinical and resourcing issues, feeling overwhelmed by clinical demands, a need to spend time with students based on clinical needs not management dictum, as well as the restructure effects more generally and problems with his new manager.
I am satisfied after considering the evidence concerning Mr Cameron’s employment with the respondent in 2015 that Mr Cameron developed a new depressive episode and new anxiety by October 2015 and that Mr Cameron required treatment including antidepressant medication. It also appears that Mr Cameron continued to take antidepressant from October 2015 on despite a possible attempt to reduce the dosage in about September 2016.
In relation to employment issues in 2016, Mr Cameron stated that when he returned to work in 2016 things continued as they had before, and he found himself struggling to perform because of the conflict about how he believed work should be done. He stated he managed during this period through the flexibility associated with attendances. He stated that his condition was exacerbated by having to use pretexts to avoid managers and meetings, and he would schedule sessions with students and appointments to avoid contact. Mr Cameron said his strategies for dealing with decompensation caused him to come to greater conflict with managers as they did not approve of him travelling off site. He said that he was experiencing more physical symptoms such as feel nauseous, sweating, and even defecating as a result of a sense of fear and foreboding. He stated that during this period he became more occupied with what might be raised in meetings and would ruminate on what would be said and how he would respond, which distracted him from what ought to have been focussing on and affected his overall general wellbeing. Mr Cameron also stated that he often struggled with concentration and recall and could not manage to record clinical notes and following up matters in contrast to his performance when he started. He said that he felt as though his functioning became more and more compromised and complaints and demands about how he was performing escalated. He said his panic attacks increased in severity and frequency.
In particular, Mr Cameron said that on 15 August 2016 he was travelling to attend a meeting about student needs when his anxiety resulted in him experiencing actual faecal incontinence. He stated that he experienced a sense of humiliation and then a sense of panic about how he would attend the meeting. He said that he rang his wife who provided him with assurance and encouragement and came to assist him. Mr Cameron said he suffered faecal incontinence again, but because he was alert to the risk of it happening, he modified his movements and actions to take the risk into account. He said he could not tell anyone at work and was anxious to conceal his problem. Mr Cameron said that he did not take time off but managed his symptoms through the flexibility of flexi hours and management of his diary and when things got particularly bad, he used his wife’s health as a pretext to take leave.
Mrs Cameron stated that Mr Cameron’s functioning deteriorated on his return to work in early 2016. She said that she observed him during this period to be less motivated and sometimes she worried that he would not go to work. Mrs Cameron said that over the next months there was a gradual deterioration in his functioning, and he gradually lost interest in doing anything. She said that there were occasions when before he went to work, he was so distracted and agitated about some upcoming meeting or something he had done or was meant to do that he would be shaking. She said that it eventually got to the stage where he would work himself up into such a point of anxiety, he was becoming incontinent.
Mrs Cameron corroborated Mr Cameron’s account of the episode of incontinence on 15 August 2016. She said that he called her to tell her he had defecated himself and was on the side of the road and needed help. Mrs Cameron said that her husband was adamant that he should still attend the meeting and carry on work. She stated that she knew this happened on another occasion but there may have been more occasions, but he did not want her to know.
Mrs Scott said there were days when her husband would not go to work and he would take those days off using the pretext he was looking after her.
Dr Scott’s clinical records show that Mr Cameron attended Dr Scott on numerous occasions throughout 2016, and continued to prescribe Pristiq, Temaze and Oxazepam and provide counselling and advice on some occasions. While Dr Scott described Mr Cameron as “stable” on two occasions, I am satisfied that the depressions and anxiety that commenced in October 2015 did not resolve in 2016.
As noted above, Dr Takyar concluded that Mr Cameron had a work related psychiatric condition from his employment with the respondent, which culminated in treatment commencing in about October 2015. He considered that this condition developed in the context of the circumstances noted in his original report in relation to clinical and resourcing issues, feeling overwhelmed by clinical demands, a need to spend time with students based on clinical needs not management dictum, as well as the restructure effects more generally and problems with his new manager. Dr Takyar noted that if his psychiatric symptoms through the early issues at the respondent worsened over time, as appeared to be the case, one would expect his functioning to worsen due to the deteriorating symptoms, including his energy, concentration, mood and anxiety, which could reasonably be expected to lead to decline in function including his work performance.
