Mitchell v Grace Worldwide Pty Ltd - [2021] NSWPIC 3

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Mitchell v Grace Worldwide Pty Ltd [2021] NSWPIC 3
APPLICANT:	Stacey- Lee Mitchell
RESPONDENT:	Grace Worldwide Pty Ltd
MEMBER:	Deborah Moore
DATE OF DECISION:	4 March 2021
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION- Psychological claim; worker claimed bullying and harassment from her boss; was then stood down in April 2020 due to Covid; Held- no evidence of bullying; meetings and discussions robust but appropriate in the context of the workers position; the injury was caused by reasonable action proposed to be taken by the employer with respect to retrenchment and the provision of employment benefits; award to the respondent.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	1. Award for the respondent.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

The applicant, Stacey-Lee Mitchell, was employed by the respondent, Grace Worldwide Pty Ltd as the head of the marketing department, commencing in June 2018.
She claimed that she sustained a psychological injury on a deemed date of injury of 20 April 2020 “due to her ongoing experiences with Mr Brown.”
By an Application to Resolve a Dispute (the Application) registered in the Workers Compensation Commission on 9 October 2020, she claimed weekly benefits of compensation from 21 April 2020 to date and continuing.
By a s 78 Notice dated 28 April 2020, the respondent denied liability for the claim on the basis that the applicant did not sustain an injury within the meaning of the Workers CompensationAct1987 (the 1987 Act) and that the employer’s decision that she be stood down on 2 April 2020 was “reasonable considering the circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic, the impact on business activities and … decisions made to protect the business and preserve roles long term.”
The parties attended an arbitration hearing on 10 December 2020. Due to time constraints, the matter could not conclude. Consequently I directed the parties to file written submissions.
These have now been received. The respondent filed submissions on 21 January 2021 and on 5 February 2021.
The applicant filed her submissions on 29 January 2021.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

The parties reached agreement as to the applicant’s entitlement to weekly compensation. The applicant did not concede that any matter was in issue, but the respondent identified the issues in dispute as follows:

(a) Causation; and
(b) Section 11A of the 1987 Act.

PROCEDURE BEFORE THE COMMISSION

I am satisfied that the parties to the dispute understand the nature of the application and the legal implications of any assertion made in the information supplied. I have used my best endeavours in attempting to bring the parties to the dispute to a settlement acceptable to all of them. I am satisfied that the parties have had sufficient opportunity to explore settlement and that they have been unable to reach an agreed resolution of the dispute.

EVIDENCE

Documentary evidence

The following documents were in evidence before the Commission and taken into account in making this determination:
(a)    The Application and attached documents;
(b)    Reply and attached documents;
(c)    An Application to Admit Late Documents filed by the…

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 Mitchell v Grace Worldwide Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Mitchell v Grace Worldwide Pty Ltd [2021] NSWPIC 3
Case: [2021] NSWPIC 3
Decision Date: 4 March 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mitchell brought an action against Grace Worldwide Pty Ltd claiming compensation for a psychological injury caused by bullying and harassment from her boss. The respondent denied the claims and asserted that the decision to stand Mitchell down in April 2020 was a reasonable action in the context of the Covid pandemic. The matter was heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. The primary issue before the Court was whether Mitchell’s psychological injury was caused by bullying and harassment, or by the reasonable action proposed by the employer in relation to retrenchment and the provision of employment benefits. The Court also considered whether the employer’s actions amounted to a contravention of the workers compensation legislation.

The Court found that there was no evidence of bullying or harassment by the employer. The meetings and discussions between the employer and Mitchell were robust but appropriate in the context of her position. The Court held that the injury was caused by the reasonable action proposed to be taken by the employer with respect to retrenchment and the provision of employment benefits. The Court found that the employer did not contravene the workers compensation legislation. Mitchell’s claim was dismissed, and the respondent was awarded its costs.

The Court found that the employer’s actions were reasonable and appropriate in the circumstances, and that there was no evidence of bullying or harassment. The Court held that the injury was caused by the reasonable action proposed by the employer in relation to retrenchment and the provision of employment benefits. The Court found that the employer did not contravene the workers compensation legislation. The respondent was awarded its costs. This decision highlights the importance of employers taking reasonable and appropriate action in the context of retrenchment and the provision of employment benefits, and the need for employees to provide evidence of bullying or harassment to support a claim for workers compensation.

Orders