Karen Buck and Comcare

Case [2012] AATA 327

[2012] AATA 327

Division GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION

File Number

2011/2940

Re

Karen Buck

APPLICANT

And

Comcare

RESPONDENT

DECISION

Tribunal

Deputy President S D Hotop
Date 31 May 2012
Place Perth

The decision under review is affirmed.

....................[sgd]...........................

S D Hotop, Deputy President

CATCHWORDS

COMPENSATION -  Commonwealth employees -  applicant employed by Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) -  applicant suffered severe anxiety and clinical depression - applicant's mental ailment contributed to, to a significant degree, by employment by ABC -  applicant's mental ailment a disease -  applicant's disease suffered as a result of reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner in respect of employment -  applicant's disease not a compensable injury -  decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION

Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth), s 4(1), s 4(9), s 5A, s 5B, s 7(4) and s 14(1)

CASES

Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Reeve (2012) 125 ALD 181

REASONS FOR DECISION

S D Hotop, Deputy President

31 May 2012 

Introduction

  1. Karen Buck (“the applicant”), who was born in January 1953, is, and at all material times was, employed by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (“ABC”) as a Radio Trainer.

  2. On 22 November 2010 the applicant made a claim for compensation under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) (“SRC Act”) in respect of a mental illness described by her as “severe mixed anxiety and depression” and claimed by her to have been contracted in April 2010. In the claim form the applicant described the circumstances in which she contracted that illness as follows:

    “ Returned from LSL to be presented with a new job/job plan that does not match my skills, competence or aptitude.  Despite repeated requests no training or development plan for this new job has been provided.  The entire Dept has been restructured with no consultation with me/colleagues.  I cannot do the new job; I can get no training (despite asking continually since March).”

    In answer to the question: “What actually… made you ill?” in the form, the applicant stated:

    “ The ongoing situation – trying unsuccessfully to get a learning & development plan; trying to get someone in management to resolve the issue; my direct supervisor’s management style – ”.

  3. On 12 April 2011 a delegate of Comcare (“the respondent”) made a determination under s 14 of the SRC Act disallowing the applicant’s claim for compensation.

  4. Following a request by the applicant’s solicitors to the respondent for a reconsideration of the determination of 12 April 2011, a Review Officer of the respondent made a “reviewable decision”, dated 14 July 2011, under s 62 of the SRC Act affirming that determination.

  5. On 22 July 2011 the applicant lodged with the Tribunal an application for review of the reviewable decision of 14 July 2011.

    The Evidence

  6. The evidence before the Tribunal comprised:

    ·the “T Documents” (T1−T66, pp 1−411) lodged by the respondent in accordance with s 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth);

    ·Exhibits A1−A16 tendered by the applicant;

    ·Exhibits R1−R15 tendered by the respondent; and

Continue reading Karen Buck and Comcare

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Karen Buck and Comcare [2012] AATA 327
Case
[2012] AATA 327
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Karen Buck against Comcare, the applicant, Karen Buck, sought compensation for severe anxiety and clinical depression which she claimed were a result of her employment with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC). Buck's employment with the ABC involved various roles, including that of a radio producer, on-air presenter, and eventually a national radio craft skills trainer. The Tribunal was tasked with determining whether Buck's mental health conditions qualified as compensable injuries under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth).

The central issue before the Tribunal was whether Buck's severe anxiety and clinical depression, which arose in the context of her employment with the ABC, constituted a compensable injury under the Act. Specifically, the Tribunal had to decide if these conditions were "injuries" as defined by the Act, or if they fell under the exclusion in section 5A(1), which excludes diseases arising from reasonable administrative actions taken in the course of employment.

