Lisa Silk and Comcare - [2012] AATA 638

[2012] AATA 638

Division GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION

File Number

2011/3414

Re

Lisa Silk

APPLICANT

And

Comcare

RESPONDENT

DECISION

Tribunal
Deputy President S D Hotop
Dr J Chaney, Member

Date 24 September 2012

Place Perth
The decision under review is affirmed.
...............[sgd]....................................................
S D Hotop, Deputy President
CATCHWORDS
COMPENSATION – Commonwealth employees – applicant employed by Centrelink – applicant suffered major depressive disorder in November 2004 – applicant's major depressive disorder a compensable injury – applicant had ceased to suffer effects of major depressive disorder on 13 December 2007 – applicant not entitled to compensation for medical treatment or for incapacity for work in respect of major depressive disorder from 13 December 2007 – applicant suffered aggravation of major depressive disorder on 26 July 2010 – aggravation of major depressive disorder contributed to, to a significant degree, by applicant's employment – aggravation of major depressive disorder a disease – aggravation of major depressive disorder suffered as result of reasonable administrative action taken in reasonable manner in respect of employment – aggravation of major depressive disorder not a compensable injury – respondent not liable to pay compensation to applicant for aggravation of major depressive disorder – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth), s 4(1), s 5A, s 5B, s 7(4) and s 14(1)

CASES
Comcare v Canute (2005) 148 FCR 232
Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Reeve (2012) 199 FCR 463
Drenth v Comcare [2012] FCAFC 86
Re Dunstan and Comcare [2012] AATA 567
Hart v Comcare (2005) 145 FCR 29
Re Wiegand and Comcare [2010] AATA 790
REASONS FOR DECISION
Deputy President S D Hotop
Dr J Chaney, Member
24 September 2012
Introduction

Lisa Silk (“the applicant”), who was born in September 1969, has been employed by Centrelink since October 1997 and, from August 2007, she was working as an Authorised Review Officer at Centrelink’s premises in Bunbury, Western Australia.
On 1 November 2010 the applicant lodged with Centrelink a completed Claim for Workers’ Compensation form signed by her and dated 28 September 2010. In that form the applicant described the condition for which she was claiming compensation as “deep depression” and she indicated that she had first noticed that condition in November 2004 and subsequently on 12 August 2010 and had consulted Dr Irene Humphries at each of those times. She described the factors which she claimed had caused her condition as follows:
“ psychological isolation, stress, customer aggression, staff aggression, constant harassment, no control over workload, discrimination”
and elaborated upon the “chain of events” leading up to her suffering that condition in an accompanying document (set out in paragraph 7 below).
On 4 March 2011 a delegate of Comcare (“the respondent”) made a determination under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) (“SRC Act”) that the respondent was not liable under s 14 of that Act to pay compensation to the applicant for “major depressive disorder”.
On 25 July 2011, following a request by the applicant for a reconsideration of…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Lisa Silk and Comcare

Details

AGLC: Lisa Silk and Comcare [2012] AATA 638
Case: [2012] AATA 638
Decision Date: 24 September 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Lisa Silk sought compensation from Comcare, the Commonwealth's workers' compensation insurer, for injuries she sustained during her employment with Centrelink. The central dispute was whether Silk's major depressive disorder and its aggravation constituted compensable injuries under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth). Silk argued that her mental health condition, stemming from work-related stressors, qualified as an injury warranting compensation. Comcare, on the other hand, contended that while Silk's initial major depressive disorder was compensable, the subsequent aggravation did not meet the criteria for compensation as it was influenced by reasonable administrative actions taken in a reasonable manner in respect of her employment.

The primary legal issues the court needed to address were: (1) whether Silk's initial major depressive disorder constituted a compensable injury, and (2) whether the aggravation of her major depressive disorder was also a compensable injury. The court needed to determine if the aggravation of the disorder was significantly contributed to by her employment and if it resulted from reasonable administrative actions taken in a reasonable manner in respect of her employment.

The court found that Silk's major depressive disorder from November 2004 was indeed a compensable injury. However, since she ceased to suffer the effects of this disorder from 13 December 2007, she was no longer entitled to compensation for medical treatment or incapacity for work in respect of this disorder from that date. Regarding the aggravation of her major depressive disorder on 26 July 2010, the court held that while it was a disease, it was not a compensable injury because it was significantly contributed to by her employment and resulted from reasonable administrative actions taken in a reasonable manner in respect of her employment. Consequently, Comcare was not liable to pay compensation to Silk for the aggravation of her major depressive disorder.

