Ravenswood v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator
[2014] QIRC 205
•5 December 2014
QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION
CITATION: | Ravenswood v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator [2014] QIRC 205 |
PARTIES: | Ravenswood, Kathleen v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) |
CASE NO: | WC/2014/101 |
PROCEEDING: | Appeal against a decision of Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) |
DELIVERED ON: | 5 December 2014 |
HEARING DATES: | 29, 30 and 31 July and 1 August 2014 |
MEMBER: | Industrial Commissioner Fisher |
ORDERS: | 1. The appeal is dismissed. 2. The decision of the Regulator is confirmed. 3. The Appellant is to pay the costs of and incidental to the appeal. |
| CATCHWORDS: | WORKERS' COMPENSATION - APPEAL AGAINST DECISION - appellant was a worker - sustained a psychological injury - whether the injury arose out of or in the course of employment - whether employment was a significant contributing factor - credibility of witnesses - stressors - evidence - determined psychological injury arose out of or in the course of employment and employment was a significant contributing factor to the injury - not satisfied injury related to all of the stressors - whether injury withdrawn because it arose out of or in the course of reasonable management action taken in a reasonable way - finding issues emerged not relevant to the identified stressors - decompensation after trial for offences clearly not work related - determined injury arose out of reasonable management action taken in a reasonable way - appeal dismissed. |
| APPEARANCES: | Ms S.D. Anderson, Counsel instructed by Shine Lawyers for the Appellant. |
Decision
Toll Remote Logistics was successful in gaining the security contract for the Roma Airport commencing operations on 1 February 2013. Eight full-time staff were recruited to perform the security work, including Kathleen Ravenswood. She signed a 12 month fixed term contract for full-time employment, working on average 38 hours per week. The contract required her to serve a three month probationary period. The employment of staff commenced on 25 January 2013 with one week of training.
Ms Ravenswood moved from Brisbane to Roma in order to take up the position. On arrival, Ms Ravenswood spent the first four days in a caravan owned by another worker, Debra Street. Another co-worker, Patricia Renier also resided in the caravan. Andrew Donaldson, a security screener, resided in the caravan next door. Ms Ravenswood returned to Brisbane in early February to collect her 13 year old daughter. When travelling back to Roma, Ms Street rang to tell Ms Ravenswood she had to find different accommodation as severe weather had affected the annexe of her caravan. Ms Ravenswood rented a house with a 12 month lease.
The working environment was difficult. The staff were new and most were unfamiliar with working security in an airport. They worked long shifts. Some staff relationships were strained. Many of the customers of the airport were FIFO workers, whose behaviour could be challenging at times.
Ms Ravenswood claims 11 stressors led to her sustaining a psychological injury. Most of the stressors concern the behaviour of Lawrence Aitken, the Airport Security Manager or Ms Street.
Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) concedes that Ms Ravenswood was a worker and that she sustained a psychological injury. The Regulator disputes the injury arose out of or in the course of Ms Ravenswood's employment and that employment was a significant contributing factor to the injury. Further, the Regulator contends that the injury is not compensable as it arose out of or in the course of reasonable management action taken in a reasonable way or from Ms Ravenswood's perception of reasonable management action taken against her. The Appellant submits that several of the 11 stressors do not constitute management action and thus the reasonable management action exclusion for psychological injuries is not available. Alternatively, should the stressors be found to constitute management action then it was not reasonable nor taken in a reasonable way.
Witnesses
The following witnesses gave evidence in support of Ms Ravenswood:
Kathleen Ravenswood, in person;
Patricia Renier, formerly Security Screener, Roma Airport;
Shari Cole, Ms Ravenswood's daughter;
Kayla Challes, formerly Security Screener, Roma Airport;
Jamie Perrin, formerly Security Screener, Roma Airport; and
Dr Eric De Leacy, Consultant Psychiatrist.
The Regulator called the following witnesses:
Lawrence Aitken, formerly Airport Security Manager, Roma Airport (currently Aviation Security Manager, Moranbah Airport);
Andrew Donaldson, formerly Security Screener, Roma Airport (currently Security Supervisor, Roma Airport;
Shelly Holt, Workplace Health and Safety Co-ordinator, Tollway Logistics; and
Debra Street, formerly Security Screener then Security Supervisor, Roma Airport (currently Security Screener, Roma Airport).Credit
Before dealing with the stressors it is necessary to consider the credit of the key witnesses.
In giving evidence Ms Ravenswood was vague and inconsistent and at times, not particularly coherent. Because of this, I find her to be an unreliable witness and unless her evidence was corroborated by a witness who I find to be credible, it is generally not accepted.
