Hardy v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator)
[2014] QIRC 202
•4 December 2014
QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION
CITATION:
Hardy v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) [2014] QIRC 202
PARTIES:
Hardy, Barbara
(Appellant)v
Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator)
(Respondent)CASE NO:
WC/2012/361 PROCEEDING:
Appeal against a decision of Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator)
DELIVERED ON:
4 December 2014 HEARING DATES:
24, 25, 26, 27 and 28 June 2013 (Mt Isa)
2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 December 2013 (Brisbane)
28 March 2014 (Appellant's Submissions)
29 July 2014 (Respondent's Submissions)MEMBER:
Deputy President Swan ORDERS :
1. Application is dismissed.
2. Appellant to pay Regulator's costs.
CATCHWORDS: WORKERS' COMPENSATION – APPEAL AGAINST DECISION - psychological injury - allegations of bullying and harassment - PsyCare involved with Council to consider behavior of staff at Council - perceptions of Appellant flawed on occasions - behavior of cliques in the workplace - remote location of workplace - uneasy relationship between staff in main office of Council - while strained relationships existed, this was a problem associated with both the Appellant and management - this did not constitute bullying and harassment of Appellant.
CASES: Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 s 32,
APPEARANCES: Ms S. Anderson, Counsel instructed by Shine Lawyers for the Appellant.
Mr F. Lippett, Counsel directly instructed by Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator), Respondent.
Decision
[1]Ms Barbara Hardy has appealed a decision made by Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) which has rejected her claim for workers' compensation.
[2]Ms Hardy commenced working for the Diamantina Shire Council in September 2009 as a receptionist and she cites the relevant period for the purpose of this decision as being from September 2009 to June 2011.
[3]The injury claimed to have been suffered by Ms Hardy was that of a psychiatric nature arising from bullying, harassment and inappropriate behaviour directed at her in the workplace. Ms Hardy says that work was a significant contributing factor to that injury. She claims that her injury is not precluded from the definition of such pursuant to s 32(5) of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003.
[4]It is accepted that Ms Hardy is a 'worker' for the purposes of the Act.
[5]The Appellant's medical history is as follows:
· In 2005 Ms Hardy consulted a Psychiatrist who diagnosed her suffering from depression and anxiety.
· Consultations with this Psychiatrist continued until 2007.
· After 2007, Ms Hardy continued to take the medication first prescribed by the Psychiatrist, and was still taking it when she started work at the Council.
· This history was not known by Council.
· Both parties accepted the medical records of Ms Hardy's GP, Dr Rachael Moulden without the need for the doctor to give evidence. The notes generally refer to Ms Hardy's depressed mood [Exhibit 18].
[6]The Regulator's position is that Ms Hardy's psychological difficulties were attributable to her own personality traits and a misperception of some workplace incidents, and that employment was no more than the setting in which the events took place.
[7]The question to be answered by the Commission is whether employment was a significant contributing factor and whether the injury is excluded by section 32(5) of the Act.
Witnesses
[8]Witnesses for the Appellant were:
· Barbara Hardy
· Jenny Neale (Finance Manager - Diamantina Shire Council)
· Stephen McDonald (Works Manager - Diamantina Shire Council)
· Annette Griggs (Acting Deputy CEO - Diamantina Shire Council)
· Annette Akeroyd (Creditors Officer - Diamantina Shire Council).
[9]Witnesses for the Respondent were:
· Scott Mason (CEO - Diamantina Shire Council)
· Alana Donovan (Project Officer - Diamantina Shire Council)
· Dominque Wells (Finance Officer - Diamantine Shire Council)
· Dr Karole Atkinson (Psychologist).
List of Stressors
[10]The list of stressors nominated by the Appellant are great in number.
[11]The Appellant has identified a number of Stressors which are considered major or more significant stressors and there are many that do not relate to management action. I will place an asterisk beside the primary stressors to be considered and highlight the stressor.
[12]Before considering the nominated stressors, it should be stated that in April 2010 PsyCare visited the Council to conduct some training for staff. All employees were required to attend.
Ms Hardy's commentary on her nominated stressors:
1.21/09/2009
"When Ms Hardy arrived at the workplace, the CEO, Mr Mason did not look at her but said "so you finally got here".
2.December 2009
"Ms Wells assigned to Ms Hardy the job of handling the dog registration tags."
3.Early 2010
"Ms Hardy attended a meeting with Mr Mason, Mr Wallace and Ms White to discuss Ms Hardy's handling of messages. Identified mistakes made by Ms Hardy included incorrectly spelling names of some callers and mispronunciation of some names."
4.Early 2010
"An issue arose when Ms Hardy had been asked to relocate stationery from one room to another. In the course of organising this, other employees undertook some of these duties. Ms Hardy says she was rebuked by Mr Wallace for the untidiness of the items."
5.*Early 2010
"Ms Hardy was asked to find the Real Property Descriptions for some properties. She was unable to get the required information after asking a number of other employees. Mr Mason had yelled at her from the doorway of the main office telling her that the task should have only taken five minutes."
Submissions and Evidence upon Stressor 5
· The evidence shows that Ms Hardy was unaware of how to do this retrieval, so she asked Mr Wallace who then referred her to Ms Wells. Ms Wells did not help and advised Ms Hardy to ask another employee named Lorelle. She was then given the information as to how to perform that work.
· Ms Hardy said that Mr Mason had yelled at her saying that the job should only have taken five minutes. Ms Hardy advised Mr Mason that she had received the information from Lorelle and that Ms Wells had not assisted her. Mr Mason asked Ms Hardy if Ms Wells had refused to assist her and she said 'yes'. No more conversation ensued and Ms Hardy gave Mr Mason the documents he required.
· The Regulator said that Ms Hardy acknowledged that Mr Mason spoke loudly; that he had not reprimanded her and he had not criticized her for asking other people for help [T2-40].
· Mr Mason did not recall the incident but was firm in that he would not have yelled at Ms Hardy. His evidence was that as part of the induction process at the Council, all employees were instructed as to how to use the basics of the accounting software. He believed that retrieving information from that system was a process which could have been performed by any employee.
· In my view, while Mr Mason may have been brusque in his approach to Ms Hardy, given that nothing further eventuated from what appears to have been a relatively normal workplace occurrence, I am unable to see how this interaction could have adversely affected Ms Hardy to the point where she has nominated this event as one of her major stressors. She may well have been frustrated by not being given assistance from others, but Mr Mason's interaction with her has the appearance of a comment from someone who thought the matter should have been finalized more quickly.
6.*9 February 2010
"Ms Hardy was enquiring about funding for a course she wished to undertake from another employee. She was told by Ms White that she would first require approval from her manager for such funding. Ms Hardy felt humiliated by this experience."