The decision under review was affirmed, meaning the original decision by Comcare not to compensate Silk for the aggravation of her major depressive disorder was upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Dr Tay’s report of 14 October 2010 relevantly states as follows:“ … Background:Ms Silk stated that she has been working with Centrelink for about 13 years. She denied that this episode was due to performance issues as was raised in the accompanying letter. She found it difficult to articulate what it was that she has been struggling with at Centrelink, citing one particular episode in November 2004 when once again she was crying and sleeping a lot and needed about nine weeks off work. She stated that it was work related and the response by Centrelink was to move her from her office to the call centre without informing the call centre and found herself in an empty call centre office. It was not until January 2005 that a different position was sought for her, but Ms Silk stated that she did not cope well intermittently during that time either. At that time, she was also commenced on antidepressant medication by her general practitioner in the form of Zoloft at a low dose of 50mg.She stated she has been in her current role as an authorised review officer since August 2007 and had been managing until August this year. Ms Silk finally stated that she has been dealing with numerous issues for the last 13 years from staff, managers, aggressive behaviour from staff and/or customers and it has led her to feel undervalued and unrecognised for her work.She stated that since about January this year, she has been involved with national policy changes that have been causing her some concern, that she has been trying to deal with without effect. Also since January this year, she has had three different managers. The issues involved her giving feedback to the legal services nationally, but in turn she alleges she has had no feedback from them until the new manager, Meredith Hough arrived in July 2010. When she first arrived, Ms Silk stated they had an informal meeting to get to know each other and that during this meeting she also started to cry. She forwarded some of her concerns to the new manager who also forwarded them to the legal services and an answer was then received by this new manager. Ms Silk was informed of the response with a preamble that Ms Silk would not like the answer, which she agreed with. Ms Silk stated that the answer made her feel that she was not valued as a person.Ms Silk cited another example of a conflictual situation with legal services regarding a customer claim which she contested, stating that what they asked her to do was not legal, even though the request came from legal services.Other examples cited by Ms Silk included dealing with a particularly difficult customer which unfortunately resulted in the customer relations line manager bypassing her to the national manager and to this end, Ms Silk also felt undermined and unsupported.There have been other changes to the workplace including that of reducing the paper load at work with scanning files into the computer, but her role also involves preparing files for social security departments. These files need to be in paper, but due to the fact that all information is now scanned, there is additional work in terms of having to go through the scanned documents to find the appropriate and relevant documents and printing them out. The way in which work is allocated has also changed and overall Ms Silk has felt an increasing sense of loss of control over workload and work issues.Finally, Ms Silk also alleged that no team leader wanted to speak with her in person, other than recently when she eventually lodged a workers compensation claim. There is some contradiction regarding what she alleged as the chain of events as to (sic) what is contained in the letter from the team leader, Meredith Hough.Symptomatic Inquiry:Ms Silk stated that she kept breaking down in tears and then started to avoid having anything to do with the workplace and, therefore, call screening at home as well. She also started to not want to be at home in order to avoid contact with the workplace, yet at the same time was upset that no team leader had come to Bunbury to see her. (sic)She stated that she has had a very disturbed sleep pattern, with initial insomnia, waking up regularly and falling asleep on the lounge. She said she was issued some Diazepam by the emergency department to use at night, but she has not tried any of these as she was afraid of becoming addicted to them.Ms Silk described the onset of depression cognitions in the form of believing herself as a loser as she is unable to explain why she is breaking down and crying all the time, describing herself as a strong person who used to be able to stick up for herself and fight for herself. She reports feeling hopeless and helpless. She also stated that she felt she could not tell her parents regarding what was happening with her work situation until recently, although her sister and her partner are fully aware.She did state she has caught up with some ex-colleagues from work for morning tea and that recently she has adopted a calf to look after in her backyard which helps her take her mind off things.Past Psychiatric History:In 2004, she was diagnosed with depression and was commenced on Zoloft 50mg at the time. She denied any family psychiatric history.Past Medical History:Hypertension, for which she has been commenced on treatment, and type 2 diabetes for which she is on oral hypoglycaemic medication.Current Treatment:Lexapro 10mg mane and this will be reviewed by her general practitioner tomorrow. Her general practitioner had also increased the Zoloft from 50 to 100mg before her presentation to the accident and emergency department about a week ago.Premorbid Personality:Apart from Ms Silk describing herself as normally a strong person who could cope with things, she also admitted to avoidance issues, in particular her increasing inability to deal with conflict and instead seeking avoidance of them. A sense of loss of control in the workplace with changing workplace practices has also been an issue for her.MENTAL STATE EXAMINATION:Ms Silk presented as an overweight woman with long dark brown hair, who was casually groomed and, as stated, she attended the assessment in the company of her sister and partner. She was cooperative with the assessment and was tearful throughout most of it, but did resume a calmer demeanour when talking about the calf she has looked after. She demonstrated little insight into how she was reacting and why, to the situations at work and found it difficult to summarise what had been occurring in the lead-up to her stopping work. She has also been concerned about her performance appraisals, keeping an evidence file and stating that this evidence file is not used to assess her performance, which has made her feel more anxious regarding the process of assessment. This is in spite of the fact that the team leader’s report has cited there were no performance issues. Clearly, Ms Silk has formed a strongly negatively biased view regarding her own performance at work.She was teary and low in mood with an anxious affect that was manifest as an over inclusive and somewhat tangential historian with an inability to summarise issues.She denied any active suicidal plan other than it being due to an avoidance of issues and in particular triggered by this assessment due to the anxiety it provoked in her. There was no evidence of mania or psychosis on today’s assessment.Diagnosis: Axis 1:Major Depressive Episode with prominent anxiety symptoms and obsessional features manifested as her inability to let go of things. This has not been adequately treated to date…” (T15)