A number of former employees gave evidence. Ms Renier is a disaffected former employee. In my view, even though she has gained alternative employment, her evidence was coloured by her unpleasant employment experience at the Roma Airport. Mr Perrin also remains affected by his employment experience at the Roma Airport and although he had firm views on particular issues, I do not consider that he can be described as an aggrieved former employee. His evidence has carried some weight. Ms Challes was a credible witness.
The key witnesses for the Regulator were Mr Aitken and Ms Street. The Commission accepts that these two witnesses are the subjects of the complaints by Ms Ravenswood and they remain employed by Toll. Their evidence must be construed accordingly. Mr Donaldson is in a not dissimilar position.
The Stressors
Consideration of the stressors will follow the list provided in the amended Statement of Stressors. The heading for each of the stressors will only provide a brief indication of the event.
1. SEEK
Date: During the course of employment commencing on or around 25 January 2013
Event: Since the commencement of her employment on 25 January 2014, the claimant's Manager, Mr Lawrence Aitken, advised staff there were too many of them for the permanent positions available.
Following this, there was a running joke where Mr Aitken would regularly say to the claimant, "have you checked out SEEK yet". In response to the claimant's question why, Mr Aitken would reply there are too many staff.
The repetitiveness of this comment caused distress and was made by a Manager who the claimant barely knew. Mr Aitken was in a position to terminate the claimant's employment which intimidated her and put her under tremendous pressure to perform. The claimant feared the loss of her job having a young daughter to support.
Early in the contract it emerged that Toll had miscalculated the number of permanent security staff required to perform the security work at Roma Airport. As a result Mr Aitken had to inform staff of this situation and the consequential need to reduce staff numbers. Originally, Toll intended to reduce the full-time staff by two, although later only one position was lost. He met with staff collectively in the security area to tell them of the situation and raised a series of possible options for staff to consider.
Ms Ravenswood's evidence is Mr Aitken told staff they were overstaffed and needed to reduce numbers by two. She claimed Mr Aitken would regularly ask her whether she had "checked up SEEK". He also made the comment when she raised an issue such as someone leaving a bag in the terminal. When she suggested it be "swiped", Mr Aitken would respond with "Oh have you checked up SEEK?'' He had that attitude with her "all the time". Under cross-examination she said Mr Aitken would make the comment to her "every day, right up till he actually looked for a position for me". She did not say when Mr Aitken looked up the position.
Mr Aitken denied telling Ms Ravenswood to check SEEK regularly or at all. He could not recall ever presenting Ms Ravenswood with a position that he had found. Mr Aitken said that to lighten the mood if staff were pressured, he might jokingly lift up his telephone and say, "SEEK.com". It was intended as a humourous comment.
Ms Renier said she heard Mr Aitken ask Ms Ravenswood if she had looked up SEEK and denied that he would only make the comment in relation to himself. She said Mr Aitken made the comment to her as well, when she and Ms Ravenswood were unhappy. On one occasion Mr Aitken gave her a job to apply for in Chinchilla.
Mr Perrin agreed Mr Aitken would regularly refer to SEEK both to himself and others in relation to advertised security jobs. He heard Mr Aitken say to Ms Ravenswood to look up SEEK at the time when the staff numbers were being reviewed.
Ms Street said she had never heard Mr Aitken suggest to any staff they should look up SEEK or SEEK.com or hear him refer to that site in connection with himself. Other staff may have mentioned they had seen a job on that site.
Mr Donaldson said he had not heard Mr Aitken say to Ms Ravenswood that she should look at that site. He had heard Mr Aitken refer to the site and look at the job advertisements when part-time staff were being recruited.
This stressor is not the unfortunate situation of staff reductions but Mr Aitken's alleged regular comments to Ms Ravenswood about looking up "SEEK" in the context of staff reductions. The evidence is divided on this issue. I have reached the conclusion based primarily on the evidence of Mr Perrin that Mr Aitken did ask Ms Ravenswood at the time of the staff reductions whether she had "checked out SEEK yet". However, the evidence does not clearly establish the regularity with which Mr Aitken made the comments to Ms Ravenswood personally. Given the comment was made in the context of staff reductions I am not satisfied Mr Aitken continued to make the comment continued after the staff complement was reduced with Ms Renier's dismissal on 12 April 2013.
2. Request to work casual hours
Date: Early February 2013
Event: On a date in early February 2013 Mr Aitken asked the claimant to work casual hours instead of full-time hours. He said to her that this was on the basis that she was always complaining about the hours. Mr Aitken did this publicly at the workplace in front of several other workers.