The Tribunal found that Buck's mental health conditions were a result of reasonable administrative actions taken by the ABC in managing her employment. These actions included the restructuring of the Radio Training department, which led to significant changes in Buck's role and responsibilities. The Tribunal concluded that these changes, though challenging and distressing for Buck, were taken in a reasonable manner and were part of the administrative process of her employment. Therefore, the conditions did not meet the definition of an "injury" under the Act, but rather were classified as a "disease" arising from employment.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, ruling that compensation was not payable to Buck for her severe anxiety and clinical depression, as these conditions were deemed not to be compensable injuries but rather diseases resulting from reasonable administrative actions in respect of her employment.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

The evidence before the Tribunal comprised:·the “T Documents” (T1−T66, pp 1−411) lodged by the respondent in accordance with s 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth);·Exhibits A1−A16 tendered by the applicant;·Exhibits R1−R15 tendered by the respondent; and·the oral evidence of the applicant and of the following witnesses:−Graeme Thomson and Elizabeth Gray (who were called by the applicant); and−Justine McSweeney and Vanessa MacBean (who were called by the respondent).The Applicant’s Evidence The applicant confirmed that she had made three statements for the purpose of this proceeding and that their contents are true and correct. The applicant’s statement, dated 2 February 2012, is as follows:“…2.After I left high school I worked in the retail sector for a period and then on a Catholic mission in the North West of Western Australia for twelve months. I then returned to Perth and completed my matriculation and commenced studying for a Bachelor of Psychology at the University of Western Australia. I completed two years of that degree and left to commence work as a public servant in the WA Department of Corrections.3.In 1977 I left that employment and began working for Channel Seven initially as a production assistant in the newsroom but within a short space of time became the sole researcher/associate producer in the station’s documentary unit. After a couple of years making documentaries both within Australia and overseas I then helped establish the station’s first five night (sic) a week current affairs program and continued as a researcher/associate producer for that program for about three years. Since 1977 I have been employed in the media either in commercial television, as a newspaper journalist or in radio broadcasting.4.I was headhunted by ABC Radio in late 1989 to produce the then 6WF morning program.5.For the next few years I produced across most dayparts (sic) for ABC 6WF in Perth (now 720) including the morning show, afternoon program, and also established a new evening program. During this time I was encouraged and asked by the ABC to take on an occasional role as a trainer for both internal groups (ie for other broadcasters) and external groups (ie for community service groups, Government departments and other agencies who came to the ABC for training in primarily how to handle the media skills). I was also asked to take on the role as Head of the Radio Broadcasting Department at Murdoch University for a period of six months while the usual Departmental Head took a sabbatical. This role included lecturing in radio broadcasting to a 1st year student intake of 96, supervising and assessing their student radio programs, plus lecturing in radio broadcasting to a post graduate group in the school of journalism. This was agreed to and supported by ABC management. I was also asked by the ABC to take on an occasional role as a trouble-shooter for regional program teams experiencing difficulties. I was also encouraged and urged to undertake an on-air role which I did somewhat reluctantly − initially co-hosting a one hour afternoon community talkback program called the Grapevine, and solo backfilling for the occasional Saturday morning breakfast program. I was given great support, encouragement and training in my transition to these new roles.6.Until 1997 I continued in my primary role as producer of various ABC radio programs but I was then persuaded to take on a major on-air role – that of co-host of the ABC flagship breakfast program with Jim Gill. That was my last on air role and when that finished in 2001 I answered an expression of interest for radio trainers.7.The ABC clearly thought I had some abilities as a classroom trainer because I was one of four people chosen out of a field of 50 applicants across Australia to take on a national training role. 8.When I went to work in the Albany office in 2001 initially I was going to continue to co-host the ABC Radio breakfast program. This was to become a state-wide program and my co-host in Perth and I would be broadcasting together via satellite. For reasons beyond my control that job fell through the week I was due to move South and I had at that stage no other substantive job. The ABC had given me a commitment that I could work in Albany (at my request as I wanted to live in Denmark).9.In any event I took a period of leave due to the uncertainty and upheaval caused by the sudden and unexpected change in career path and ultimately I applied for a job as one of the national trainers in the new Accredited Training Project.10.At the time I applied for a job as a trainer I was living in Denmark and working in Albany. The personal training that I had received to support and equip me for my various roles until that stage