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

The evidence before the Tribunal comprised:· the “T Documents” (T1−T72, pp 1-350) lodged by the respondent in accordance with s 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth);· Exhibits A1−A6 tendered by the applicant;· Exhibits R1-R6 tendered by the respondent;· the oral evidence of the applicant and of the following additional witnesses:−Dr Irene Humphries, Dr Frederick Ng, and Ms Barbara Lamparski (who were called by the applicant); and−Dr Eileen Tay, Dr Lawrence Terace, and Ms Meredith Hough (who were called by the respondent).The Applicant’s Evidence The applicant confirmed that she had prepared a typed statement setting out the “chain of events” leading up to her suffering the mental condition for which she had claimed compensation in this case. She said that she had prepared that statement, which was attached to her claim form dated 28 September 2010, in the period from 13 August 2010 to 28 September 2010. The contents of that statement are as follows:“ Chain of events (in no particular order) leading up to first injury 1998 to 20041.In one of my team meetings staff were being derogatory towards another staff member who was not present or part of that team. They were implying that the staff member was sleeping around to get to the top. I told this staff member about the comments and innuendo towards them. When my team found out I had said something to this person I was then treated like a leper, they would not talk to me, or involve me in team events. They totally ostracised me and I felt completely isolated and unsupported which lead to me taking personal leave.2.A comment from a Customer Service Advisor (CSA) when I moved from the Bunbury Call Centre to Canberra was that an ASO 6 in Canberra is equivalent to a tea leady (sic) in the Bunbury Call Centre. This made me feel belittled and undervalued as a person.3.There are numerous episodes of customer aggression where I was not supported by staff or Line Managers as example of this is:a.A Customer came in for an EBT (urgent payment), they were verbally abusive and physically threatening, I pressed the duress alarm, the cops came and the customer was escorted from the premises. After these types of events I was not provided with any debriefing sessions and when I spoke with a Manager from the Area Office I was told to write my own warning letter to the customer and to forward it to the customer, when I did, no further action was taken to provide me with any support. During these times I felt afraid and feared for my safety.4.I had to obtain an Apprehended Violence Order from the courts against an abusive and threatening customer because I felt unsupported, in danger and afraid for other staff. Again no support was provided by management during this process or after. This customer ended up in prison for breaking the order.5.Whilst training senior staff (CSA’s) on Parenting Payment I was given a hard time as I was a new staff member and they believed I shouldn’t be the trainer as there should be a hierarchy based on tenure not ability, this made me feel very uncomfortable, I said I didn’t want to conduct the training any more as I was not being respected but was encouraged by the training co-ordinator to continue.6.When I transferred back to the Bunbury office as a Deputy Manager (promotion) I was not provided with any training, support or hand over.7.I was asked to go to an Area Western Australian Managers meeting to deliver a presentation on scheduling in a Customer Service Centre (CSC) environment, the meeting was running late and when it was my time to present I was told to hurry up by the chair even though I had not contributed to the meeting running late. This made me feel uncomfortable, rushed, bullied and not respected as an individual.8.When the air conditioner was broken down I was yelled and screamed at by a staff member because I shut the back security door to the office. I had arranged for another seat for this staff member so she could sit in a cooler spot, I explained her behaviour towards me was unacceptable. As a result of me talking to her about her behaviour she started talking about me behind my back and telling everyone I had no right to tell her that her behaviour was unacceptable. Again I did not get any support from management with dealing with the behaviours of this staff member.9.When I had to do a harassment preliminary investigation I found out the accused staff members wife was actually my son’s teacher. I asked the school to move my son without divulging any information as I was not allowed to come off this case. My Manager had directed me even though I requested to come off. I found it extremely upsetting to know that my son was being put in an awkward position and having to move classes because of my work for which I had no control. I felt helpless and extremely unsupported, totally isolated and afraid for my son who was ten at the time.10.At a Human Resources meeting in Canberra, I was bullied and intimidated by two Call Centre Mangers in front of a number of Managers in a meeting, which resulted in the HR Manager approaching me at the end of the meeting. She apologised for the two Managers behaviours towards me.11.When undertaking Centrelink studies (MMDP) I was singled out as not being able to travel to WA but other participants were approved to do so. When I asked why I couldn’t travel to WA. I was told that it was because of