Submissions and Evidence upon Stressor 6
· The Regulator said that when this incident occurred, it was a particularly busy time of the day. Ms Hardy had not taken any steps to find out the proper process to obtain funding for a self-education course [T2-41].
· The Regulator says there was nothing inappropriate in another employee interrupting the conversation and providing appropriate information. That assertion is reasonable in the circumstances.
7.*9 February 2010
"Ms White corrected Ms Hardy in front of a customer on two occasions when she couldn't find a particular tool which the client requested."
Submissions and Evidence upon Stressor 7
· This related to Ms Hardy being unable to find a particular tool for a client.
· Ms White had advised Ms Hardy to contact the Workshop Manager to see if the tool was available. The Manager told her to phone another person in the stores and Ms Hardy did so.
· Ms Hardy's complaint was that Ms White corrected her for calling the wrong person in the stores workshop. This correction occurred in front of a customer. Ms Hardy's comment was that Ms White was quite ''curt" with her. This comment was made during cross-examination by the Regulator.
· The Regulator said that after a break in proceedings and upon re‑examination, Ms Hardy changed her description of Ms White's demeanor. The Regulator said the manner in which Ms White had spoken to her was "very aggressive".
· The Regulator said that "Ms Hardy created a problem and then complained about being spoken to about it" [Regulator's submissions - point 36].
· That this constituted a major stressor for Ms Hardy is problematic. The evidence from Ms Hardy was to the effect that Ms White had given Ms Hardy the name of the correct person to contact in the stores room, but Ms Hardy chose not to do this.
8.April 2010
"PsyCare visited the Council to conduct some training for staff. Mr Mason had complained that some staff behaved in a second rate manner and some were 'sitting there bludging' all day."
9.April 2010
"At the PsyCare session, the issue of sexual harassment arose. Mr Mason said there was usually a spike in sexual harassment complaints after functions where people had been drinking. He also said that people say and do things when influenced by alcohol which later they could not remember and that it was useless trying to follow up these matters."
10.*April 2010 (and ongoing)
"Ms Hardy said she was often required to perform work for Mr Mason outside of her duties at the workplace. This work related to his involvement in the local Parents and Citizens Committee. On one occasion she was required to return to work on a Saturday to complete some tasks for Mr Mason relating to this Committee."
Submissions and Evidence upon Stressor 10
· Mr Mason agreed that he had asked Ms Hardy to perform some of his P&C duties. Mr Mason said the P & C at Bedourie had more community members on its committee than parents.
· Mr Mason recalled when Ms Hardy was required to perform some work for the P&C on a Saturday afternoon. He stated that he did not condone asking an employee to perform work outside of work hours but it related to some work Ms White had given to Ms Hardy and it was not completed. He suggested that Ms White was the person to ask about this incident. Ms White was not called to give evidence.
11.Early 2010 (and ongoing)
"Ms Hardy said she was required to perform a stocktake of the P&C cupboard and was away from her work station for some time.
When she returned Ms Wells and Ms Akeroyd approached her and asked where she had been. They told her that when she was away from her desk a client had come in to pay his rent and they had to send him away because they didn't know how to issue him with a receipt."
12.April 2010
"When an employee resigned her position, Ms Hardy was required to perform her work."
13.This stressor No. 13 is linked to Stressor 24.
14.Mid to late 2010
"Ms Hardy had returned to her the Daily Reconciliation Sheets with "big red rings around errors made by Birdsville staff".
15.*Mid 2010
"Ms Hardy had advised her workplace that she was home sick, but Mr Mason had called her around midday asking her to come back to work."
Submissions and Evidence upon Stressor 15
· Ms Hardy had advised Mr Mason that she had been sick in the morning but that she felt better around midday. His comment to her was that she could come in if that was the case. He said there was no obligation on her part to do so and he advised her accordingly.
· Ms Hardy had initially said "that's great" and that she would be in after lunch. However, she didn't have a clean uniform. He told her that she only needed to wear some casual clothes and return to work if she wanted to. She had accepted that offer and came back to work. There was no coercion on his part. I have accepted that account of events.
16. *Mid 2010
"Ms Hardy was asked by Ms Donovan to process a receipt while she was performing another task. Ms Donovan asked to use Ms Hardy's computer, however, the computer was locked. This required Ms Hardy to leave what she had been doing to unlock her computer and in doing so she "became frustrated, overwhelmed and angry" and slammed the papers in her hand onto the desk. Ms Donovan took it personally and yelled at her telling her that she did not like her 'attitude'."
Submissions and Evidence upon Stressor 16
· It is not surprising that Ms Donovan took Ms Hardy's actions personally. Ms Hardy's own description of the event shows that she lost control of herself and slammed papers onto her desk when asked to assist Ms Donovan. She was only asked to perform a relatively easy function and took offence at being asked to do this. I am unsure as to why this is nominated as a major stressor by Ms Hardy.
17.15 June 2010
"Ms Hardy says she was wrongly blamed by Ms Girdler for leaving boxes lying around in front of the stores. Ms Hardy said it was not her fault."
18.June 2012
"Ms Hardy had collected parcels from outside the hotel and asked Ms Girdler for help. Ms Girdler said she was not ready to take the parcels and as this had been said in a 'hostile voice'. Ms Hardy felt offended and humiliated."
19.15 June 2010
"Ms Girdler supplied contradictory advice to Ms Hardy concerning the delivery of reams of paper."
20.17 June 2010
"Ms Girdler asked Ms Hardy to supply information regarding orders which had to be raised, when Ms Girdler could have easily found that information."
21.24 June 2010
"Ms Hardy had placed an internet order for chairs, but some had not arrived. She asked Ms Girdler whether she could follow up on the chairs, but was sent a 'terse' email from Ms Girdler advising her that it was Ms Girdler's responsibility to follow up on those matters."
22.* Early July 2010
"This stressor related to Mr Mason asking Ms Hardy to find some documents. When he found them, he said aggressively to Ms Hardy "Look at this - this is the date they came in and what is the date now"? Ms Hardy said she felt humiliated and intimidated by his comments. She requested overtime to deal with the workload but this was refused by Mr Mason."
Submissions and Evidence upon Stressor 22
· Mr Mason did not recall an incident referred to by Ms Hardy as looking for documents. He did recall being at the front desk, on one occasion, with Ms Hardy when he noticed a pile of inwards correspondence that had not been processed and he did express a concern to her that it had been sitting there for a long time. He later discovered that the documents had been there for about one month.
· Mr Mason held the responsibility of asking/permitting employees to work overtime. That he refused Ms Hardy's request was his prerogative.
· The reality was that some documents had not been processed as they should have been. Ms Hardy has not considered her own lack of action in this regard and should not have been surprised at Mr Mason's reaction.