The evidence shows that permanent staff were regularly working longer than their contracted hours. This was a cause of concern to Ms Ravenswood being a sole parent of a 13 year old girl. Ms Ravenswood said she pressed to work the contracted hours. Mr Aitken approached Ms Ravenswood and said that because she was continually complaining about the hours she should go on to casual hours. Ms Ravenswood responded by saying that she was contracted for a full-time position and did not want casual hours. Ms Ravenswood said any approach made by Mr Aitken to her individually was on the basis of him enquiring whether she would like the casual work in the context of full-time staff numbers having to be reduced by one person.
The evidence shows that at the meeting where Mr Aitken informed staff of the over‑staffing, he asked whether any staff wanted to work part-time or casually. Ms Ravenswood, supported by Ms Renier, said that Mr Aitken asked Ms Ravenswood if she wanted casual employment. Mr Perrin did not have a recollection of the meeting.
Mr Aitken could not recall speaking to Ms Ravenswood individually about the issue. He said the permanent part-time roster would not have suited Ms Ravenswood's family responsibilities as it required afternoon and weekend work. However, he did not give evidence in relation to casual hours. There appeared to be some inconsistent use of part-time and casual employment in his evidence.
This stressor does not concern the hours the security staff were working. It arose in the context of the staff reductions that were to occur. Ms Ravenswood said Mr Aitken made the request of whether she would like to or if she wanted to work casual hours. This is different to the stressor which states that Mr Aitken asked her to work those hours. Ms Ravenswood's evidence implies that she was being given a choice whereas the stressor is more directive. In any event, on Ms Ravenswood's evidence, when she declined the issue was not pressed.
I have also considered whether any request was made in front of other staff. I accept that Mr Aitken asked staff generally whether anyone was interested in casual hours and he did not make a direct approach. Accordingly, I am not satisfied on the evidence that Mr Aitken asked Ms Ravenswood personally in front of other staff to work casual hours.
3. Regular belittling
Date: 22 February 2013
Event: Mr Aitken would dismiss and belittle the claimant at work on a regular basis. For example, on 22 February 2013, the claimant asked Mr Aitken if she could be trained on the CBS. He replied "huh". Whilst looking at other workers and laughing. Mr Aitken then went on to say, "Did you hear something guys?", involving the claimant's co‑workers in the belittling. The claimant was dismissed and humiliated in front of her peers.
This stressor is that Mr Aitken regularly belittled and was dismissive of Ms Ravenswood. An example is given of a specific event, i.e., training on the CBS X-ray machine. The only submissions made by the Appellant in relation to this stressor concern this specific event. In the circumstances the Commission proposes to deal only with that event. The issue is whether Mr Aitken belittled or was dismissive of Ms Ravenswood's requests to learn the CBS X‑ray machine.
Ms Ravenswood gave evidence about requesting to be trained on the CBS X-ray machine and said Mr Aitken's response was to the effect of "we're getting to it" and "it just takes time to learn". Her concern was that other (male) staff were being trained, could sit down while doing the job and were not rotated out of the area as protocol required.
Under cross-examination the specific proposition was put to Ms Ravenswood that in relation to the request for CBS training, Mr Aitken did not say, words to the effect of, "did you hear that?". Ms Ravenswood did not respond to the question. When Counsel for the Regulator put the proposition generally, Ms Ravenswood replied that Mr Aitken did make the comments and she reported the matter to Ms Street.
Mr Perrin said the staff entrusted to learn the CBS machine was a "boy's club". He was trained after asking Mr Aitken for training. He was aware that Ms Ravenswood had also asked for training and could only speculate as to the reason she had not been trained.
Ms Renier's evidence on the point was less than reliable and is not accepted. In evidence-in-chief she said Mr Aitken did not think Ms Ravenswood was good enough to be trained on the CBS machine but was unable to give evidence about how she knew that. Under cross-examination on this point, Ms Renier firstly said she could tell by the rotation that Ms Ravenswood was never on the machine and then claimed she heard Mr Aitken say Ms Ravenswood was not good enough.
Ms Challes commenced employment as a part-time employee in March 2013. She was trained in the CBS machine in about September/October that year.
Mr Aitken explained that the CBS X-ray machine has sophisticated software and an explosive detection system built-in to it. It scans all baggage and while it makes a determination about the contents of a bag, the security operator is required to make quick decisions as to whether to accept or reject the bag. He and another manager initially kept that machine operational while the new staff were trained. Staff were selected for training on the basis of competency.
Mr Aitken acknowledged that Ms Ravenswood had asked for training and while she had some strong points, he did not wish to be pressured into training staff for the CBS machine. He told Ms Ravenswood she would be trained in due course and denied he was dismissive of her requests for training.
Ms Street said Ms Ravenswood queried with her whether she would be trained in the machine. As this was not Ms Street's decision, she asked Mr Aitken who advised that "we'll get around to it".