Dr Anwar suggested an onset of symptoms in about mid 2017 while Dr Martin did not really identify the date of the onset of symptoms. However, Dr Martin did refer to the episode of incontinence although the date appeared to be incorrect and about five to six months after the actual incident. Dr Martin did note that Mr Cameron had reported depressive and anxious symptoms going back over a few years and been treated with antidepressants and Benzodiazepines since 2016 and previously been on antidepressants and Benzodiazepines.
Dr Martin noted that Mr Cameron was being treated for anxiety and depression and prescribed Temazepam about three years ago because he was unable to sleep because of separate work issues in a separate job at TAFE, and inferred that Mr Cameron had a significant underlying psychological vulnerability and pre‑existing condition predating the more recent claim. However, this history was inconsistent with the evidence of Mr Cameron, Mrs Cameron and with the clinical notes of Dr Higginbotham.
Mr Cameron stated that in 2011 he returned to work on normal duties at TAFE as a psychiatric consultant and during this period he developed depression for which he was treated with medication by Dr Higginbotham. He said he was treated for depression which developed from an adjustment disorder, but this resolved. Mr Cameron said that after leaving TAFE he went overseas with his wife for two months and then returned and was offered employment with the respondent.
Mrs Cameron said that Mr Cameron experienced a bout of depression during his employment with TAFE in about 2012 which continued for two years but after he left TAFE they went on holiday and at the time he applied for the position with the respondent he was not suffering any depression or any psychological symptoms and appeared to me in a very uplifted mood.
Dr Higginbotham’s clinical records, which were handwritten and difficult to read, made reference on 2 November 2012 to stress, anxiety and panic attacks due to the Department of Education restructuring.
It appears that Dr Martin had an incorrect history in that the date of the TAFE restructure seems to have taken place in 2012 and not in 2015. Given the incorrect history, and lack of details concerning the events in 2015 and 2016, I am of the view that little weight can be placed on Dr Martin’s opinion as to the cause of Mr Cameron’s condition. However, Dr Martin did note that Mr Cameron said that he had constant worry and anxiety about the welfare of students and concerns about being responsible for their safety and described the work as very demanding and being unable to manage it. I accept that Dr Martin concluded that performance management or actions of his employer have been the predominant cause of the more recent exacerbation in his condition, but Dr Martin has not properly considered the other causative factors especially the events in 2015 and 2016 because of the incorrect history taken.
I am satisfied after considering the evidence concerning Mr Cameron’s employment with the respondent in 2016 that Mr Cameron continued to suffer from depression and anxiety in 2016 and required treatment from his GP including antidepressant medication.
In relation to performance issues and mental health disclosure in 2017, Mr Cameron said that when he was suffering depression in about mid‑2017, he fell behind in his clinical notes and was placed on an improvement plan. He said that he worked with Ms Falconer, from Equity and Diversity, as well as the acting manager of Counselling, Ms Xiberras to achieve the PIP goals and that process resolved in a couple of months. It appears however that apart from the improvement plan, which appeared to be an informal process and was not relied on by the respondent as being performance appraisal for the purposes of the s 11 A defence, there was a “Request for Reasonable Adjustment Plan” dated 10 May 2017. In this plan, Mr Cameron was described as having a mental health disability having recently been diagnosed with depression and anxiety disorder, with panic attacks, and this was affecting his ability to manage his very demanding work role, particularly with attending to administrative duties, such as file notes. Various draft interim workplace adjustments were recommended to take into account Mr Cameron’s high levels of fatigue and other effects of his medical condition.
Mr Cameron stated he thought that when he disclosed that he had a mental illness in mid‑2017, the attitude of managers changed, and his professional contribution had been devalued and minimised from that time on. Ms Brackenreg, Ms Church and Ms Folkes all gave evidence that Mr Cameron did not disclose any mental health issues to them. However, all suspected that Mr Cameron might have some problems with anxiety. However, it is clear that Mr Cameron disclosed mental health issues to Ms Xiberras and Ms Falconer in May 2017 and I am satisfied that such a disclosure was made to members of the respondent’s staff.
In relation to the restructure, Mr Cameron stated he had left TAFE because of a restructure and specifically raised the question of whether a restructure was taking place or anticipated in the pre‑employment interview and was assured that it was not. He said that about a year later, in August 2017, a restructure commenced and this changed the dynamics and interaction between the group. Mr Cameron stated that there had been a restructure in the “pipeline” for two to two and a half years with consultations and position papers. He said that this was a university-wide structure with significant emphasis and impact on customer service and student services. He stated that one effect was that his staff numbers had dropped from five to zero and he was currently unsupported by staff. He said that his workload increased because of the additional campuses added to the university. He stated that there were about six or seven campuses when he started and he thought that they were up to 11 campuses. He said he was expected to take on increased workload with decreasing staff resources. There was no issue that the restructure took place although