23.*9 July 2010
"Ms Hardy had become unwell on this day. Mr Mason telephoned her around 9.00am and advised her that she should have rung in earlier. Ms Mason advised that he would issue a warning letter to Ms Hardy. At a subsequent staff meeting the first agenda item related to sick leave. If a supervisor could not be reached when an employee was calling in sick, then that person could proceed through the chain of command. Ms Hardy says this was different to earlier advice given by Mr Mason that the employee should call the workplace between 6.00am and 7.00am. As it transpired, no warning letter ever issued to Ms Hardy."
Submissions and Evidence upon Stressor 23
· The Regulator said that a 'welfare check' call was made to employees by the Council who had not attended work. Mr Mason's evidence was that the same system worked in the Central Highlands Council.
· In my view, it was not unreasonable for the employer to request that employees who were going to stay home because of illness notify the employer as soon as possible.
· Mr Mason's evidence was that it was standard practice to prepare a warning letter in circumstances such as this. He finally determined not to send the letter to Ms Hardy because at that time there were other issues concerning her.
· That matter can be taken no further.
24.*16 July 2010 [Linked to Stressor 13]
"Ms Hardy was asked by Ms Donovan to assist her do the banking. Ms Donovan was stressed and this caused Ms Hardy stress. Ms Donovan started making personal attacks towards Ms Hardy. Amongst other things, Ms Donovan accused Ms Hardy of lying about the non-receipt of an email. Ms Donovan told Ms Hardy that she was going to "prove you to be the liar that you are".
Submissions and Evidence upon Stressor 24
· Ms Donovan's evidence was that she had been checking the banking documents and had found errors. She had asked Ms Hardy for an explanation so that the banking documents could be fixed.
· Ms Hardy's evidence was that she could not recall how the argument with Ms Donovan commenced. Ms Donovan had become frustrated with Ms Hardy because Ms Hardy said she was not going to assist Ms Donovan as it was not part of her job description.
· The Regulator stated that "… whenever she (Ms Hardy) was having a bad day, she would put phone calls through without announcing who was on the phone, and had six times told her father who was in hospital that she (Ms Donovan) was not available and did not put the call through [T5-22].
· Ms Donovan's evidence was that she had been training Ms Hardy in receipting. This was despite Ms Hardy stating that she had not been shown the job. Ms Donovan said that Ms Hardy on prior occasions made the same false accusations.
· Ms Donovan said she became frustrated because Ms Hardy knew what she had been taught and she knew about the e-mail system. Ms Donovan stated "But - so I was just - I was just saying to her you have been shown, I'll find the e-mail because you have been shown".
· The Regulator said that Ms Donovan was exasperated in dealing with Ms Hardy. When one considered the training which had been given to Ms Hardy and that Ms Hardy failed to put through calls from Ms Donovan's sick father that exasperation is understandable.
· The Regulator believes that this is another example of Ms Hardy creating an unpleasant situation and then complaining about the consequences or perceived consequences of her creation.
· That is a reasonable assessment in my view.
25.*20 September 2010
"A dispute occurred on the occasion Ms Hardy had set out the crockery to be used for a Councilors' function. Ms Hardy found other employees using the crockery before the Councilors had and they had eaten some of the morning tea. When Ms Hardy discussed her concern with another employee, Ms Donovan berated her and told her she was going to make a complaint against her and left the building yelling that she didn't even want to work here until "they've done something about her" (pointing directly at Ms Hardy).
Submissions and Evidence upon Stressor 25
· This matter related to the morning tea which was prepared by Ms Hardy for Councilors.
· The actions of other employees (those taking fruit and using Councilor's cups etc.) had caused Ms Hardy distress. She felt that the employees were disrespecting the Councilors and believed that Mr Mason might not be pleased with the way things had worked out.
· Ms Hardy said that Ms Donovan's reaction to her comments about employees was extreme. She said Ms Donovan yelled at her. She stated that Ms Donovan said she did not want to work for the Council any more until something was done about Ms Hardy [T1-58].
· Ms Donovan's evidence was that the kitchen was used by both employees and Councilors.
· When Ms Donovan came into the kitchen and took a cup (the cups had been arranged in a triangle fashion by Ms Hardy), Ms Hardy "started freaking out" alleging that the employees were trying to get her the sack. This allegation was made of Ms Donovan.
· Ms Donovan's evidence is that she made some intense comments towards Ms Hardy and then left work for some time.
· The Regulator says that while Ms Hardy blamed Ms Donovan for her behavior, two other employees had also gone into the room to make their cups of tea.
· In my view, this whole event was unfortunate. Ms Hardy's over-reaction to a fairly simple situation was extreme and could do nothing more than create disharmony in the workplace.
· It is unusual that this matter should constitute a major stressor for Ms Hardy. There is no credible evidence to show that Ms Donovan had tried to cause Ms Hardy trouble.
26.*21 September 2010
"A meeting was arranged between Ms Hardy and Mr Ball from the Australian Services Union for the purpose of Mr Mason discussing Ms Hardy's "inappropriate behaviour". Ms Hardy had called Mr Ball after Ms Donovan's comments and Mr Mason accused her of making personal calls during working time."
Submissions and Evidence upon Stressor 26
· Mr Mason had arranged for Mr Ball to attend a meeting involving Ms Hardy. The matter to be discussed was Ms Hardy's unprofessional conduct whilst at the front desk. The allegation Mr Mason had received was that Ms Hardy had been making derogatory comments about staff in a very loud manner and deliberately so that others in the office would hear her. Mr Mason said Ms Hardy agreed that she had done that. Her conversation on the telephone had lasted some 8 to 10 minutes.
· As Ms Hardy agreed there is nothing further to be said about this.
27.1 November 2010
"Ms Girdler had been belligerent towards Ms Hardy concerning a stationery issue where Ms Hardy says she was following instructions from Mr Mason and Ms Girdler thought differently."
28.1 November 2010
"A further issue arose with Ms Girdler concerning the storage of A4 paper. Ms Hardy was not permitted into the storage area because she was not wearing the correct safety wear."
29.1 November 2010
"Other employees expected Ms Hardy to do their personal postage. This issue was taken up with Mr Wallace who told her that as she always had a car, he couldn't understand the problem."
30.*1 November 2010
"An issue arose when Ms Hardy took a resident into the office area for the purpose of purchasing chocolate relating to a P&C fundraiser. Ms Hardy was reprimanded by other employees for doing this. Ms Hardy discussed the issue with Mr Wallace and he said if she couldn't deal with the public then "she should get right out of the public service altogether".
Submissions and Evidence upon Stressor 30
· This stressor related to Ms Hardy permitting a member of the public to come into the office area for the purpose of purchasing some P&C Fundraiser chocolate.
· Ms Hardy had permitted this person to walk into the kitchen area.
· Ms Hardy says that she was reprimanded by Ms Williams and Ms Laverty for permitting this person to come into the office area. Ms Hardy said she had remained by the side of the person during this event.
