Curle and Asciano Services Pty Ltd (Compensation)

This case concerned a claim for workers' compensation by Mr Curle against Asciano Services Pty Ltd. Mr Curle suffered an Adjustment Disorder, which he agreed was contributed to significantly by being informed that he was unsuccessful in obtaining a newly created Shift Leader position. The Company argued that the decision not to offer Mr Curle the position and the manner in which he was informed of this decision constituted reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner, thereby excluding his condition from the definition of an "injury" under the relevant Act. The matter was heard by Deputy J W Constance P.

The court was required to determine whether the administrative action taken by Asciano Services Pty Ltd in relation to Mr Curle's employment, specifically the decision not to offer him a Shift Leader position and the communication of that decision, was reasonable and taken in a reasonable manner. This determination was crucial to establishing whether Mr Curle's Adjustment Disorder qualified as an "injury" for the purposes of compensation under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth).

The court reasoned that the Company had a justifiable need to restructure its front-line management at the Moss Vale depot, leading to the redundancy of Shift Manager positions and the creation of new Shift Leader roles. The decision not to offer Mr Curle a Shift Leader position was made after a comprehensive recruitment process in which he participated. The court accepted evidence that other applicants were better suited to the new roles and found that the recruitment process was conducted properly and fairly. Applying principles from *Comcare v Martinez (No.2)* and *Keen v Workers Rehabilitation & Compensation Corporation*, the court concluded that the administrative action taken by the Company was reasonable and performed in a reasonable manner.

Consequently, the court found that Mr Curle's Adjustment Disorder, having arisen from reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner, did not fall within the definition of an "injury" for which compensation was payable under the Act. Therefore, the decision under review, which rejected Mr Curle's claim for compensation, was affirmed.