The Commission accepts that Ms Ravenswood asked Mr Aitken for training on the CBS X-ray machine and that he responded by saying it would be provided in due course. Given his explanation, and Ms Ravenswood's confused evidence on the point, the Commission is not satisfied that Mr Aitken was dismissive of her requests. In particular, I am not satisfied that he made the alleged comments. Mr Aitken was conscious of the operational requirements of the security screening function and the capacities of the staff in determining training opportunities on the machine.
Suggestions were made that Mr Aitken's decision not to train Ms Ravenswood was dismissive because only men were trained. However, Ms Challes was trained and thus the evidence does not support a conclusion that gender was the reason for Ms Ravenswood not being trained.
4.The Incident Report
Date: February/March 2013
Event: Soon after the above incident, Mr Aitken had the claimant's daughter complete an incident report whilst she was waiting for the claimant at work. Mr Aitken had the claimant's daughter write down that the claimant was talking to customers too much, looked weird and that she only 'gets one more chance'.
This caused further continual distress when the claimant is regularly told she should look for alternative employment on SEEK. The claimant was humiliated and belittled by Mr Aitken in front of her child.
Ms Ravenswood's daughter, Shari Cole, who was aged 13 at the time, was to take her first unaccompanied flight. It is common ground that Ms Cole is a quiet young woman. Ms Cole was apprehensive. Mr Aitken said she appeared to be "afraid, concerned, uncomfortable".
Ms Cole did not feel comfortable sitting in the passenger lounge by herself so was permitted to stay at the passenger screening point within eye shot of her mother. Mr Aitken arranged for Ms Cole to have a chair and for Ms Ravenswood to remain on the closest particular screening point so that they could chat when passengers were not around.
Mr Aitken asked Ms Ravenswood whether he could buy Ms Cole a chocolate from the fundraising chocolates while she was waiting for her flight. Ms Ravenswood gave her consent.
Mr Aitken also put Ms Cole's bag through the CBS machine with a test case. Mr Aitken gave her a print out of her bag from the CBS machine and also let her operate it. He told her that she was good at it. Mr Aitken said these were all actions to calm Ms Cole's nerves. Eventually Ms Cole started to relax and bantered with her mother.
Mr Aitken also gave Ms Cole an incident report form. Ms Cole did not understand the purpose of an incident report form and asked Mr Aitken what various statements on it meant. Ms Cole made some entries on her own and others in response to prompting by Mr Aitken as to what her mother was doing at the time. One of the entries Ms Cole made was that her mother was "looking at me weird" and in response to prompting by Mr Aitken wrote her mother was "talking too much to customers". After she had written down various things her mother was doing, Mr Aitken asked a question to the effect of "what should we do with your Mum?" There is a conflict between the evidence of Mr Aitken and Ms Cole as to which of them and suggested giving her one more chance. Nonetheless, Ms Cole wrote down "give her one more chance" and signed the form. Mr Aitken countersigned the form.
Ms Ravenswood said she was very upset by the actions of Mr Aitken in having Ms Cole complete the incident report form in the manner she did. He held the form up in front of other staff and said Ms Cole was smarter than her mother. She said other staff laughed at her "like she was dumb" and made her feel useless. She felt degraded in front of her co-workers.
According to Mr Aitken the completion of the incident report was done with Ms Ravenswood's knowledge and Ms Cole laughed when he said she was smarter than her mother. Although Mr Aitken could not recall showing the form to other staff, he agreed it was not a secret.
Ms Cole said that later her mother did not like the way Mr Aitken was treating the situation but also commented that Mr Aitken was "really nice".
Mr Aitken said that on the day Ms Ravenswood was very appreciative of his efforts to entertain Ms Cole. She hugged him as her daughter was leaving and brought in sweet treats the next day to thank him. This was denied by Ms Ravenswood.
The Commission accepts that Mr Aitken gave Ms Cole an incident report form to complete. I accept that many, but not all, of the entries were made at the prompting of Mr Aitken. The comment "looking at me weird" is, in my view, solely attributable to Ms Cole as it is the type of comment a teenager might make. I also accept that Mr Aitken made the comment that Ms Cole was smarter than her mother in front of other staff and they may have laughed at that. I consider Ms Cole saw the joke in Mr Aitken's comments about the operation of the CBS machine and did not consider the completion of the incident report form as demeaning to her mother. The completion of the incident report form was no more than an attempt by Mr Aitken to distract Ms Cole from her forthcoming flight about which she was apprehensive. The evidence from Ms Cole and Mr Aitken does not support the conclusion that Ms Ravenswood was upset about the incident on the day.