is set out below. Later (2001−2009) I was also to receive extensive training, support and encouragement to develop and extend my skills as a classroom trainer and workplace coach.Training undertaken by me as a participant: 1989 to 2001* Two week core skills training covering all aspects of basic radio broadcasting* Writing for radio* Interviewing* Advanced Interviewing* Advanced production skills* Presentation skills * Continuity skills* Radio Documentary Making* Operating studio technology* Operating an on-air desk* Presenting music to air effectively* Communication skills* Handling difficult interviewees on-air* Train the Trainer certificate* Using netia to broadcast on-air* Conflict Resolution* Making Powerful Radio* Broadcast Law* How to use your voice on-air.11.I also was given many, many one on one training sessions with the then Senior Radio Trainer and a Technical Trainer firstly in my fledgling role as an occasional ABC trainer, and then later in my role as an on-air presenter.12.From the end of 2001 until the beginning of 2010 I took on the full time job of a radio craft skills trainer employed by ABC. The form of the training that I delivered was in a number of components. From 2001 until 2006 I was primarily involved in delivering various components of the ABC’s newly established Certificate IV in Broadcasting. This included a two week residential course where twelve broadcasters would come to a capital city for a two week intensive course called ‘Basic Broadcasting Skills’. That course was delivered by me face to face with one other trainer plus occasional guest trainers (for highly specialised fields like technical areas or trainee trainers shadowing us and trying out their skills under our supervision). 13.I also travelled around the country assessing broadcasters enrolled for the Certificate IV – up to 35 of them at one time. My areas of assessment were Queensland, the Northern Territory and North Western WA. Sometimes this assessment role required me to be away from home for months at a time. I also often travelled, at the request of management, extensively throughout Australia and delivered short intensive courses, sometimes solo, sometimes with one other trainer in (sic). These covered such topics as ‘Writing for Radio’, and Interviewing Skills, Production Skills, Creativity, Choosing and Developing Good Stories, Airchecking and Teamwork.14.The whole thrust of the Radio Training Department as directed by senior management at the time was that the training would be delivered hands on, in person around the country. It was to be interactive, experiential and classroom based.15.Initially there were four people doing the training and assessment role because there was such a large number of people to deal with but Liz Gray and I were the only two full time trainers, the other assessors or trainers being seconded for short periods as required. 16.After the ABC decided to phase out the Certificate IV in Broadcasting in 2006 Liz and I were responsible for finalising any outstanding assessments and generally mopping up the program. We then continued designing, writing and delivering a wide range of other training workshops (some of which I’ve outlined above) across the country.17.Liz and I also designed and delivered ‘Train the Trainer’ workshops for other would-be trainers who were seconded for short periods to train a few workshops. We also designed and delivered assessor training workshops during the Accredited Training years. 18.At that stage there was approximately 600 on-air radio presenters and producers located at 59 stations around the country. These were the people Liz and I (and the other short term seconded trainers) trained in all aspects of radio craft. 19.Liz and I also designed, wrote and delivered air checking workshops for managers around Australia to enable them to effectively air check (assess on air presentation and program production work) their staff. We also undertook air checking sessions for managers and individual broadcasters across the country.20.I also designed and delivered workshops to senior broadcasters at the annual prestigious ABC Local Radio Awards and was a judge on both State and National panels involved in assessing entries to those Awards. I was also invited by ABC management to be a guest speaker on various panels at the Awards.21.In 2003 Liz and I were fortunate enough to travel overseas to New York, London and Dublin to participate in International radio conferences, tour various radio stations and programs and participate and sit in on radio craft skills training. 22.We spent a week with the BBC in London and one of the ideas we picked up on while there was the idea of offering one on one coaching to broadcasters to help them develop their skills. This possibility had been talked about at the ABC as a kind of extension of our previous assessor role, especially once the Accredited Training was discontinued. The assessment role (which partially involved one on one training or ‘coaching’) we had undertaken throughout the country was seen as highly valuable and had resulted in many managers asking us to work both with them and their other non-Certificate IV staff in a similar way, which we did. No action to formalise or develop our expertise in this area beyond talking about it as a possibility had taken place at that stage but when we returned and delivered our report on the overseas trip it was decided that Liz and I should undertake an external three month training course to become certified coaches. 