the costs and that no one was travelling to WA. I was told by my line manager at the time that ‘I had dug myself a hole and he wasn’t going to help me to get out of it’.12.I was forced to be my sister’s line manager in the Customer Service Centre (CSC) environment even though I advised my Manager that this was in direct conflict of interest of the APS regulations.13.I had denied a staff member’s approval to do outside employment because the employment was deemed a conflict of interest as per HR guidelines, however, a Manager from Perth told me that I was to change my decision or he would. Again I felt unsupported and humiliated because as (sic) I was following the appropriate guidelines.14.When two senior staff (CSA and Deputy Manager) were alleged to be using electronic facilities inappropriately I reported this to a Manager in Perth, I was advised to follow this up and investigate it myself. I was very concerned of the repercussions if I investigated this any further because of the position the staff held in the CSC.15.As a Deputy Manager I had been excluded by many staff. They would not talk to me, refused to listen to what I had to say, nor acknowledge my presence. Instead they went to the other Deputy Manager who then failed to direct those staff back to me. Decisions were made regularly without consulting me first. I did not raise this with Deputy Manager at the time because I felt intimidated by them and I was well aware of the power they wielded within the office. On numerous occasions, I witnessed the Deputy Manager treat other staff in a very unprofessional manner and not in accordance with our APS Code of Conduct and APS Values. I felt utterly disempowered and unvalued as an individual.Chain of events leading up to second injury from 2004 to 2010In 2005 I started recording workplace events that occurred which made me feel intimidated, undervalued, unappreciated, bullied, worthless, unsupported and harassed. I started writing in my diaries as a strategy to help me cope.16.In an E-mail dated 28th January 2004, meeting with staff re seating arrangements. Two staff were upset because of an office refit and as a result they were not able to sit together. I gave them the option of going away with a seating plan and coming up with some options because every option which had been presented to them was not acceptable. This suggestion was also rejected. They eventually came up with one idea which I was happy to support and then they rejected it, eventually they asked if they could work on the seating plan and come up with a new plan. I supported them, however, this did not deter them from approaching the social work team and asking them to resolve the seating issue. During this time I provided a summary of events via email to the Area Business Manager which led to the move, consultation meetings held with staff, communication to them and union consultation meetings held. During this process I received no support or guidance from the Area Business Manager, nor my Customer Service Manager.17.In 2005 when I returned from a period of personal leave I was advised that I was being moved to the Call Centre environment even though there were empty workstations in the office. I asked my Line Manager if the Call Centre was aware that I would be requiring a workstation in the Call Centre and was advised ‘yes’, however when I went over to the Call Centre they had no knowledge of me needing a workstation and eventually found a workstation for me to sit at. It was in an area where I totally (sic) isolated, there were 50 empty seats around me.18.On two occasions in April 2005 my Manager at the time mentioned voluntary redundancies. This made me feel unwanted and that he wanted me to ask for one so that I would leave the organisation.19.On 3 June 2005 I wrote to the Business Manager stating I felt bullied by him because I had sought advice from CPSU in relation to my position. He threatened to ignore my queries because of fear of CPSU involvement. At no time during this period was an independent person involved, suggested nor was I offered support. I put in writing the way the business manager had dealt with me, caused me duress and stress and again my feelings were ignored, not acknowledged or acted upon in relation to support for me. I also felt I couldn’t take it any higher as these were Managers from the Area Office that I was dealing with, this made me feel isolated, with nowhere to go and totally helpless.20.On 21 December 2005, I was asked to attend a meeting with the Manager and a Business Manager to discuss employment options within the Bunbury Customer Service Centre. At the meeting I explained that I felt intimated (sic) by having two senior male Managers meeting with me alone and that I should have had the opportunity to have a support person come along. During this meeting I became upset and expressed my concern over how my situation was being managed. There was a lack of communication and no explanations why the option of me returning to the Team Manager role was not considered. I became very upset and I requested the meeting cease because I was not afforded any support. Once I regained my composure I approached the Business Manager on a one to one basis and again expressed my concerns of the lack of communication and support. I was advised during this conversation because of an impending retirement they had to review my role and if a suitable role at my current level could not