· She spoke to Mr Wallace about this and she says that he told her that if I couldn't deal with the public I should get right out of the public service altogether. His advice was that Ms Hardy should have left the person at the counter and she should then have walked to and from the kitchen to respond to the person's requests.
· Ms Hardy had previously been advised that tradespersons and contractors were not permitted to go into the office area, but she had not been told that members of the public couldn't.
· The stress felt by Ms Hardy came from being "told off" by the other employees, one of whom said she had a bad relationship with the person who had been let into the office area. She said one of the employees was a temporary employee.
· Mr Wallace's evidence was that Ms Hardy had put the question to him to the effect that what would have happened to her in terms of her protection if she had permitted someone she had problems with and they had wanted to come into the office area. That was the background and context to the response made by Mr Wallace, the Regulator submitted.
· The Regulator submitted that "Once again, Ms Hardy created a situation by doing something she should not have done, and then complained about the consequence".
[Regulator's submissions - point 150]
· I have agreed with the Regulator's assessment of the situation.
31. *17 December 2010
"An issue arose concerning the banking which was a duty performed by Ms Hardy. Ms Hardy needed a second employee to countersign her work and she approached Mrs Laverty who was happy to assist. However, when Ms Donovan heard this she yelled at her (at the front counter) telling her she should have come to her first. Mrs Laverty then refused to have anything to do with Ms Hardy and Ms Donovan refused to sign off on her work as it was not done as she expected it to be done."
Submissions and Evidence upon Stressor 31
· The Regulator said Mr Wallace had advised that any other employee could check and counter-sign the document.
· Ms Donovan had been away from work and in her absence Ms Laverty signed the documents. On the particular day, Ms Donovan was situated some seven metres away from Ms Hardy. Ms Laverty had approached Ms Donovan and told her that she had not checked or countersigned the banking because Ms Donovan was back at work. Ms Donovan was not angry about being asked to do this and she did not yell at Ms Hardy. Ms Hardy had said that when Ms Donovan told her she would counter-sign the documents, Ms Hardy did not respond and went on with some other work. Nothing further happened with the documents until the New Year.
· The evidence more than suggests to me that Ms Hardy did not want to deal with Ms Donovan and the issue. It appeared it was all forgotten until sometime later. But this was Ms Hardy's doing.
32.Early 2011
"Ms Girdler had asked Ms Hardy if she could assist her with some of her work. Ms Hardy gave her one of Mr Mason's voice recordings to be transcribed. When Mr Mason found this out he told her she did not have the authority to delegate that work. Mr Mason did not accept Ms Hardy's reason for doing this."
33.*Early 2011
"Ms Girdler had refused to give Ms Hardy information so that she could complete a specific task. Ms Girdler complained to other employees about this, blaming Ms Hardy and Ms Wells came to the front counter where Ms Hardy was working to berate her for non-cooperation."
Submissions and Evidence upon Stressor 33
· Ms Hardy said she receipted the cheques that came into the office, under instruction from Ms Neal, and all other receipting was to be done by Ms Girdler.
· A misunderstanding arose between Ms Hardy and Ms Girdler as to how the process outlined by Ms Neal should work.
· Ms Wells had no recollection of berating Ms Hardy at the front desk. She recalled that the only area of banking where she had queried Ms Hardy's practices was when on occasions the banking was not done and when that occurred Ms Wells would ask Ms Hardy what had happened.
· Ms Wells had more experience with the system and her description of it was more logical than Ms Hardy's.
· In any event, it is no more or less than a situation which arises around work processes. Eventually this one worked out. That is all that can be said.
· I have not accepted that Ms Wells berated Ms Hardy. I am more inclined to think that Ms Hardy was out of her depth with the system and could not tolerate any questioning of her about how she was conducting her part of the duties.
34.4 February 2011
"This was an issue between Ms Hardy and Ms Girdler where Ms Hardy had to re-start her computer as a consequence of information given to her by Ms Girdler."
35.Early to late 2011
"Ms Girdler refused to speak to me or acknowledge my presence, or that I had spoken to her at all."
36.Early 2011
"At a staff meeting Ms Hardy wished to make a comment concerning stationery. When it was her turn to speak, Mr Mason "jumped in" and started talking about an issue concerning stationery, but not the one she had wished to raise. She was left feeling "unimportant and insignificant"."
37.Early 2011
"When the Records Officer left the employ of the Council, Ms Hardy continued to scan and distribute correspondence. A small scanner was placed on Ms Girdler's PC while she was away. Ms Girdler complained that this duty was not in her Job Description."
38.*May 2011
"Ms Donovan made allegations that Ms Hardy had delayed the receipting of the proceeds of the Birdsville Races the previous year."
Submissions and Evidence upon Stressor 38
· These stressors relate to Daily Reconciliation Sheets and banking generally.
· Ms Hardy's evidence was that monies received from the Birdsville Information Centre could not be reconciled by her or by Ms Donovan.
· Ms Hardy said Ms Donovan had berated her over this [T1-42]. Ms Donovan accused Ms Hardy of lying.
· Ms Hardy accepted that if the Birdsville money and receipts did not reconcile, then it had to be a mistake from the Birdsville centre [T2-51].
· When questioned further by the Regulator, Ms Hardy could not recall much of the comments made at this time by herself and others.
· When asked whether she thought that Ms Donovan said the mistake was Ms Hardy's, she replied that she could not recall whether or not that was the case [T-2].
· Ms Donovan's evidence was that she had found errors in the banking and had asked Ms Hardy what had happened, but Ms Hardy replied that it was not part of her job description. An email which had been sent to Ms Hardy with a power point presentation showing how to correctly do receipting. Ms Hardy agreed that she had previously stated that she had not seen the email, but later said "I think I did, yes" [T2-53].
· Ms Donovan said she had been training Ms Hardy in receipting, and as Ms Hardy insisted that was not part of her job description, Ms Donovan determined to put the training in e-mails, and it was the receipting training e-mail to which she was referring during this incident [T5-23].
· Ms Donovan denies calling Ms Hardy a liar and was trying to press the point with Ms Hardy that she had been shown how to perform this duty.
· Ms Hardy's evidence was that Dr Atkinson had told her that Ms Donovan said Ms Hardy had difficulties with the receipting of monies received during the Birdsville Races period in September 2010.
· Ms Hardy had claimed that there was only one occasion when she had not performed the receipting of those monies.
· Money had been received from those Races over a period of two to three weeks. Ms Hardy could not recall whether Ms Donovan had asked her for the cheques and receipts nor could she recall whether she had determined not to give those cheques or receipts to Ms Donovan.
· Ms Donovan's evidence was that large amounts of money could be received by the Birdsville Information Centre including cheques and often a large cash component. Ms Donovan said she kept asking Ms Hardy for the Birdsville money but Ms Hardy would snap at her telling her she was busy [T5-14].