23.Once that training was completed I then over the next few years undertook hundreds of hours of formal one on one coaching around Australia with both regional and metro broadcasters and managers as directed by senior management.24.Liz and I were also requested by senior management to co-write two definitive and highly well received radio craft skills books which were then delivered to staff around the country. These were the ‘Talk Radio: The ABC of Interviewing’ and ‘Talk Radio: The ABC of Writing Books’. I also wrote the ‘Talk Radio: The ABC of Presentation’ and wrote several Chapters of ‘Talk Radio: The ABC of Production’ books. I also re-wrote the Interviewing, Writing and Presentation books for external publication.25.For all of the work that I did after 2003/4 I did not have an updated job plan setting out the nature of the tasks that I was doing even though my duties had broadened considerably. Once Accredited Training was discontinued in 2006 the scope of my work was way beyond my existing job plan. Despite repeated requests by me at no time did management provide me with an updated plan and ask me to sign it.26.Post 2006 we expanded and continued with the wide diversity of training design and delivery as outlined above but there was no longer any Accredited Training aspect to it.27.During all of that period I was travelling extensively from my home in Denmark. When I was not on the road I was working out of the Albany studio or from home and nobody raised with me that there was a problem or difficulty with me carrying out that work. 28.The work involved with the training I enjoyed immensely, although the travel was at times excessive. 29.I recall that I received 110 extra leave days at one stage to make up for the inordinate amount of overtime involving just weekend travel I had been doing. We did much more overtime than that working extremely long days but it would have been impossible to provide time off in lieu for all the extra hours we did. That travelling was not so much from Albany to Perth but from Perth travelling all around Australia.30.In December 2008 a new manager, Justine McSweeney, was appointed to Radio Training as acting manager. I knew Justine from my time over the years working out of the ABC in Melbourne and my involvement in the Local Radio Awards. Justine had been co-coordinator of these awards and sat in on the National Judging panel which I had been a part of several times. We were not close friends but we were good working colleagues. I believed I had a reasonably friendly relationship with her.31 In fact in the early stages of her appointment as manager to Radio Training (acting initially and then confirmed six months later) I was pleased that she had come on board as she was somebody that I knew and I thought she would be a good addition to the training team. At that stage there had been no talk so far as I was concerned about changing the method of training design and delivery and it was just going to be business as usual with the new manager. We were at that stage finalising the craft books, the Production Skills workshop national roll out and were, we believed as previously planned, about to design, write and deliver a Presentation Skills workshop for national roll out. This had been widely talked about to and by staff across the country. We also hoped to pick up and complete an Intermediate Broadcasting Skills Course, and a national package making course, both of which had had to be cancelled due to ill health, and to begin work on a series of Master Classes for senior metro broadcasters. 32.At that stage the trainers were me, Liz Gray and Pam Macintosh who had been seconded from her substantive position for some months to undertake some of the national roll out of the production skills workshop (she was one of the primary authors of the production skills book) and other training and coaching.33.Initially things were fine and it was primarily business as usual with just some minor teething problems. Slowly however the relationship between Justine and her team – which included we three trainers and an administrative assistant − began to break down. From our point of view we found Justine to be inflexible, rigid, not open to discussion or suggestion (one of Liz’s and my roles as outlined in our previous job plan was to advise) overly bureaucratic, unrealistic in her expectations especially around workloads, and seemingly unable or unwilling to capitalise on our many years’ experience and knowledge. In fact she seemed to want to undermine that very thing and also seemed quite insecure about her position, which at that stage was merely an acting role.34.It was especially difficult because Liz and I had been involved in training for a long period of time and had been highly regarded for our work. We were both promoted to band nine which is the highest point in our work standards grading system so we therefore had obviously been doing a good job. It felt like we were being micro managed and Justine was unnecessarily attempting to reinvent a wheel she had far less knowledge about than we did.35.Liz, Pam and I all had strong and successful broadcast backgrounds which Justine did not. Her background has been in administration and event project coordination. Our very different work styles also clashed and the situation developed to the point where we felt we needed to request senior management to provide the team with mediation to help us resolve what felt like an unworkable situation. 36.I was at that stage committed to staying with the ABC. I enjoyed my job and wanted to persist with it. The letter that we wrote to the Head of People and Learning, Ursula Groves, on 24th of June 2009 sets out our concerns. Unfortunately our requests for help and mediation were refused so I decided to take six months long service leave. Liz also took some long service leave. Pam Macintosh went back to her substantive position and Ken Nevins, the administration assistant, resigned. 