I accept that Ms Brackenreg and Ms Church both stated that this would not have resulted in an increase to Mr Cameron’s workload.
In relation to the minutes of the weekly meetings with the BRROG, Mr Cameron stated that as well as participating in the meeting he had to take the minutes. He said that as he had a large workload, he spoke to Ms Church about the difficulties he was having getting minutes done for the following meeting because of his other obligations and the complexity of the minutes. Mr Cameron said that Ms Church’s direction was that nothing could be done to assist him, and she directed him to have the BRROG minutes available the day following the date of the meeting, which he felt was an unreasonable target. He stated that in the two week period when he went back to work from 28 May to 7 June 2018, he noted a staff member had been seconded from the Complaints Resolution Unit to take the minutes. There is no question that Mr Cameron had difficulties in taking the minutes of the BRROG meetings and requested assistance, which was not provided.
In relation to Mr Cameron’s relationship with Ms Church, Mr Cameron said that Ms Church gave him unconstructive criticism in relation to his work and performance, and he regarded her insistence that she attend community meetings with him as humiliating. Mr Cameron believed that she was also isolating him by cancelling the Mental Health Combined Services meetings and restricting his communication with colleagues. Mr Cameron complained that he had no budget for two years and that he was stressed by an incident where Ms Church tried to cancel his annual leave. Mr Cameron believed that the PIP implemented at the end of May 2018 was a punitive action on the part of Ms Church.
Apart from the PIP plan, the matters raised by Mr Cameron would not be regarded as part of actions taken in respect of performance appraisal. The respondent conceded that the performance appraisal took place in 2018 and did not rely on any events in 2017.
Mr Cameron was notified about the PIP in April 2018. There is no doubt that many of the events that gave rise to Mr Cameron’s perceptions occurred before April 2018. The exchange of email concerning his annual leave in June 2018 were not part of performance appraisal.
I accept Mr Cameron’s evidence. There were a number of events which occurred and gave rise to Mr Cameron’s perceptions of being criticised and isolated. The restructure took place and he believed that as a result of the restructure his workload increased. There appears to be no dispute that he had to cover an increasing number of university campuses in his role. Ms Church did tell him to cease the practice of talking about the respondent in derogatory terms without asking him for an account of what had occurred. Mr Cameron was not provided with assistance with the BRROG minutes despite making a request for assistance.
Ms Church insisted on attending community meetings with him, which I accept may have been to enable her to learn more about such meeting. However, this request made him feel humiliated. Mr Cameron was not given a budget for two years and not provided with any explanation as to why this had not been done. Various members of staff no longer reported to him and meetings with various teams were cancelled. I accept that the meetings may have been cancelled for good reasons, but Mr Cameron perceived that he was being isolated and marginalised. Ms Church did send Mr Cameron an email stating that he could not take annual leave despite having approved such leave earlier.
I accept that the PIP meeting proposed in April 2018 and held on 31 May 2018 would have been a causative factor in Mr Cameron’s condition. Mr Cameron considered that this was a punitive and intimidating action on the part of Ms Church. However, I am not persuaded that the performance appraisal in 2018 was the whole of predominant cause of Mr Cameron psychiatric condition.
Mr Cameron first sought treatment from Dr Higginbotham for anxiety and depression in October 2015. He started to see Dr Scott in January 2016 and attended Dr Scott regularly after that consultation. Dr Scott prescribed medications including antidepressant and counselled him and gave him advise during that period. He saw Ms Novella McMahon on 22 September 2017 for counselling.
In her report dated 27 July 2018, Ms Novella‑McMahon, noted she first saw Mr Cameron on 22 September 2017, and noted that at the time Mr Cameron described his struggles and discontent with the respondent, the restructuring, the demands, loss of staff, dismantling of his department, lack of consultation, and fighting bureaucracy.
Dr Takyar concluded that the information suggested that this was a work related psychiatric condition from his employment with the respondent, which culminated in treatment commencing in about October 2015, prior to performance management. He considered this appeared to be a new depressive episode and new anxiety and the pre‑existing condition had recovered. He considered that this condition developed in the context of the circumstances noted in his original report in relation to clinical and resourcing issues, feeling overwhelmed by clinical demands, a need to spend time with students based on clinical needs not management dictum, as well as the restructure effects more generally and problems with his new manager. Dr Takyar noted that if his psychiatric symptoms through the early issues at the respondent worsened over time, as appeared to be the case, one would expect his functioning to worsen due to the deteriorating symptoms, including his energy, concentration, mood and anxiety, which could reasonably be expected to lead to decline in function including his work performance.