· After unsuccessfully asking Ms Hardy for the money on four occasions, Ms Donovan wrote to her supervisor, Mr Wallace although he was away from work at that time.
· Ms Donovan was not comfortable with the thought of having a confrontation with Ms Hardy. The email was written two to three weeks after the money should have been receipted.
· The Regulator asks why, if Ms Donovan was the bully she had been made out to be, she didn't confront Ms Hardy. There was no disciplinary action taken against Ms Hardy.
· It is noted that the first Ms Hardy knew of this matter was when it was raised by Dr Atkinson.
· In all, it showed a set of circumstances where there were difficulties with the money (and Ms Hardy admitted there was at least on one occasion) and no detriment was faced by Ms Hardy, when arguably a situation such as this could have warranted a discussion with one's supervisor.
39.*May 2011
"Ms Donovan stated that Ms Hardy had been hiding cheques in her drawer. Ms Hardy said she was placing cheques under her till so that they would be out of sight of people coming into the office, but that she placed those cheques in the strong room at the end of each working day. The allegations were humiliating and offensive towards Ms Hardy."
Submissions and Evidence upon Stressor 39
· Ms Donovan was aware that a debtor had phoned about a cheque sent to the Council that had not been banked. Ms Hardy was absent from work and Ms Donovan and Ms Wells looked for the cheque. Ms Donovan located two cheques over two months old together with other cheques which had not been processed [T5-16]. Ms Neale's evidence also supported Ms Donovan's evidence on this issue [T2-5]. Ms Neale spoke to Ms Hardy regarding this. Ms Donovan was not at fault in this matter. The mistake was one made by Ms Hardy.
40.*17 May 2011
"Ms Hardy was relocated to the Works Office. This room was located downstairs from the main office of the Council. This office was located outside of the main office. Ms Hardy felt "isolated, excluded and segregated from the rest of Council". Ms Hardy believed that Mr Mason had asked that she stay away from the main office and only perform her work in the Works Office."
Submissions and Evidence upon Stressor 40
· Ms Hardy's relocation to the works office had been made upon the recommendation of PsyCare.
· The initiative was to give Ms Hardy some base level meaning and purpose as part of her suitable duties and rehabilitation plan.
· There had never been an instruction from Mr Mason that employees should not speak to Ms Hardy. PsyCare suggested, in response to concerns being raised by employees to them, that staff behave professionally towards Ms Hardy and keep minimal communication flowing with her.
· Mr MacDonald's evidence was that while it appeared that the move for Ms Hardy was difficult, that situation changed and she appeared to be happy in that position.
41.*June, 2011 (Queen's Birthday weekend - Monday
"Ms Hardy says that she was required to prepare the Works Office Report for a Council meeting. Mr Mason had rejected her work stating that it was two minutes late. On the public holiday, Mr McDonald, the Works Manager, came to her home and asked her if she could come to work as the Council had determined to see the report and Ms Hardy was the only person who knew where it was saved on the network. Ms Hardy did this but said it was outside of the scope of her Suitable Duties Plan which was in place at the time."
Submissions and Evidence upon Stressor 41
· Ms Hardy had prepared the Works Office Report for the Council meeting which was to be held on Monday, which was a public holiday. Ms Hardy says that Mr Mason refused to accept her report as it was two minutes past the 9.00am deadline on Friday.
· On Monday morning Mr McDonald came to her home and asked if she could come back to work as the Council decided that they wanted to see the report. Ms Hardy went to work and provided the Report even though the work was outside of the scope of her Suitable Duties Plan which was in place at the time.
· Mr MacDonald recalled the occasion when Ms Hardy could not complete the Reports for the Council meeting to be held on the Queen's Birthday weekend (on the Monday). He said she had encountered problems with her computer. Ms White and Ms Hardy tried to fix the problem, but not in time to comply with the 9.00am deadline.
· Mr Mason's evidence was that there had been a history of difficulties encountered by people not getting their reports in on time so that an agenda could be produced and circulated. This was required because the business papers were provided to Councilors not less than forty-eight hours prior to a meeting.
· Consequently, Mr Mason had issued a requirement that reports be received one week prior to the Council meetings; they would be reviewed; changes were noted and the draft was returned to the author. The second draft was required by a particular deadline.
· Ms Hardy's evidence was that she had phoned Mr Mason shortly before the deadline of 9.00am on Friday and advised that she had not completed the job and had sought an extension of time. Mr Mason refused that request.
· Mr Mason said the issue related not only to the deadline of Friday not being reached, but that the deadlines for the first and second drafts had not been met. The lateness of completing this task was up to one week. That allowed no time to review the initial reports; return them for changes, collate them and then send them to Councilors.
· Mr Mason refuted Ms Hardy's claim that the reports were late by two minutes.
· Ms Hardy had blamed the authors of the various reports for being late. Mr McDonald said that the reports were completed in a reasonable time and Ms Hardy had typed them up. However, he says that she had a problem with her computer. The problem related to Ms Hardy's email system. Mr McDonald was unaware whether steps had been taken to print the reports then scan them from any other computer at the Council's offices.
· Council had decided at its meeting on the Monday Queen's birthday holiday, that they wanted to see the missing reports. Mr McDonald was asked to see Ms Hardy and for the job she performed on the public holiday (which took between 1 and 1 ½ hours) she was paid overtime.
· The Regulator says that there was nothing unreasonable concerning Mr Mason's management action in seeking to provide the reports to Councilors at this meeting.
· The reality was that the deadline had been missed all the way through this process.
42.Ongoing and Early July 2010 [Linked to Stressor No. 22]
"Mr Mason said, in staff meetings, that if employees had too much work to perform, then they should speak to their supervisor asking for assistance. However, Ms Hardy says that on one occasion when she asked for overtime, Mr Wallace did not speak to her about her work and the request was refused. Ms Hardy says that when she was behind in her work, Mr Mason "loudly berated me at the front desk in front of other staff members")."
[This is linked to Stressor 22].
Submissions and Evidence upon Stressor 42
· Mr Mason denied yelling at Ms Hardy. There is no automatic right to overtime and it was the prerogative of Mr Mason to refuse Ms Hardy's request to work overtime.
43.Ongoing
"Mr Mason had several voice recorders and on some occasions there could be 30 or more voice mails for distribution. On one occasion there were around 16 voice messages sent to the then Workshop Manager, Mr Graeme Clement."
44.Ongoing
"Sometimes Mr Mason would leave a note for Ms Hardy for supplies such as toilet paper and light bulbs to be provided to the men's toilet. Ms Hardy had been told by Ms White that if Mr Mason had left something on her desk, then she would be expected to do this."
45.*Ongoing
"There was an issue with the animal register at the workplace. When Ms Wells was on maternity leave, this job was left for Ms Hardy to complete. This was an extra duty for Ms Hardy and Ms Girdler emailed other staff complaining that the register was not up to date and that she felt like a "pick up man" because whenever she looked at the register it was out of date."