37.When Justine began as our manager I asked her to update my job plan which had not been updated since 2004. I had asked previous managers to do this because my duties had changed considerably since that job plan had been written. My requests were unsuccessful. I felt it was a highly unusual situation to have such an outdated job plan and one I believed needed to be attended to. I also thought that having regard to Justine’s desire for following process and conformity that would be something that she could easily do but by the time I left on long service leave some six months later this had still not happened38.At that stage there was still no mention, to me at least, of any proposed change in the method of design or delivery of the training. I enjoyed my period of time off. I did not have any treatment, see any doctors and did not have any counselling and was otherwise well although I was in need of a holiday. I enjoyed my holiday.39. I returned to work on 18 March 2010. 40.About two days later I was presented with a number of documents relating to the new Radio Training and Development Framework (it was described as ‘the new direction for radio training’) − which had all come into being during my leave period, and a new job plan which reflected these changes. 41.These documents and subsequent discussions with my manager Justine McSweeney outlined the new position for the Radio Training department, ie that it was moving away from the face to face classroom training and coaching I had been doing (due to budget restraints, lack of personnel, and a new philosophy and taking on a largely project management, support and liaison role. We were to create and design flexible delivery tools and training materials (ie online, e-learning and virtual classroom) and offer train the trainer workshops to, and support, senior radio staff across the country who would deliver any classroom training that may still be required in their locations. 42. The documents came to me by email from Justine McSweeney. 43.Prior to receiving the email there had been no discussion with me about any change in my role or in the way that training was to be delivered. After I read the documents it was clear that the Radio Training Department had undergone a major restructure whilst I was on my period of leave. 44.My role was no longer to be a craft skills coach or to design, write and deliver face to face, experiential, interactive classroom based training. My job was changed from delivering training one on one or in groups to largely a support, liaison and significant project management role. I was to focus on the design, writing and delivery of material for online and flexible remote learning modules. 45.The new Job Plan also required me to design training for content makers (as broadcasters were now called) in the broad range of radio craft skills. 46.These skills now include a range of multi platform and social media task. I had never trained in these areas before because these were not areas I had any knowledge or skill in. Prior to being presented with this job plan there had been no discussions with me about these proposed changes. My skills and competencies at that time did not meet those required for this new job.47.My computer skills are, I admit, rudimentary but had been sufficient to adequately perform the usual tasks required of me at that time. I do not have skills or strengths in the highly technical computer field and these had not before been required of me. Any training around technical or multi platform aspects of the content maker’s role had always been previously handled by ABC specialists in that field. I am a traditional classroom trainer and the new flexible, online and remote methods of online workshop material design and delivery was not something I was either familiar or comfortable with. My new job plan required me to sign up to do a job which did not believe I was capable of doing and certainly not capable of attempting without extensive training. In my view I did not have the competencies to either design, write, deliver or project manage the online training the job plan was requiring. 48.I was extremely concerned as I knew the purpose of a job plan was to clearly reflect and outline the duties and tasks an employee was required to perform in the forthcoming year. It also outlines the work standard level the employee is to perform to. By signing this job plan as it stood I would have been agreeing I was capable to doing the job to the highest level – the band nine level I had been on for some years. I was not prepared to do so as I simply did not possess the skills. 49.I would have been very happy to agree to do a whole host of training to enable myself to become skilled to do the new job that I was being required to do but not to sign, in effect, something that I was never going to be able to do without that necessary training. 