5.Use of expletives
Date: March 2013
Event: Ms Street told the claimant to 'fuck off' in front of passengers. Ms Street used expletive language to belittle the claimant.
The Appellant submits this stressor is not about a specific event and Ms Ravenswood gave evidence of Ms Street swearing at her on multiple occasions. These were that Ms Street called Ms Ravenswood an "effing liar" and would tell her to "fuck off" when she had made mistakes. Ms Ravenswood said this occurred in public and was very degrading.
The event where Ms Street is alleged to have called Ms Ravenswood an "effing liar" is the subject of stressor 8 and is dealt with under that heading. Otherwise the stressor is very general, although the amended Statement of Stressors nominates the period as March 2013.
Ms Street denied swearing at Ms Ravenswood or at staff in front of passengers.
Mr Aitken, Mr Donaldson and Mr Perrin deny hearing Ms Street swear at Ms Ravenswood in public. Although Ms Renier gave evidence about Ms Street's manner of speaking she did not say Ms Street swore at Ms Ravenswood. Ms Challes gave similar evidence, except for the ETD incident (stressor 8).
The Appellant submits that in light of the evidence that Ms Street was rough and unprofessional, it is likely that Ms Street also swore at Ms Ravenswood. There is no evidence to support the allegation that Ms Street swore at Ms Ravenswood in front of passengers or that she used foul language to belittle Ms Ravenswood.
6. Mr Donaldson parking outside Ms Ravenswood's house
Date: 7 April 2013
Event: On 6 and 7 April 2013 Patricia Renier stayed with the claimant at her home for two days. On the morning of the second day, being Sunday 7 April 2013, the claimant saw Andrew Donaldson's car parked two houses away from her house in the cul-de-sac where the claimant resided. When the claimant was on her front verandah, Mr Donaldson performed a u-turn and drove away.
The claimant rang Mr Donaldson and asked for an explanation as to why he was outside her home. Mr Donaldson told the claimant that he had intended to come in for a coffee but changed his mind. Ms Ravenswood asked him why given he had never come to her house for a coffee before that. He had no answer.
The next day Mr Donaldson and the claimant worked together. Mr Donaldson told the claimant that he was at her house because Mr Aitken had told him to go there "to make sure whether Trish was there or not."
The stressor is not really concerned about that Mr Donaldson parking outside Ms Ravenswood's house. Mr Donaldson admitted that he had done so. The issue is whether Mr Donaldson told Ms Ravenswood that he was parked outside her house at the request of Mr Aitken to see whether Ms Renier was there.
Ms Reiner's employment was terminated and her last day at work was 12 April 2013. She stayed with Ms Ravenswood on the weekend of 6 and 7 April 2013.
Mr Donaldson drove to Ms Ravenswood's house because he believed he had arranged to go to breakfast with her. They had enjoyed breakfast together before. Mr Donaldson was unaware at the time that Ms Renier was staying with Ms Ravenswood. When he saw Ms Renier's car in the driveway he felt uncomfortable about going in. He denied being sent there by anyone for any reason, specifically to spy on Ms Ravenswood. He also denied telling Ms Ravenswood that Mr Aitken had sent him to see whether Ms Renier was there.
Mr Aitken said he was surprised when he learnt that Ms Renier was staying with Ms Ravenswood as Ms Renier had never liked Ms Ravenswood. However, he "could not care less" where Ms Renier was living. Further, he denied sending Mr Donaldson to see whether Ms Renier was staying there.
The Appellant submits that it would be strange for Ms Ravenswood to make up the story. Given Ms Renier was disliked and gotten "rid of at their earliest opportunity … it made sense" that Mr Aitken would want to be aware of Ms Renier's movements. The Commission accepts that Ms Renier was not popular with everyone. Further, the evidence is that Ms Renier's employment was terminated. However, the submission that Mr Aitken would want to know her movements cannot be reasonably inferred from the evidence.
It is also submitted that even had Mr Aitken not sent him, then Mr Donaldson made the story up to cover his strange behaviour in being caught outside a colleague's house early one morning. The effect of this submission is that this stressor becomes one that is not work related.
7.Texts - hospital admission
Date: 10 May 2013 to 15 May 2013
Event: On 10 May 2013, the claimant was admitted to hospital due to a cyst that had formed on her face. It was disfiguring. The claimant informed Ms Street at 4.21 am that day she was going to hospital. When the claimant then learned from her GP she would be admitted to hospital, she informed Mr Aitken she would not be at work. The claimant then received 5 text messages from Mr Aitken and 13 from Ms Street all trying to find out when she would be fit for work.
On 11 May 2013, Ms Street again texted the claimant eight times regarding her health; the claimant was clearly receiving medical treatment and provided a medical certificate on 13 May 2013 to Mr Aitken in person.