I am satisfied that Mr Cameron’s difficulties in meeting the demands of his role, his perceptions that the restructure increased his workload, the poor relationship with
Ms Church, his perception of being isolated especially after Combined Services meetings were cancelled, and his difficulties in reconciling the tension between the way in which management required him to perform his role and his view of the most professional and effective way to perform his role as well as the PIP all contributed to his psychiatric condition. In view of the number of factors and the onset of the condition in October 2015 I am satisfied that the PIP in 2018 was not whole or predominant cause of Mr Cameron’s psychiatric injury.
In making this finding I have preferred the opinion of Dr Takyar to that of Dr Martin in relation to the question of causation of Mr Cameron’s psychiatric condition. Dr Takyar had the benefit of a more detailed and accurate history upon which to base his opinion.
I am comfortably satisfied that the actions taken in respect of the performance appraisal in 2018 were not the whole or predominant cause of Mr Cameron’s psychiatric injury.
In these circumstances, it is unnecessary for me to consider whether such actions in respect of performance appraisal in 2018 were reasonable.
The section 11 A defence is not made out.

Section 60 expenses

The respondent consented to Mr Cameron amending the ARD and making a claim for s 60 expenses. In view of the findings made above, a general order will be made for s 60 expenses.

Summary

Amend the date of injury in the ARD to a deemed date of injury of 12 June 2018.
Amend ARD to add a claim for s 60 expenses.
Matter remitted to the President to refer to a Medical Assessor for assessment of whole person impairment as a result of a psychiatric injury deemed to have occurred on 12 June 2018.
All documents attached to the ARD excluding:
(a) the report of Dr Martin dated 14 August 2018, and
(b) all parts of the report of Dr Anwar dated 7 January 2020 apart from the history in that report,
are admitted and are to be sent to the Medical Assessor.
All documents attached to the Reply excluding the report of Dr Bisht dated 8 April 2020 are admitted and are to be sent to the Medical Assessor.
Respondent to pay the applicant’s reasonably necessary section 60 expenses on production of accounts, receipts and /or Medicare Notice of Charge.

[2021] NSWPIC 498

2 December 2021