Govier v Unitingcare Community

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Govier v Unitingcare Community [2016] QDC 56

PARTIES:

TONI MAREE GOVIER
(plaintiff)

v

UNITINGCARE COMMUNITY (ABN 28 728 322 186)
(defendant)

FILE NO/S:

BD 950/14

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Civil Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court of Queensland

DELIVERED ON:

18 March 2016

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

17 and 18 August, 16, 17 November, written submissions to 10 December 2015.

JUDGE:

Andrews SC DCJ

ORDER:

The plaintiff’s claim is dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

EMPLOYMENT LAW – injury to employee – psychiatric injury – employee violently assaulted – employee sustained physical and psychiatric injuries from the assault – employer’s investigation of employee’s conduct in connection with the assault – where two letters from employer to employee in connection with the investigation aggravated the psychiatric injury – whether duty of care in respect of the content and timing of the letters.

Industrial Relations Act 1999 Qld section 83

Briginshaw v Briginshaw[1938] HCA 34; (1938) 60 CLR 336 at 362 considered.

Hegarty v Queensland Ambulance Service [2007] QCA 366 at [49] followed.

New South Wales v Rogerson [2007] NSWCA 346 considered.

O’Leary v Oolong Aboriginal Corporation Inc [2004] NSWCA 7 considered.

State of New South Wales v Paige [2002] NSWCA 235; (2004) 60 NSWLR 371 followed.

Palmer & Ors v State of Queensland [2015] QDC 63 at [124] followed.

Woolworths Limited v Perrins [2015] QCA 207 at [66] followed.

COUNSEL:

W D P Campbell for the plaintiff

Morton for the defendant

SOLICITORS:

Kevin Bradley Solicitors for the plaintiff

McInnes Wilson Lawyers for the defendant

Issues

1. The plaintiff was attacked and beaten by a co-worker. During the attack she feared she would die. She suffered physical and psychiatric injuries. She escaped by car and was hospitalised.

1. While hospitalised, the plaintiff’s employer, the defendant, instructed her to attend an “investigation interview” next day, directed her not to discuss the incident with any other employee, directed her not to enter any work sites and stood her down on full pay.  The plaintiff was too ill to attend the interview the next day or the rescheduled meeting several days later.  Two weeks later the employer advised her that she had refused to attend the meetings and that the defendant had made preliminary findings that the plaintiff had engaged in violent, inappropriate behaviour; that the plaintiff’s employment could not be continued; that her behaviour reflected poorly upon her; that she had made unnecessary physical contact with the co-worker; that the author was very disappointed and that she had five days to provide written explanation with reasons why her employment should not be terminated.  The plaintiff suffered a chronic post-traumatic stress disorder and a major depressive disorder.  The timing, manner and content of the defendant’s letters caused a sense of injustice and betrayal in the plaintiff and aggravated her psychiatric injuries.

1. The first issue is whether the employer breached its duty to the plaintiff by rostering the plaintiff and the co-worker so that they met at change of shift. Resolution of that issue raised…