50.The document that I was asked to sign which is called the ‘Performance Agreement Administrative Sheet’ is clearly a document that if I had signed I would have been required to implement.51.There were a whole host of things in that document that I did not feel that I was capable of doing. Part of the formal job plan document is the Learning and Development section which is meant to identify any areas in which the employee will be needing training over the next year. It is meant to outline in detail what training will be given, its objective, who is responsible for its implementation and a date for the Land D activities. Despite the fact that I needed extensive training to enable me to work to this new job my Learning and Development section was blank. Despite repeated requests by me to Justine she refused to change the job plan or to outline either to me verbally or in the Learning and Development section of the document any training I was to be given to equip me to undertake this new role.52.The things that I did not think that I was capable of doing included:On page two under the heading Job Purpose it stated:‘ As part of the Radio Training and Development team, plan and implement best practice adult learning programs ……….. to assist radio content makers (presenters, producers, cross media reporters etc) across Australia to develop and hone their skills.’53.Cross media reporters primarily use online multi platform content delivery systems for their stories and occasionally digitally record and edit packages for playing on-air during radio programs. During my time as a producer and presenter these were not tasks I ever undertook (the CMR jobs actually didn’t exist then) and as a trainer I have never trained in these areas because I have no skills or knowledge in how to perform the role of a cross media reporter. 54. Further on page 2 under the heading Training (b) it stated:‘ Develop and deliver innovative cross divisional programs, events, systems and tools in relation to the broad range of radio craft skills while ensuring behavioural alignment with ABC Corporate Values.’55.The only programs, events, systems and tools I have competence to develop would be those that are associated with classroom training and one on one coaching in traditional radio craft.56.The term ‘broad range of craft skills’ as referred to in my new job plan and outlined in ABC job descriptions and job plans of content makers (previously known as broadcasters or program makers) across the country refers to both what some in management now refer to as heritage craft skills (that is interviewing, writing radio scripts, presentation skills, producing programs etc) and a wide range of multi platform skills, including, but not limited to – taking digital photos and publishing them to the web, shooting video stories and publishing them to the web, digital recording and editing of stories, audio and video and publishing them to the web, establishing and maintaining station and program websites, blogs and Facebook pages, using Twitter and Facebook to find content for ABC use and using Facebook and Twitter to promote ABC content to a social media audience, and podcasting. I was never required to perform any of the multi platform/online tasks either as a program maker/broadcaster (ie my job prior to 2001 – most of those tasks did not exist then) or as a trainer (ie my job since 2001). I would need extensive training to be able to perform these tasks at a content maker level and then further extensive training and practice before I could legitimately be expected to train these tasks at my band nine level.57. Further on page two under the heading Training (c) it stated:‘ Alignment with Best Practice - Ensure approaches to radio craft skill acquisition draws on best practice organisational learning and knowledge management theories and practices.’While I obviously have knowledge in current theories and practices around classroom training and coaching I believe it would be necessary to undertake further personal training and development before I could adequately ensure our approaches matched best practice in any other organisational learning management theories and practices.58. Further on page two under the heading Training (d)‘ Develop flexible delivery options for training to allow content makers to access targeted craft training across the country’.According to Australian and International learning institutions and learning experts the term ‘flexible delivery’ refers to the many ways in which training can be delivered via, but not confined to, online learning, toolboxes CD Rom, internet, online tutorials, virtual classroom, or virtual learning environments, discussion boards, chat rooms, and other various multi platform and e-learning methodologies as well as face to face.59.I have absolutely no idea of how to design, develop or deliver any training using any of these methods. Justine explicitly explained to me during our job plan discussions that any face to face training would be delivered by other broadcasters and not me. The Radio Training Framework document also outlined this new way of doing things. She said I might have an opportunity to deliver some Train the Trainer sessions to the content makers (broadcasters) who would deliver any face to face sessions. 60. Further on page two under the heading Training (e) ‘ Project Management – Project manage significant training initiatives’. Although I can manage my own workload I am not a person who is a project manager and I felt very uncomfortable about leading teams using methods that I had absolutely no knowledge of. I believed I would need a reasonably proficient practical understanding of e-learning principles and methods if I was to project manage, lead teams, advise and work within teams, or to be the person responsible for signing off on projects utilising these methods.61.Further on in the job plan on page 4 under the heading Policies and Procedures (b and c)‘ Understand and apply the law as it relates to broadcasting and publishing content, Adherence to the law as it relates to broadcasting and publishing content’.I have undertaken extensive training to understand, apply and adhere to the law as it relates to broadcasting but I have no current knowledge or competence of the law as it relates to copyright and publishing content on multi platform systems. 