be found I would have to consider the prospect of a reduction by consent or being declared ‘surplus officer’. I became extremely upset again and started crying and was told I was being too emotional. I was upset that they had not helped to resolve my situation earlier, the lack of communication and consultation in relation to available options. I felt intimidated in the meetings and did not have any support. I was not being considered for return to my nominal position and nor given an explanation. Instead the Business Manager said there were doubts about my ability to perform in the role due to illness not performance. He would need to reassess my capabilities and skills to effectively perform in role (sic) before considering returning to the role. Even though I asked for specific performance feedback I never received any. I did not receive any management support or coaching, the pressures that I worked under and the culture that existed in the office at that time made things extremely difficult for me. Even though I had asked for 24 hours written notice for formal meetings as the (sic) Centrelink Agreement, this was never considered or acted upon and made me feel ignored, belittled and intimidated. During the next month the Business Manager and Manager delegated full responsibility to me to find another position as they saw me as surplus because they had placed another officer into the position occupied by me while I was ill. The Business Manager had said to me ‘you are an overpaid officer and you need to find yourself a job or there is the door’. When I contacted my old Manager who had retired he said to me ‘give them the fight they are not expecting’.21.In a meeting held on the 10th January 2006 the Business Manager stated he had investigated the circumstances that led to my transfer to a different role and there was no documentation or evidence to establish that my move was performance related and that it would not be fair to pursue the matter any further given the lack of documentation and the environment that existed in the office.22.From the end of 2005 to 2006 I needed to attend 3 monthly medical reviews in Perth for a medical condition. When reminding and notifying my Manager on 5 December 2005 that I would not be in the next day because I had a specialist appointment in Perth the Manager said ‘you are never here’.23.On 10 January 2006 when notifying my Manager that I had a medical appointment to attend he said ‘you would be a medical miracle’.24.On 2 February 2006 I showed my Manager a scrapbook on various issues relating to the farming industry so anyone could pick it up and get a quick overview of the industry if I was not in the office because I was visiting customers in remote areas. The Manager said ‘you are never bloody here anyway’.25.On 9 February 2006 whilst on sick leave I still undertook a radio interview on behalf of Centrelink, this was not acknowledged.26.I was on sick leave from 7/2/2006 to 15/2/2006 and when I returned my Manager said ‘welcome back from your holiday’. This made me feel guilty for taking sick leave.27.In 2006 the Manager at the office sent numerous inappropriate e-mails in relation to staff and customers. An example of this is an email dated 10th February 2006 the Manager refers to a staff member as a ‘disability dragon’ and a customer as a ‘basket case’ and ‘desperate’. This made me feel uncomfortable, dragged me down emotionally. I felt if I raised any concerns about these e-mails I would be belittled and discriminated against.28.On 19th June 2006 the Manager asked me to attend performance training, the next day when I spoke to the Deputy Manager I explained my training schedule and was advised that she would keep me in mind for the performance training and that the Manager was covering himself as they couldn’t put me into a Team Leader position if I didn’t have the performance training. I never received this training.29.On 26th June 2006 I asked the Manager if I was able to put in a request for holidays, he said to me ‘what, do you want to go on holidays before they do away with your job?’ I asked him if they were doing away with my job and he replied that he ‘didn’t know’.30.When I requested leave in 2006 I always had to justify my reasons for leave. I was always told I couldn’t have school holiday periods if I had had them previously, regardless of the fact I was the only person doing the job and only needed someone to cover telephone messages in my absence. On 24th October 2006, in my Rural Services Officer role I had to develop my own training plans to become proficient in new claims. I had also on numerous occasions requested Financial Information Services Training to support me in this role I was continually overlooked and it took over 18 months before I received the training.31.On 10 April 2007, I was asked to do some work on reducing my flex credit. When I did a country trip, which was approved by my Line Manger I would accrue a day’s flex. I responded stating that I endeavour to be as flexible as possible, however when travelling I could do up to 12 to 16 hour days because of the remoteness. When I was sick or needed an appointment I would use flex time instead of sick leave to reduce my flex hours. This was never acknowledged and I did this on many occasions even before the flex query was raised.32.When I was a Rural Service Officer I was required to travel long distances, alone and often in remote areas. There were no mechanisms