From 13 to 15 May, the texts from Ms Street continued. At this point Toll had a copy of the claimant's medical certificate certifying her unfit for work until 17 May 2013. Management's behaviour was unreasonable. The claimant was being pestered whilst on sick leave.
The stressor sets out some of the circumstances around these events but does not provide the complete picture. To understand the stressor it is necessary to provide some background and context.
Ms Ravenswood said the texts with Mr Aitken were preceded by a telephone call. When she was unable to contact him she texted Ms Street. I shall return to the text conversations with Ms Street shortly.
In relation to the texts involving Mr Aitken, the evidence shows that four text messages were exchanged on 10 May 2013, two from each of Mr Aitken and Ms Ravenswood. The first of these by Mr Aitken was in response to a text from Ms Ravenswood who had advised that she had to stay in hospital. The Commission accepts the Regulator's submissions that his texts were sympathetic and supportive. In fact, Mr Aitken's second text on 10 May 2013 responded to Ms Ravenswood's concern about not being available for work and Mr Aitken reassuring her about this. He did not make any enquiry about when she would be fit for work.
On 11 May 2013 Mr Aitken initiated a text to Ms Ravenswood saying "Hope you are feeling better Kathy". Ms Ravenswood responded. Again, none of these texts from Mr Aitken asked about Ms Ravenswood's return to work.
Mr Aitken initiated a text conversation on 13 May 2013, asking for the latest information. Ms Ravenswood responded firstly to advise that she was checking with the doctor and then that the doctor would not change the medical certificate. Mr Aitken advised "no worries at all" and continues to mention work that would be available when she was fit to return.
Further text messages are exchanged on 15 and 17 May 2013 about Ms Ravenswood's return to work. However, Mr Aitken is enquiring about her capacity to be rostered on the weekend if she was fit to work.
The text exchanges between Ms Ravenswood and Ms Street require more detailed consideration.
The first set of texts between Ms Street and Ms Ravenswood commenced in the morning of 10 May 2013 with Ms Ravenswood informing Ms Street that her face was sore or swollen. Ms Street's response was, "hope it gets better". Ms Ravenswood then continued the conversation indicating that she needs medical or dental treatment. Ms Street provided some advice and Ms Ravenswood responded. After that Ms Street asked how Ms Ravenswood wanted the day to be paid for - sick leave or time in lieu. Ms Street reminded Ms Ravenswood that she will need a medical certificate if she was to be off work again the following day. The conversation continued with a few more texts of no real substance.
The conversation resumes later that day when Ms Ravenswood informed Ms Street that she has been admitted to hospital. Ms Street offered to help Ms Ravenswood out, for example, by feeding the dog. Ms Ravenswood asked Ms Street to apologise to the staff for any inconvenience. A few more incidental texts are exchanged.
The next string occurs at 6.40 pm with Ms Street enquiring about Ms Ravenswood's health and whether she would be at work the next day. Later, Ms Street asked about the cause of the condition.
The text exchange starts again at 10.22 am on 11 May 2013 with a photograph sent by Ms Ravenswood to Ms Street. Ms Ravenswood said Ms Street asked her to send a photograph. Thereafter, "they" rang and texted her saying that she needed to come back to work.
Ms Street said that Ms Ravenswood had offered to send a photograph. After receiving the photograph, Ms Street texted expressing her concern and advising Ms Ravenswood to take as much time off work as required.
Ms Ravenswood sent another photograph to Ms Street at 10.48 am. Ms Street queried when they were taken. There are no further texts until 6.19 pm that night when Ms Street texted suggesting Ms Ravenswood query the doctors as to whether she has Bells Palsy and sends her web links for information about that condition. Ms Street followed that up with a question asking Ms Ravenswood how she was. I accept that Ms Ravenswood seemed to want to end the conversation after her two replies to that enquiry but then when Ms Street asked whether she was back in hospital, Ms Ravenswood responded and Ms Street asked another question.
Further text exchanges occur on 12 May 2013 but these are not specifically referenced in the stressor.
Ms Street initiated another conversation at 6.49 am on 13 May 2013 by asking Ms Ravenswood how she was. After Ms Ravenswood's response, Ms Street asked whether she is likely to be at work the following day. Subsequently, she advised that a particular FIFO worker was enquiring after her.
Both Ms Street and Ms Ravenswood accept that telephone calls occurred in between the texts. A record showing the frequency or duration of the calls was not tendered.
The Appellant submits that "there were occasions when Ms Ravenswood was receiving multiple texts from Ms Street and Mr Aitken covering the same questions." The evidence does not support there being multiple texts, although there may have been some small overlap.
