Perry and Australian Postal Commission

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2004] AATA 873

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No Q2003/371

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION		)
Re		PATRICIA PERRY

Applicant

And AUSTRALIAN POSTAL COMMISSION

Respondent

DECISION ON PRELIMINARY ISSUE

Tribunal Ms M Carstairs, Member

Date20 August 2004

PlaceBrisbane

Decision The applicant’s claim for compensation is not precluded under s48(4) of the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 by the settlement of her complaint lodged with the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission on 6 March 2003.

...................[Sgd]......................

M Carstairs
  Member

The preliminary issue requires a consideration of the nature of the applicant’s compensation claim and HREOC complaint, and whether the applicant recovered damages by settling the HREOC complaint.

EVIDENCE

9.      In her written HREOC complaint (exhibit R5), the applicant ticked the box I have been discriminated against because I have a disability and added, in her own writing, “impairment”. In regard to what she wished to achieve by making her complaint the applicant set out the following:

§I would like an apology from Mary-Anne Scott (Human Resources Manager, Australia Post) and an assurance that this sort of treatment will not happen again

§At a meeting with Mary-Anne Scott I was told that all restricted duty people were going to be assessed…To date...this has not happened. I agreed to do the 8:24am non-penalty shift for this reason and also for fear of losing my job…I would like to be compensated for my penalties for the period 2^nd December 2002 and also from 28 January 2003 till all persons with medical conditions have been assessed

§I would like to be supplied with more than one pair of specially made safety shoes as this has been the case previously with other mail officers who have non work related foot conditions.

10.     In a written statement dated 21 May 2004 (exhibit A1), the applicant said that she attended a HREOC conciliation conference on 27 October 2003 with two representatives from Australia Post, Mr B Barclay, Manager Workplace Services, and Ms K Clarke. The applicant stated that she saw the issues in the HREOC complaint as including being singled out and discriminated against; payment of foregone penalties; and the provision of a second pair of safety shoes. She stated that she eventually accepted an ex-gratia payment for pain and suffering. The applicant said that she had asked Mr Barclay several times whether the acceptance of the settlement would affect her compensation claim and she said she was told that it would not, as the compensation was a separate issue. In her oral evidence she acknowledged that she did not recall the exact words used by Mr Barclay and said that she was not able to say definitely that Mr Barclay used the words pain and suffering with reference to the settlement.

11.     In a written statement dated 21 May 2004 (exhibit A2), Mr  Plettell said at the conciliation conference Mr Barclay agreed to the provision of extra safety shoes to the applicant…