62.Further on in the Job Plan on page five under the heading Competencies/sub heading Content‘ Ensure content is contemporary, aligned with training needs and delivered in an interesting and informative manner’.63.I have no current competence or knowledge of what is contemporary in relation to content regarding multi platform tasks or how to ensure e-learning delivery is (especially by others if I’m simply project managing or leading a team) is (sic) done in an interesting and informative manner.‘ Creative leadership in realisation of craft training programs to an expert level’64.Once again I was concerned that my current knowledge and competence allowed me to provide ‘creative leadership ... etc’ in either classroom training or coaching. I had no idea of how to provide this in relation to the new e-learning/flexible delivery approach.65. Also on page 5 under the heading Key Performance Indicators/ Training‘ TrainingVariety and interactivity of contentParticipant FeedbackNo of training programs that are accessible across all networksFeedback from network management’.66.I was very concerned that this section appears to place me in the position of being appraised against other people’s traning performance. I don’t currently know how to design variety and interactivity in e-learning modules; so I would have to rely on others to do this. If I’m not competent to design these modules and I’m not competent to deliver them then it seemed to me that I would be agreeing to be held accountable against some other trainer’s work – and against the participant or management feedback of that other trainer’s work.67.Also, as the manager is the person who decides what the training team did and didn’t do, I was also concerned about being held accountable against the number of training programs accessible acorss all networks. My manager would be the one deciding and directing this, not me.68.Also on page 5 under Job Plan Competencies/ Sub heading Relationship Management (Team Work)‘ work as an integral and positive member of a team to create training materials in a variety of delivery styles to a highly advanced level’. 69.Again, although I am happy to be a positive and integral team member I can’t create training materials in a variety of delivery styles to a highly advanced level. Justine explained to me that this meant using a variety of e-learning and online learning tools and methods.70.When I was delivering face to face training I designed, wrote and delivered workshops and coaching in what some in senior management refer to as ‘Heritage Broadcasting skills’ (ie, the interviewing, script writing, presentation and production skills etc relating to a talk radio program). As the role of broadcasters begin (sic) to change (after I was no longer a broadcaster – post 2001) to incorporate training in those other fields which were slowly coming into play people, such as multi platform delivery, blogging, using Social Media etc , content makers (broadcasters) would get training in those fields from specialist trainers elsewhere in the ABC. I had no skills in those areas and was therefore not prepared to sign up at a level nine agreeing that I could be delivering that content in that way.71.When I told Justine that I was not able in good conscience, to sign that document she said ‘this is the job now. You have to sign it. And a job plan is purely aspirational anyway’. I did not believe that that was correct. I believed that by signing it I was committing myself to agreeing that I could do the work set out in the job plan to a band nine level 72.I was very concerned that once I had signed up to that I would be held to account for any failures when it came time be appraised against the document at the end of the performance cycle. In view of the fact that I could not do a significant portion of that job plan, I was concerned that I was being set up to fail.73.I was especially concerned as originally Justine did not seem to think that I needed any training for these areas. 74.After some discussion based around the points I’ve raised above she said I would be given training but I shouldn’t worry about the detail and that would be sorted as we went along provided I signed the job plan. She told me that I wouldn’t be appraised against the parts of the job plan I couldn’t do and that I was being untrusting by not accepting her assurance on this. 75.Justine was not prepared to put in writing what she was saying to me verbally which was that I would not be judged against the parts of the job plan I couldn’t do and that I would be getting training in the areas in which I had no current skills or competence. This should obviously have been written into the job plan (which is standard practice and required under our enterprise bargaining agreement) and I thought her refusal to change it in any way highly unusual given what she was saying.76.Having regard to the state of the ABC at that time (ie a period of big change) I was not convinced in my own mind that Justine would be in the role 12-24 months going forward. It was not the case that I was prepared to sign a document which in black and white said that I could do a job that I was not able to do.” (Exhibit A1)

Decision

Reasons for decision

The Tribunal finds, therefore, that the relevant “disease” suffered by the applicant on 31 May 2010, namely, severe anxiety and clinical depression, was suffered by her “as a result of reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner in respect of [her] employment”, within the meaning of s 5A(1) of the SRC Act. It follows from that finding that that “disease” is not an “injury”, as defined in s 5A(1), and, therefore, is not an “injury” within the meaning of s 14(1) of the SRC Act. Accordingly, compensation is not payable to the applicant, pursuant to s 14(1) of the SRC Act, in respect of that “disease”.Decision For the above reasons, the decision under review is affirmed.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.