WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION
DETERMINATION OF APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE
COMMISSION CONSTITUTED BY AN ARBITRATOR
CITATION:ISS Facility Services Australia Pty Ltd v Antonios [2008] NSWWCCPD 52
APPELLANT: ISS Facility Services Australia Pty Ltd
RESPONDENT: Tony Antonios
INSURER:Allianz Australia Workers Compensation Ltd
FILE NUMBER: WCC7950-07
DATE OF ARBITRATOR’S DECISION: 4 February 2008
DATE OF APPEAL DECISION: 20 May 2008
SUBJECT MATTER OF DECISION: Journey claim; periodic journey; onus of proof; material increase in risk of injury.
PRESIDENTIAL MEMBER: President Greg Keating, DCJ
HEARING:On the papers
REPRESENTATION: Appellant: Stephen Lee Legal
Respondent: Slattery Thompson
ORDERS MADE ON APPEAL: The decision of the Arbitrator dated 4 February 2008 is confirmed.
The Appellant Employer is to pay the Respondent Worker’s costs of the appeal.
BACKGROUND TO THE APPEAL
1.On 29 February 2008 ISS Facility Services Australia Pty Ltd (‘the Appellant/Employer/ISS’) sought leave to bring an ‘Appeal Against Decision of Arbitrator’ in the Workers Compensation Commission (‘the Commission’) against a decision, dated 4 February 2008.
2.The Respondent to the Appeal is Tony Antonios (‘the Respondent/Worker’).
3.Mr Antonios was employed by ISS as a cleaner working morning shifts at North Sydney Boys High School and afternoon shifts at Naremburn Public School. He alleges he suffered injury to his left ankle and ribs in a car accident on 1 August 2007 when he was on a periodic journey between his home and place of employment.
4.The Worker’s usual routine was to work a morning shift at Sydney Boys High School and an afternoon shift at Naremburn Public School. He normally walked to the afternoon job from his home, which is also in Naremburn, unless it was raining in which case he drove to work. A journey that takes him approximately 20 minutes. On the day of the car accident, Mr Antonios worked his morning shift at North Sydney Boys High School, returned home and at approximately 10.30 am drove to the West Ryde Shopping Centre, to undertake shopping activities. He left the shopping centre to drive directly to Naremburn Public School at approximately 2.30 pm to commence his shift at 3 pm. On the drive from the shopping centre to the school Mr Antonios was involved in a car accident.
5.ISS through its workers compensation insurer, Allianz Australia Workers Compensation Limited denied liability on the basis that the Worker was not on a periodic journey within the meaning of section 10(1) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (‘the 1987 Act’) or alternatively if the injury was sustained on a periodic journey, then it was sustained during or after an interruption or deviation unconnected with the Worker’s employment (section 10(2)).
6.On 18 October 2007 the Worker filed an Application to Resolve a Dispute in the Commission claiming weekly compensation at the rate of $450.00 per week on the basis of total incapacity from 1 August 2007 to date and continuing. The matter was listed for a conciliation and arbitration hearing on 15 January 2008. The parties were unable to resolve the claim and the matter…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read ISS Facility Services Australia Pty Ltd v Antonios 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 52
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court revolved around the interpretation of the terms of the contract of employment, the validity of the termination, and the extent of the compensation awarded. The employer argued that the termination was justified and that the compensation was excessive. The worker, on the other hand, contended that the termination was unfair and that the compensation was justified based on the circumstances.
The court examined the evidence and the arguments presented by both parties. It found that the arbitrator's decision was well-reasoned and supported by the evidence. The court was satisfied that the worker had been unfairly dismissed and that the compensation awarded was appropriate. The appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the arbitrator was upheld. The employer was ordered to pay the worker's costs of the appeal.
Orders
Orders of the court
The decision of the Arbitrator dated 4 February 2008 is confirmed.
The Appellant Employer is to pay the Respondent Worker’s costs of the appeal.
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.