| WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION | |||||
| DETERMINATION OF APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE COMMISSION CONSTITUTED BY AN ARBITRATOR | |||||
| CITATION: | Dapto Leagues Club Ltd v Thomas [2008] NSWWCCPD 107 | ||||
| APPELLANT: | Dapto Leagues Club Ltd | ||||
| RESPONDENT: | Nigel Thomas | ||||
| INSURER: | Cambridge Integrated Services Pty Ltd | ||||
| FILE NUMBER: | WCC2049-08 | ||||
| DATE OF ARBITRATOR’S DECISION: | 21 May 2008 | ||||
| DATE OF APPEAL DECISION: | 26 September 2008 | ||||
| SUBJECT MATTER OF DECISION: | Psychological injury; section 11A Workers Compensation Act 1987; whether the cause of injury was multi-factorial or wholly or predominantly due to performance appraisal or discipline of the Worker; notice, incapacity, the effect of pre-existing intellectual impairment on work related psychological injury. | ||||
| PRESIDENTIAL MEMBER: | President Judge Keating | ||||
| HEARING: | On the papers | ||||
| REPRESENTATION: | Appellant: | Workplace Law | |||
| Respondent: | Carroll & O’Dea Lawyers | ||||
| ORDERS MADE ON APPEAL: | The decision of the Arbitrator dated 21 May 2008 is confirmed. | ||||
BACKGROUND TO THE APPEAL
On 12 June 2008 Dapto Leagues Club Ltd (‘the Appellant / Employer’) sought leave to bring an ‘Appeal Against Decision of Arbitrator’ in the Workers Compensation Commission (‘the Commission’) against a decision dated 21 May 2008.
The Respondent to the Appeal is Nigel Thomas (‘the Respondent / Worker’).
Mr Thomas is 36 years of age. He suffers from a mild congenital intellectual disability, which was diagnosed at the age of 3. He attended special education classes, leaving school at age 18, without the School Certificate or Higher School Certificate. After leaving school he was awarded a disability pension for intellectual disability.
For several years after leaving school, the Worker was employed by companies specialising in employment of people with disabilities before finally securing employment with Dapto Leagues Club where he worked for 13 years, until he ceased employment on 11 October 2007.
The Worker was employed for the first ten years of his employment as a kitchen hand, before transferring to his current role as a floor person, which involves responsibility for cleaning tables, clearing glasses and general cleaning of designated areas.
The Worker claims that over a ten year period he was harassed by certain employees including Mary Conroy (Kitchen Supervisor), Judy Dubois (Cook) and Mira Gilly.
The Worker claims that he suffered a chronic adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depression due to the long period of harassment by management and staff.
The Worker’s employment records disclose that there were a series of verbal warnings, “recorded discussions”, counselling and/or discipline records and file memoranda concerning various aspects of the Worker’s employment.
An incident occurred on 11 October 2007. On that occasion the Worker was told by the duty manager to stay in the lobby bar and clean tables, pick up glasses and not to move from there. The Worker did leave the bar area, contrary to instructions, in order to speak to a patron celebrating a birthday. The Worker was stood down pending an investigation into his actions. The Worker was interviewed and was told he was to be issued with a ‘Final Formal Written Warning’ on his return to duties. The Worker did not return to duties with…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Dapto Leagues Club Ltd v Thomas and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2008] NSWWCCPD 107
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the court were whether the psychological injury suffered by Thomas was wholly or predominantly due to the performance appraisal and discipline he received from his employer, and whether Thomas had sufficiently notified his employer of his injury. Additionally, the court needed to determine the impact of Thomas's pre-existing intellectual impairment on his capacity to suffer a work-related psychological injury. The court was also required to assess whether Thomas had demonstrated sufficient incapacity as a result of his injury to warrant compensation.
In delivering the judgment, the court examined the evidence presented regarding the various factors contributing to Thomas's psychological injury. The court found that the psychological injury was multi-factorial, with the performance appraisal and disciplinary action contributing but not being the sole cause. The court determined that Thomas had not sufficiently notified his employer of his injury in the required timeframe, impacting his entitlement to compensation. Moreover, the court held that Thomas's pre-existing intellectual impairment did not preclude him from suffering a work-related psychological injury, but it did affect the assessment of his incapacity. Given these findings, the court confirmed the decision of the arbitrator, upholding the award of compensation to Thomas.
Orders
Orders of the court
The decision of the Arbitrator dated 21 May 2008 is confirmed.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.