· This matter related to the animal register kept by the Council. Ms Hardy was asked to take on this job when Ms Wells was on maternity leave. Performing this duty took her away from her core duties.
· Ms Hardy stated that Ms Girdler had sent an email to other staff, including herself, complaining that the register was not up to date and that she felt like a "pick up man" every time she went to the folder.
· Ms Hardy felt humiliated that Ms Girdler had made those comments in a public place [T1-84].
· Ms Hardy said she was unaware of all the duties required of her with regard to this register, but that she hadn't asked anyone what she had to do and she couldn't recall whether she did anything concerning, in this instance, the horses.
· The Regulator states that the embarrassment felt by Ms Hardy at the hand of Ms Girdler was ill-founded.
· An email had been sent as a copy to Ms Hardy detailing that a person's Cancellation of Horse Agistment had not been activated as the horses were still on the common.
· Later that day Ms Donovan emailed Ms Hardy stating that those changes relating to that person had not been sent to Ms Laverty and that Ms Donovan said she had advised Ms Hardy accordingly. Shortly thereafter, Ms Girdler had written that she would like to know about changes to procedures.
· The Regulator says that the deficiency which the exchange was about was the non-forwarding of documents to Ms Laverty. It was not about the keeping of the animal register as receipting and processing of documents had been Ms Hardy's job for some time.
· There was considerable confusion from both sides in regard to this matter.
· In all, there was no reprimand issued to Ms Hardy about the matter.
· The Council required a spread sheet kept of the animals in Bedourie and Birdsville and pet owners had provided photos of their animals. The details needed to be scanned and saved.
· Ms Hardy was unaware as to how Ms Girdler was involved in the registration matter but she was constantly complaining that she had to update the register and felt like she was the "pick up man".
· Ms Hardy said that Ms Girdler criticized her publically and she felt very embarrassed.
· Ms Hardy did not ask anyone to help her with how to register horses on the town common.
· Ms Donovan said she had previously advised Mr Hardy that she had to keep up to date with information on the Register.
· There is no context in which the complaint made by Ms Girdler was made. The Regulator says that Ms Hardy may not have known what to do but she also failed ask anyone else for help.
· Ms Hardy was not reprimanded for any actions taken or not taken by her.
· The Regulator submits that there is no substance to this stressor. The information provided is so vague, and therefore capable of many interpretations that I am unable to take the matter any further.
46.Ongoing
"Ms Hardy's workload increased when Ms White relocated to Sydney. Ms Hardy took on many extra duties and it was her responsibility to organize birthday cakes for functions. These extra duties were not contained within her job description."
47.Ongoing
"Ms Hardy was often left out of pocket for buying cakes. She discussed this with Mr Wallace who did nothing about it."
48.Ongoing
"Ms Hardy complained of the bad language used at the workplace. The language was inappropriate, unnecessary and offensive. It continued unabated and was worse when Mr Mason attended the Works Office while attending meetings."
Ongoing
"Ms Hardy complained that staff indulged in language which was not acceptable. The language was worse in the works office, particularly when Mr
Mason attended meetings."[Statement of Stressors - Exhibit 6]
The Appellant's submissions
[13]It is submitted that the majority of the stressors nominated by Ms Hardy were not associated with actions taken by management. They constituted actions taken by those who were contractors or employees who were not her managers. Those matters do not relate to management action.
[14]However, it is submitted Ms Hardy that the evidence will show that some of the stressors which related to management action were not considered to be reasonable by Mr Mason. It is then submitted that "The appellant's case is that if the responsible manager did not consider an action to be reasonable in the organization he managed, it ought not be considered reasonable by this tribunal" [Appellant's submissions ‑point 8].
[15]Witnesses Griggs, Macdonald, Akeroyd and Neale supported some of the assertions made by the Appellant. No details of that specific evidence was given to the Commission in the Appellant's submissions.
[16]Ms Wells' evidence was that she raised her voice, berated Ms Hardy and saw others doing the same. However, she did not view these actions as being in any way inappropriate.
[17]What is submitted by Ms Hardy is that the picture drawn by these witnesses was one of a toxic work environment where people were forced into isolation. Specifically, Ms Hardy was excluded by Ms Girdler, Ms Donovan and Ms Wells.
[18]Ms Griggs became Ms Hardy's Manager in June 2011 and the Appellant says that she faced resistance from Ms Donovan and Mr Mason when she decided Ms Hardy should be moved back to the main office.
[19]Ms Hardy has identified the stressors which she says are more significant. It is those stressors primarily which will be considered in this decision.
[20]Mr Wallace, Ms Girdler and Ms White did not give evidence.
Evidence of Dr Atkinson - Organisational Psychologist
[21]Dr Atkinson is an Organisational Psychologist who was working with PsyCare during 2011. Her training and expertise was in organisational psychology including performance of clinical psychological assessments, workplace reviews of people's psychological functioning and assessing people's occupational functioning [T7-27].
[22]In the course of assessing matters concerning Ms Hardy, Dr Atkinson also looked at how Ms Hardy's behaviour was affecting other employees [7-34].
[23]A meeting was called of Council staff where Ms Hardy had requested Dr Atkinson to explain the types of things she was going through and suicide ideation was one of those things and thoughts of self-harm generally [7-36].
[24]Dr Atkinson said that Ms Hardy acknowledged that she had been behaving in a certain way and she and Dr Atkinson agreed that they would put those issues to staff within the context of her illness and depression. Dr Atkinson said that she and Ms Hardy agreed to tell the staff about what her symptoms were and she was very open to that and she attended that meeting [T7-37].
[25]Dr Atkinson said Ms Hardy had been keeping records of any incident with any other staff members in terms of how people interacted with her. Ms Atkinson said that because of this, staff had told her they were afraid that they had the potential to be in trouble [T7-46].
[26]Counsel for Ms Hardy asked Dr Atkinson if Mr Mason had determined that Ms Hardy should be shifted out of the office into the Works Office. Dr Atkinson said he didn't express that view to her [T7-48].
[27]It was Dr Atkinson's report which stated that Ms Hardy should be moved out of the current work environment to the Works Office. The reason for this was described by Dr Atkinson as follows: "The reason was that she was finding a number of tasks very difficult because of her side effects from the medication. She was struggling and there was a position vacant in the Works Department". Dr Atkinson believed that Ms Hardy knew the person in charge of the Works Department and she had got along with him very well [T7-50].
[28]Dr Atkinson's evidence of when staff were advised that Ms Hardy was going to work in the Works Office was as follows:
"It was a staff meeting that happened for the first 30 to 45 minutes of the morning, and I suggest to you that Barbara was present, and that during the course of that meeting Scott Mason announced that Barbara would be moving to the works office, that she was not well - that's it; just that she was not well, and in response to her not being well, as a responsible organisation she was going to be moved to the works office so that she would be in a new environment." [T7-51].