It is then submitted that both Ms Street and Mr Aitken had shown to Ms Ravenswood that they were not to be trusted. That submission cannot be accepted with respect to Mr Aitken when the evidence shows that Ms Ravenswood initiated the texts on 10 May 2013. His enquiry on 11 May 2013 demonstrated his concern for her well‑being.
The stressor states that Ms Ravenswood was being pestered while on sick leave. Ms Ravenswood said she felt pressured to respond to certain of Ms Street's texts as she did not want to get into trouble. Most of the text messages on the part of Ms Street on 10 May 2013 are supportive. Ms Street's query of Ms Ravenswood's availability for work on 11 May 2013 was not intrusive as she had some responsibility for rostering at the time.
I accept that on 11 and 13 May 2013 Ms Street may have prolonged the text conversation unnecessarily. However, Ms Ravenswood had done the same on 10 May 2013. I also accept that the time of the first text on 13 May 2013 was inappropriate given that Ms Ravenswood was unwell. Ms Street sent it then because they were usually ready for work at that time.
I also accept that Ms Street may have been too intrusive towards the end of her texts on all three dates. Her questions about the cause of the condition and the type of test Ms Ravenswood was to undergo are examples. However, the interactions need to be seen in the context of their relationship at the time. By the time these events occurred, Ms Street had been appointed as a Security Supervisor. An issue arose over the state of the relationship between Ms Street and Ms Ravenswood at this time.
It was common ground that they were friends until Ms Street was appointed as Supervisor. The relationship then cooled. In my view, the relationship was one of more than simply work colleagues. I do not go so far as to say they were friends at this time but the relationship was certainly not confined to being purely professional. The evidence of Ms Street is that they texted on personal or social matters. Also, Ms Street was the person who Ms Ravenswood contacted after being taken to the watch-house by police for drink driving when Mr Donaldson was not available. (Ms Ravenswood belatedly said in her evidence she would have contacted Ms Challes but knew she was out. I do not accept that evidence.) Ms Ravenswood thought she could trust Ms Street to keep the matter quiet because she was a supervisor. I appreciate that Ms Ravenswood did not have many friends outside of work but if the relationship was strictly professional as Ms Ravenswood described then I doubt she would have contacted Ms Street one week later when the drink driving issue arose.
The Commission accepts that there is some duplication of texts between Mr Aitken and Ms Street. This reinforces my view that the relationship between Ms Street and Ms Ravenswood involved a personal element. The Commission accepts that multiple texts were sent by Ms Street over the period 10, 11 and 13 May 2013. In my view, a number of the texts were sent by Ms Street not in her supervisory capacity but in recognition of their personal relationship. However, it is accepted, that where there was duplication about her return to work, this may have been stressful.
The Commission does not accept this stressor has been established with respect to Mr Aitken.
8.The explosive trace device incident
Date: 13 June 2013
Event: On 13 June 2013, the claimant had finished swabbing a gentleman for Explosive Traceable Devices and had the swab sample on the wand. At this time, Ms Street had seen passengers pass through security check and yelled to the claimant 'why are you letting people go through without ETDing them'. The claimant explained the sample was still on her wand. Ms Street got angry and yelled at the claimant calling her a liar in front of passengers and saying she did not see her ETD the passenger. The yelling and accusations were completely unreasonable this is a further example of the bullying and humiliating by Ms Street in front of the claimant's peers.
The Commission accepts that on this occasion Ms Street yelled at Ms Ravenswood. Ms Challes was near to where the incident took place. Both Ms Ravenswood and Ms Street were behind her. She heard Ms Street yell in front of passengers, "why did you let him go past?" When Ms Ravenswood replied that the test was "random", Ms Street said "no, it's random and continuous". Ms Ravenswood then said "whatever". Ms Challes did not say that Ms Street called Ms Ravenswood a liar or an "effing liar". Under cross-examination, Ms Challes agreed that the incident was a breach of protocol with serious repercussions.
There is a dispute between Ms Ravenswood and Ms Street about whether Ms Ravenswood had a sample on her wand at the time. Ms Ravenswood contends she told Ms Street of the sample. Neither Ms Street nor Ms Challes heard Ms Ravenswood say this.
Given that there is a dispute about the exchange between Ms Ravenswood and Ms Street, I intend to rely on the evidence of Ms Challes who was called by the Appellant. Her version of events does not support that of Ms Ravenswood, except insofar as the complaint of Ms Street's yelling is concerned.
The Appellant contends that this incident is indicative of the manner in which Ms Street spoke to Ms Ravenswood. However, that is not the stressor. The stressor is a particular event. The Commission accepts Ms Street yelled at Ms Ravenswood on 13 June 2013 but not that she called Ms Ravenswood a "liar" or swore at her.