or policy to ensure I was safe or returned, mobile coverage hardly ever worked. I was never given a Satellite phone. I felt socially isolated that my Line Manager didn’t take the time to ensure I was safe and only made comments that implied I was never at work because I wasn’t sitting at a desk in the office. My outreach activities were never questioned only snide comments made towards me when I returned.33.On the 3 July 2007 I was advised I would be going into an Authorised Review Officer (ARO) position on a trial basis for a few months to make sure I was suited to the position and then nominally transferred into the position at my current level.34.On 6 August 2007 I had to prepare my own training calendar with no support from management for the Authorised Review Officer position (ARO) I was going into. The standard training for ARO positions was normally one week however I received only two days. After six months of being in the ARO position I was provided with the formal training.35.Between 2007 and 2008 all access to ‘post’ work related discussions in a National Team Room was removed for all ARO staff, this isolated me more as I was unable to share with others or get support from others through this communication method.36.In May 2008 I was advised that it was clear I had the necessary attributes, skills and knowledge for the ARO role. On 18 June 2008 I asked when I would be transferred into an ARO position and didn’t receive a reply until after I sent another e-mail on 3 July 2008. I was told that some other positions needed to be finalised first before my position could be. This should have been a routine transfer at level. On 30 July 2008 my Manager at the time, told me that the previous Manager of the team had told her that my transfer should have already happened however, I had to constantly contact to follow up my transfer. On the 20 August 2008 I was advised that they would keep me in the role on a temporary basis for another 3 months, this made me feel undervalued and promises made to me were broken. My understanding was they had positions vacant to fill. I couldn’t understand based on the recommendation from my mentor that I was suited to the role and my previous Manager’s recommendations why I wasn’t transferred to the ARO position. Again I felt isolated, undervalued and discriminated against. I wrote a formal review in accordance with APS regulations 5.24 on the 15 September 2008 to the National Manager. As a result of this review request I received a phone call from my Team Leader to advise me I was being transferred into an ARO position but the Manager in Area WA wanted to speak to me before the transfer took place. My Team Leader didn’t give me a reason why the Manager wanted to talk to me. I told my Team Leader that no telephone conversation was to take place without CSPU involvement as I wanted their support. The next working day I received a conference call from my Team Leader and the Manager who wanted to talk to me about why I had lodged a review with the National Manager and not copied her into the review request. Again I found this to be intimidating and not respectful of me as an individual and my rights to request a review. As a result when I attended a team meeting in Perth I asked my mentor to make sure I was not left alone as I was afraid I would be cornered and bullied by the Manager regarding my request for a review.37.Five months after I commenced as an ARO I was hounded by Legal Services to change my decision on a case even though there was no policy or legal documentation to back up why they wanted the decision changed. I had to write pages to justify my decision, I did suggest if there was policy to change my decision I would do this however the staff member from Legal Services said there wasn’t any and that it was political in the sense he just wanted it changed so Key Performance Indictor (KPI) results would be achieved. During this time I did not get any support from my Line Manager.38.In 2009 I called in sick, as I was unable to get an appointment with a Dr, I wrote a Stat Declaration to that effect. This was in accordance with our conditions of employment. This was ignored by my Team Leader. My leave did not change to sick leave with evidence. My document was never acknowledged as being received which made me feel like I was being ignored.39.I felt totally ignored by a CSC Manager and Original Decision Maker when a decision I set aside took six months of constant contact to have them implement the decision. They are required to implement the decision within 7 days. During this time I received no help with getting the decision implemented from my Manager until I had a relief Manager.40.In November 2009 whilst I was opening the mail at the office (which I had done on and off for the past few years) a staff member spoke to me about why I was doing the mail. The tone of their voice and what they said to be (sic) caused me such distress that I burst into tears. When I spoke to the Deputy Manager about the incident the staff member walked into the office and I said to her that she needed to be careful how she said things to people because she had really upset me with her tone and attitude towards me. She responded vehemently that she thought I was her friend but that I was nothing but a trouble maker. The Deputy Manager did absolutely nothing to deal with the matter so this only served to increase my distress and I left work for the day. During