[29]Dr Atkinson understood, after being questions by Counsel for Ms Hardy, that Ms Donovan was not Ms Hardy's supervisor. But Dr Atkinson said it was Ms Hardy's perception that Ms Donovan was performance managing her. [T7-57]
[30]Management of the Council did not instigate the move of Ms Hardy to the Works Office, that move came as a result of a recommendation by the PsyCare team and Dr Atkinson.
[31]I have accepted that it was Dr Atkinson, with the approval, and at the instigation of Ms Hardy, who raised her mental health issues at a staff meeting.
[32]A perspective of what occurred and why this information was imparted was given by Ms Neale where she stated "It was general knowledge, so it was explaining what they were doing and it was more educational to the staff and managers." [T4-48]
[33]I have accepted Dr Atkinson's evidence as accurately recording these events as well as accepting Ms Neale's perspective.
Evidence from co-workers supportive of the Appellant's claim
[34]Generally, the Appellant says that the evidence given by co-workers Ms Griggs, Mr Macdonald, Ms Akeroyd, Ms Jennifer Neale and Ms Wells identified a toxic workplace where people were forced into isolation. In saying that, I was not drawn to particular parts of evidence relied upon by these witnesses.
Ms Griggs evidence
[35]Ms Griggs was engaged by the Council as a Deputy CEO and also Ms Hardy's supervisor/manager.
[36]Ms Griggs wrote Ms Hardy's return to work program after she had been off work.
[37]Ms Griggs had been advised that a recommendation had been made by persons treating Ms Hardy that she work somewhere away from the main building due to the stresses created by a close proximity to people with whom she had a bullying issue [T3-27].
[38]Ms Griggs said that the persons with whom Ms Hardy was having difficulties included Mr Mason, Ms Donovan and Ms Girdler.
[39]Ms Griggs believed that when Ms Hardy's return to work program had finalized, she would return to her normal duties. However, she stated that was not the view of Mr Mason. Ms Griggs said that Mr Mason raised his voice at her when she advised that Ms Hardy was to return to her normal duties [T3-30].
[40]Ms Griggs said that Mr Mason had told her that "You're supposed to get rid of her" [T3-30]
[41]Ms Griggs said that Mr Mason did not want her back in the usual workplace and asked Ms Griggs to find her something to do [T3-30].
[42]Ms Griggs believed that the workplace had an unhealthy culture. She said there was "Cliquiness, forcing people into isolation, treating people differently because someone makes a judgment based on how they look or what they think or that sort of thing" [T3-30].
[43]The type of 'cliquiness' evident to Ms Griggs included "groups of people who were quite close, but close to the exclusion of others. A lot of it was around those that were seen as long-term residents of the town and those who came into the town, you know, as contractors or to a new job and had been there for a shorter period of time" [T3‑33].
[44]Those who had excluded Ms Hardy included Ms Girdler, Alana Donovan and Ms Wells.
[45]These people would not include her in anything; they didn't speak to her and Alana Donovan had said to her that Ms Hardy had to be out the back all the time and should not be coming into the main office. Ms Donovan was the partner of Mr Mason and Ms Griggs said that when they discussed Ms Hardy, Ms Donovan got 'very very angry with me to the point where I had to ask her to leave my office, that I wasn't going to tolerate that kind of behavior" [T3-33].
[46]Ms Griggs explained that Ms Hardy was required to return to the main office because the toilets were there, the primary office equipment was there as well as the lunch room. She would also be required to attend the main office where staff meetings were held.
[47]Ms Griggs noticed resistance from some employees regarding Ms Hardy's return to work in the main office area [T3-54]. Ms Griggs ultimately thought it would be unhelpful to put Ms Hardy back into the main office area [T3-58]. She did not wish to put Ms Hardy's health in jeopardy and she stated that "I felt quite fearful for her" [T3-58].
[48]Ms Griggs had suggested to Mr Mason and Ms Donovan that they could consider making a redundancy payment to Ms Hardy that was sufficient to cover all expenses involved in moving from the remote township of Bedourie. However, that suggestion was not considered.
[49]Under cross-examination, Ms Griggs agreed that it would not be a good result to have Ms Hardy return to the main office. Within that context, because there was some degree of resistance to her return, she stated that she had understood Ms Mason's reluctance to have her return.
[50]Ms Griggs believed that Ms Hardy was comfortable with returning to the main office area. She understood that there was a time period for the return to work program to finalise before she could return [T3-76].
[51]Overall, Ms Griggs said she had never seen Ms Hardy behave in an unprofessional or unpleasant manner [T3-95].
Mr MacDonald's evidence
[52]Mr MacDonald had worked at the Council as Works Manager during some of the period of Ms Hardy's employment. He said his employment was from 22/23 March 2011 to 1 July 2011.
[53]The works office was a separate office at the rear of the main Council chambers. There were usually three employees engaged in that office.
[54]He believed Ms Hardy was working in that area because of health problems, but he did not think that there was a plan for her in terms of her work. Mr MacDonald said he had tried to find work for her [T3-107].
[55]Mr MacDonald recalled an occasion during a general staff meeting when Mr Mason told those present that Ms Hardy was suicidal. Mr MacDonald did not recall the context in which this had been said.
[56]Mr MacDonald stated that when Ms Hardy first commenced work in the works office, she was not happy but she improved over time.
Ms Akeroyd's evidence
[57]Ms Akeroyd worked for the Council as a Creditor's officer. She commenced employment in 2009.
[58]Ms Akeroyd was a friend of Ms Hardy's. She believed that Ms Donovan was always rude to Ms Hardy [T3-124]. She also believed that Ms Girdler tried to avoid Ms Hardy when she could [T3-125].
[59]Ms Akeroyd's evidence was that "if he (Mason) wanted work done, it had to be done straight away. It didn't matter if he'd already given you another task to do. This then became more important over that, even though he'd given you a deadline on something else first" [T3-128].
[60]Ms Akeroyd resigned from the Council. She had been accused of breaching confidentiality at work; she was subsequently offered her job back but she determined to leave.
Ms Neale's evidence
[61]Ms Neale had worked at the Council as the Finance Manager.
[62]Ms Neale's evidence generally was that she had put a considerable amount of work into redesigning some of the accounting practices at the Council.
[63]There was noted tension between Ms Hardy and Ms Wells and Ms Girdler. Ms Neale stated "They wouldn't work with her well. They didn’t like her; they made that clear" [T4-9].
[64]Ms Neale said that Ms Hardy was always working hard, but Ms Neale did have occasion to address her on work related matters where she felt there had been a deficiency in her work [T4-15].
