Administrative Appeals Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2009] AATA 812
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No: 2008/2320
GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION ) Re
BARRY DEAN
Applicant
And
AUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION
Respondent
DECISION
Tribunal Ms N Isenberg, Senior Member Date22 October 2009
PlaceSydney
Decision The decision under review is affirmed.
...................[sgd]..........................
Ms N Isenberg
Senior Member
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
5. The relevant legislation in this matter is the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (“the Act”).
APPLICANT’S EVIDENCE
Work History
6. Mr Dean gave evidence that he commenced work at Australia Post as a telegram boy in 1979 after completing TAFE. He worked there until he was involuntarily retired in November 2008. He had worked his way up, and in 2002 or 2003 an area manager “recognised [his] talents” and he was temporarily promoted to a management position at the St Leonards delivery facility, with a staff of 90 to 100 staff.
7. In December 2005 he was transferred sideways as manager of the Peakhurst Delivery Centre, with a staff of about 70. In this position he was responsible for the running of the entire centre, which operated approximately 18 hours a day. He travelled a round trip of 110 km per day to get to work, often leaving home before dawn and returning when it was already dark.
8. He took a combination of recreation and long service leave from the job between September 2006 and January 2007.
9. In February 2007, he applied for a demotion, halving his pay, and he transferred to the Nepean Delivery Facility, closer to his home. There he was managing the dock operations for dispatch of mail. In that position he had no staff.
Personal history prior to Peakhurst
10. Mr Dean said that prior to starting at Peakhurst, he was “fine” psychologically and psychiatrically.
11. He denied he had told Dr Virgona that his childhood was rather difficult and unhappy, but conceded there were unhappy periods, such as when his parents divorced when he was nine. Prior to his parents’ separation he had a happy early life, although his father was sometimes violent and he got a few “hidings” from him. He conceded that his father may have been “nervy”, but denied he had told Dr Virgona that his father was a bit of a drinker. He stayed with his mother until he was 15 and his older brother became the “senior male in the house”. His brother also dispensed “floggings”, which Mr Dean said were just part of sibling rivalry.
12. He and his (then) de facto wife commenced their relationship in 1988 and their daughter was born in 1990. The relationship ended in 1998 when his wife asked him to leave, for reasons he never understood. He was distressed, because he loved his wife and child. There followed a protracted custody dispute. As his daughter grew into her teens, and she and her mother moved to Wollongong, weekend access visits became more difficult and they grew apart. Nowadays they speak…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Dean and Australian Postal Corporation and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2009] AATA 812
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues that the court had to address were whether Dean's psychological condition constituted a disease for the purposes of the legislation, and if the condition was contributed to in a material degree by his employment. Additionally, the court examined if Dean's perception of being bullied at work materially contributed to his psychological condition. The court referred to several precedent cases, including Australian Telecommunications Commission v Tzikas, Comcare v Mooi, Comcare v Sahu-Kahn, Kirkpatrick v Commonwealth of Australia, Re Jones and Comcare, and Wiegand v Comcare.
The court considered the nature of Dean's psychological condition and determined it to be a disease within the meaning of the Act. However, the court found that the employment did not contribute to the disease in a material degree. The court found that the perception of being bullied did not materially contribute to Dean's psychological condition, as there was insufficient evidence to prove that the bullying was the cause of the condition. The court affirmed the decision under review, finding that the Australian Postal Corporation was not liable to compensate Dean for the psychological condition.
The court ordered that the decision under review be affirmed, meaning that Dean's claim for compensation was dismissed. The court found that the Australian Postal Corporation was not liable for any compensation due to the lack of evidence connecting Dean's psychological condition to his employment, despite the perception of being bullied.
Orders
Orders of the court
The decision under review is affirmed.
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.