the next few days I made sure that I was not at my desk by myself when the staff member passed by through fear of being yelled at again. A few days later when there was no senior management at the office the staff member came to my desk to apologise and again said that she thought I was her friend but I was nothing but a trouble maker and that I should not have spoken to the Deputy Manager. I asked her to keep the conversation professional and in line with the APS Code of Conduct and she blew me and the APS code of conduct off. I started to shake and cry again. I again left work and contacted the CSC Manager and requested to move desks.41.In January 2010 I started to put forward ideas to assist ARO’s with managing the new reduced paper initiatives programme because increased (sic) our work load exponentially. We would have to do more printing. I sent e-mails to my Manager at the time, a few months later I also forwarded e-mail’s to the Legal Services Branch. It wasn’t until July with a change of my Team Leader that the idea was progressed. For six months, I was totally ignored, and my Team Leader stated to me ‘that she needed to buy me a punching bag so I can take my frustrations out on it.’ My Team Leader is located in another part of the country so I am isolated geographically as well as personally. We work under the ‘virtual team’ concept which is more about cost saving using technology than it is about a supportive team environment/culture. We are all isolated in our team and linked only by technology. This in itself is fraught with problems only (sic) served to increase my feelings of isolation, exclusion and solitude.42.In February 2010 the process to allocate work to the ARO’s was changed, this meant instead of being allocated work on a weekly basis it is now allocated on a daily basis and is more than what was expected as reasonable caseloads to have on hand, it also increased my house keeping duties significantly. My desk was swamped with files to the point that my desk was completely full with files and stacked high. This makes me anxious, stressed and unmotivated. I feel I have no control over my workload. When I asked front of line control about how many cases they were allocating they said they were unable to reduce the number of files being allocated to me because the National Manager had directed them to allocate the amount of files everyone had to have on their desks and they had to just keep allocating files even when the target number had been reached.43.In July 2010 I was directed by a Customer Relation Unit (CRU) staff member on how to conduct a review on a customer because she had been in contact with the customer a number of times and how to do my job even though an ARO review is to be undertaken by an independent senior officer. When I spoke to the customer he was aggressive and abusive and I had to terminate the call. The customer called CRU again to complain about me and the CRU staff member didn’t adhere to protocols which were to raise concerns with my Team Leader, instead, forwarded his complaint straight to the National Manager. This is a customer that called repeatedly to complain about anything and everything. This made me feel as if I was being treated differently to other staff.44.In July 2010 with my first face to face meeting with my current Team Leader she asked me to tell her about myself. Immediately when I started to talk about work history I started to cry and then she started to cry. She told me she was a sympathetic crier but offered no support or referral to get assistance, instead she moved onto business.45.During my annual performance review in July 2010 I provided my comments and evidence file. My Manager took a copy of my comments but didn’t bother to read my supporting evidence stating there was a ‘consistency process’ in place this year and implied that everyone was going to get a rating of ‘3’ fully effective. I felt deflated and totally worthless, undervalued and felt like a chicken on the battery farm. Aside from the fact that the ‘consistency process’ was the subject of a dispute of Fair Work Australia because it was illegal demonstrated to me how policy and legislation is consistently ignored by Centrelink management.46.In August 2010 I was conducting a review on a customer’s record where all contact was through the CSC Manager because of the customer’s abusive nature. I asked both my Team Leader and Legal Services whether I was required to contact the customer when they had a history of abuse. I aired my concerns and their advice was I was obliged to contact the customer. I did as directed and the customer abused and yelled at me and hung up. I felt as if I was standing in front of a firing squad knowing too well I was going to be abused. A the end of the call I contacted the CSC Manger who was meant to be dealing with the customer as per her record and advised them of what happened. My Team Leader offered no support, enquired how the conversation went or how I was feeling. This incident caused me a lot of stress.47.In the period August 2007 to June 2010 I invited two different Manager’s, from Perth, I had down to Bunbury, both declined.48.Week commencing 9 August 2010 I invited my Manager down to Bunbury when she was over in WA on the week commencing the 16 August 2010. She told me she didn’t have time on that trip. This made me feel more isolated. Often the Managers have a large team across multiple sites so meeting