[65]Ms Neale reiterated Ms MacDonald's evidence about the meeting where Ms Hardy's state of health was discussed, believing that as it was such a private matter for Ms Hardy, and it should not have been raised.
[66]Under cross-examination, Ms Neale said that the comments which had been made about Ms Hardy medical condition at the staff meeting were, in her view, to explain to managers and staff why Ms Hardy was being transferred to the works office. She stated "It was general knowledge so it was explaining what they were doing about it and it was more educational to the staff and managers [T4-48].
Ms Well's evidence
[67]Ms Wells worked for the Council as a Finance Officer.
[68]Ms Wells denied ever being rude to Ms Hardy. She said, however, that she had been advised by Dr Atkinson to say hello and goodbye to Ms Hardy and leave it at that [T4‑70].
[69]Ms Wells' had little to no recollection of much of the events cited by Ms Hardy.
[70]Ms Wells said that Ms Donovan yelled at people [T4-73]. Ms Wells did not believe that Ms Hardy should have been yelled at because she made some mistakes [T4-74].
[71]Ms Wells had made a statement to one of the psychologists from Psycare (Ms Joanne King) where she had stated that she had never seen Mr Mason, Ms Donovan or Ms Girdler bullying or harassing Ms Hardy. However, when cross-examined, she stated she had seen 'them' harassing and bullying Ms Hardy [T4-85].
[72]Ms Wells did recall the staff meeting where employees were advised that Ms Hardy had been suicidal. When asked if she had cared about that, she replied "no" [T-86]. She said these comments had been made by Dr Atkinson.
[73]Ms Wells' inconsistency in the statement she made to PsyCare and the evidence she gave in this hearing is questionable. I have found Ms Wells to be an unreliable witness. Her responses to questions were often non-responsive or she had no memory of things that had happened in the workplace.
[74]Primarily it is the inconsistency in her stated views over time and, partly her demeanor exuding non co-operation in the witness box, which has caused me to disregard her evidence.
Consideration of the Evidence and Conclusion
[75]The primary stressors upon which Ms Hardy relies have been detailed in chronological order in this decision.
[76]Most of those stressors do not relate to management action. Those stressors relate to interactions between employees within the office of the Council.
[77]The evidence suggests that the work environment at the Council could be difficult at times between employees. In my view, this could be partly attributable to the fact that there were long term residents of Bedourie who had worked at the Council for many years; new employees; contractors and some short term employees.
[78]It is not my intention to traverse all of the stressors which are unrelated to management action. However, having considered those stressors, I have accepted the Appellant's claim to this extent - that the general work environment was at times difficult not only for Ms Hardy but also for other employees as a consequence of Ms Hardy's actions on a number of occasions.
[79]PsyCare attended the workplace and attempted to implement a training program. Staff issues were part of that program and, as it related to Ms Hardy, management had been supportive of the approach taken by PsyCare. Council drew up a Suitable Duties Program to assist Ms Hardy.
[80]Employees' evidence was that they were advised by Dr Atkinson that they should act professionally towards Ms Hardy, but to go beyond the normal "hello" and "good-bye" and other quick sentences was not encouraged.
[81]I have taken into account the evidence of those employees who had been supportive of Ms Hardy. It was clear from a consideration of that evidence that cliques existed in the workplace and poor behaviour on the part of those in that clique contributed to making the workplace difficult, at times and occasionally intense.
[82]In saying that I have also accepted that on occasions Ms Hardy's reactions to issues was unsettling. In my view, Ms Hardy held a rigid view of what her duties were. There appeared to be an inflexibility on her part to accommodate change, to react to emergent situations within the office, and new concepts. Frequently in her submissions work requested of her was not in her job description. In my view, most work environments require some degree of flexibility on the part of employees at different times.
[83]It is fair to say that the evidence also shows that the primary clique (that of Ms Donovan, Ms Wells and Ms Girdler) did not like Ms Hardy. That in itself does not constitute bullying and/or harassment.
[84]Ms Donovan was in a slightly different position to other employees in the office area. While she was not Ms Hardy's supervisor, she was publically in a relationship with Mr Mason and to the extent that that is relevant, it is reasonable to accept that Ms Hardy was concerned when Ms Donovan was dealing with her. Ms Donovan's interactions with Ms Hardy were not always pleasant, nor were Ms Hardy's towards to her.
[85]However, for those who did not like Ms Hardy, there were those with whom Ms Hardy formed a friendship and the relationship amongst this group was supportive.
[86]The decisions reached on those stressors which had been nominated as a major or primary stressors have been detailed in this decision.
[87]I have been unable to find that the behavior of Mr Mason towards Ms Hardy constituted bullying/harassment.
[88]Mr Mason is a big person, with a loud voice. There was evidence that he stamped his way around the office, but his evidence is that he is a heavy walker and there was no intent in his demeanor to intimidate people. While Mr Mason may have been blunt on occasions, I have not accepted that he had gone out of his way to cause Ms Hardy any harm.
[89]On the occasions when Ms Hardy interacted with him where she said he yelled at her and berated her unfairly, I have drawn the conclusion that Ms Hardy had a perception of Mr Mason which was flawed on occasions. I accept there may have been terse exchanges between the two but not sufficient to constitute bullying and harassment on the part of Mr Mason.
[90]The evidence more than suggests that Mr Mason didn't like wasting time and dealt with issues as they arose. See for example Stressors 15, 22, 26, and 42, Mr Mason raised the issue immediately and dealt with it immediately.
[91]There was evidence, which I have accepted, that Ms Hardy behaved poorly in the workplace. Stressors 25, 30, 39 are examples of that.
[92]Often there was a complete over-reaction on Ms Hardy's part to events occurring around her. That had the capacity, in my view, to cause some of those with whom she worked to find her difficult to work with. See for example Stressors 16 and 25.
[93]There was also evidence that employees sought not to approach Ms Hardy for fear of confrontation. See for example Stressor 38 and the evidence of Dr Atkinson where she noted that Ms Hardy was keeping a record of many interactions with staff.
[94]There were occasions when Ms Hardy had not understood the stressors she had nominated. See for example Stressors 26, 31, 39 and 45.
[95]Ms Hardy seemed on occasions to take offence at a range of incidents which had all the hallmarks of usual office activity. See for example Stressors 6, 7, 15, 22, 23, and 45.
[96]Ms Hardy was offended also by events from which no adverse findings had been made about her or where there had been no criticism made of her. See for example Stressors 23, 31, 38 and 45.
[97]In all, Ms Hardy has been unable to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that her claim can be substantiated.
[98]Pursuant to s 32(5)(a) of the Act, Ms Hardy's injury is excluded because of reasonable management action taken in a reasonable way by the employer in connection with the worker's employment.
[99]The application is dismissed.
[100]The Appellant is to pay the Regulator's costs of and incidental to this hearing.
[101]Order accordingly.
0
0