face to face with the team is difficult, however, in my three years in the position of ARO only a relief Manager has been to visit due to the event at point 40 of this document.49.On 12 August 2010 my Manager advised me the ideas I submitted for the reduced paper initiative would not be supported and that we would have to ‘just move on’. My Manager also said at this time that my performance rating had come back from the consistency panel and that I was going to the rating of ‘fully effective’ which is a good rating. I immediately went quiet and she said I know you are disappointed as you were expecting a very good rating. She then went on to say I do a very good job and am excellent at what I do but the rating would not change and I could appeal the decision. With all the events as listed that had lead up to this day I broke down and felt I could not deal with anything further that day. I put my message bank on my phone and ceased communication for the day. I cried for about 8 hours and could not face anything.50.On 13 August 2010 I went to the doctor and got a Medical Certificate for two weeks, stating I was unfit. When I told my Manager about my medical certificate she said that she would now find time to come and see me on her scheduled trip to WA whilst I was off sick, I hesitantly declined. It was obvious to me now that my sick leave affected the “Attendance Strategy” I was suddenly important to her but previously when invited she was too busy. When I e-mailed the Medical Certificate to my Manager I received a response thanking me for sending it and she proceeded to tell me about our current progress on our finalised case loads. Her interest in my wellbeing was cursory at best and more than ably demonstrated by how quickly she moved onto work load discussion.51.I feel anxious, totally stressed, beaten down, isolated, undervalued, unsupported and emotionally drained. I cry for hours on end anytime I think of or have to deal with any work issues. I am afraid of the environment I have to work in and do not feel safe.52.On 26 August 2010 I got another Medical Certificate and rang my Manager. I was crying over the phone very upset and told her that it was a result of the past ten years of work related events and having to have to fight for my rights all the time with Centrelink. I advised her that I had been to EAP counselling and that I had a Clinical Psychologist appointment. Immediately she suggested a graduated return to work program of one day a week without even taking the time to actually find out what had happened and what specific work related events were causing me stress and anxiety.53.On the 30 August 2010 I received a text message from my Manager asking me to call her. The text message upset me and I cried myself to sleep that night. I called my Manager on the 1 September 2010 and she told me she was having an ARO meeting on 15 September 2010 and during that week she would like to come down to Bunbury and see me. I declined saying that I needed to be left alone during my period of illness so I could get treatment. She asked me if she could get the HR person in Area WA to call me about ‘Fitness For Duty’ because they had a duty of care towards me and she was worried about me. I told her I needed to be left alone to get things sorted out with my head and to get counselling. Within half an hour of this phone call the HR person in Area WA rang. I cried uncontrollably for about 8 hours. Her persistence under the guise of ‘duty of care’ was puzzling as she has not demonstrated this previously.54.On 3 September 2010 HR rang me again. I then asked the CPSU to write to Centrelink asking to be left alone whilst I underwent treatment (e-mail attachment).55.On 9 September 2010 I had to sign for a person to person letter and had to provide identification to the postman. I opened the letter, as it was work related I broke down immediately and my family had to come over to be with me. I needed to attend the emergency department of the local hospital because of my emotional wellbeing at an all-time low and could not be left alone. This was preventable. I asked them to leave me alone and let me recover and rebuild my strength, the CPSU asked them to leave me alone for fear of my health and another staff member asked them to leave me alone. They ignored all of us and here I am.” (T17, pp 67-78)

Decision

Reasons for decision

The Tribunal concludes as follows:·the applicant suffered an “injury”, namely major depressive disorder on 1 November 2004, for the purposes of s 14(1) of the SRC Act, but that, from 13 December 2007 to date, she has not been entitled to compensation for medical treatment pursuant to s 16 of the SRC Act or for incapacity for work pursuant to s 19 of the SRC Act, in respect of that “injury”;·the applicant suffered a “disease” (as defined in s 5B(1) of the SRC Act), namely, “aggravation of major depressive disorder”, on 26 July 2010 but that “disease” is not an “injury” (as defined in s 5A(1) of the SRC Act), within the meaning, and for the purposes, of s 14(1) of the SRC Act, and, accordingly, the respondent is not liable under s14(1) of the SRC Act to pay compensation to the applicant 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.

Division	GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION
File Number	2011/3414
Re	Lisa Silk
APPLICANT
And	Comcare
RESPONDENT

Tribunal	Deputy President S D Hotop Dr J Chaney, Member
Date	24 September 2012
Place	Perth