9. Ms Street attending Ms Ravenswood's residence
Date: 17 June 2013
Event: Ms Street attends the premises where the claimant resides.
The Commission accepts this incident occurred.
10. Ms Street's yelling at Ms Ravenswood
Date: During the course of employment commencing on or around 25 January 2013.
Event: The claimant's Supervisor, Ms Street, would yell at the claimant in an aggressive tone and loudly to remind the claimant about checking water bottles, jackets and lighters. Ms Street would yell at the claimant about these issues in front of passengers. There was no need for Ms Street to yell at the claimant.
Ms Street's actions were demeaning, belittling and humiliating. The claimant became anxious to go to work because she would constantly be yelled at by Ms Street (as above). The security check area was only small when Ms Street would yell at the claimant. Ms Street was using her position as the claimant's Supervisor to intimidate her by being aggressive and loud.
The Commission accepts the Regulator's submission that the stressor concerns Ms Street yelling at Ms Ravenswood aggressively and loudly in front of passengers about certain items being in carry-on baggage. The stressor is not the general way Ms Street spoke to her.
The incidents identified in the Statement of Stressors are checking water bottles, jackets and lighters. Water bottles and lighters were required to be removed from passengers' carry-on luggage before passing through the X-ray machine.
Ms Ravenswood said that Ms Street "picked" on her with the "yelling" and "the abusing", "trying to make out that I didn't know my job". Ms Street would be some distance from her, at one end of the x-ray machine and she would be at the other. Ms Street would say, "Kathy, water bottle" or "take the lighter out". Ms Ravenswood denied Ms Street made these statements in an authoritative voice and repeated that Ms Street yelled at her.
Mr Perrin confirmed that Ms Street would make loud and aggressive public statements to Ms Ravenswood in front of passengers about not putting items through the x-ray machine.
Ms Challes only heard Ms Street yell once at Ms Ravenswood and this is the ETD stressor considered earlier.
Ms Street said that if operations were running smoothly she would speak in a normal tone. If there was an issue she would put authority into her voice but would direct this personally and would not do it across the floor. Ms Street denied she yelled at Ms Ravenswood, or indeed, at any of the staff.
Mr Aitken said that when Ms Street was first appointed as supervisor, it took her some time to "find her voice", i.e., how to communicate courteously but with authority especially with the FIFO workers. He acknowledged that some security screeners had commented that Ms Street presented as abrupt and were concerned she may appear rude. He did not consider Ms Street was unprofessional, however, he spoke to Ms Street about communication techniques. At no point did Mr Aitken hear Ms Street yell at Ms Ravenswood.
Various descriptions were given of Ms Street's tone and manner, e.g., authoritative, abrupt, rude, "rough", and unprofessional. In addition, Mr Aitken acknowledged coaching Ms Street in appropriate communication techniques. From this evidence it is clear Ms Street's tone and manner left a lot to be desired. However, the stressor concerns Ms Street yelling at Ms Ravenswood and being aggressive and loud. On balance, I consider that Ms Street was abrupt and loud but did not yell in her dealing with Ms Ravenswood in respect of these items.
11. Mr Aitken's treatment of Ms Ravenswood
Date: During the course of employment commencing on or around 25 January 2013.
Event: Continued belittling and inappropriate behaviour by Mr Aitken towards the claimant.
The Appellant submits that "Mr Aitken's behaviour was detailed by Ms Ravenswood" but does not elaborate on the aspects of his behaviour that constitute this stressor. The Commission accepts the submission of the Regulator that this stressor is vague and imprecise. Further, it is not for the Commission to determine out of the evidence of Ms Ravenswood what she is specifically complaining about in this stressor. Only one particular incident is referenced in the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant. I propose to deal with that incident and one other referred to in the submissions of the Regulator.
Ms Ravenswood said that on one occasion Mr Aitken asked her to get him a pie for lunch and if she did not, he would "eat" her. Ms Ravenswood said that when he was making these remarks, "his eyes were, like, you know, and smirking". Ms Ravenswood interpreted this remark as sexual innuendo.
Ms Renier said that she heard Mr Aitken make the comment which she considered distasteful.
Mr Aitken denied asking Ms Ravenswood to get his lunch. Vans came to the airport and staff would ask him if he wanted anything but he rarely ate lunch. On those occasions where he wanted something to eat and staff offered to get him something but the van did not have it then he would say not to get him anything.
Given those circumstances I not satisfied that Mr Aitken made the remarks.
[100]The other issue mentioned by the Regulator concerns Ms Ravenswood accidentally putting her roster through the wash. Ms Ravenswood texted Mr Aitken to tell him this and asked for her starting time the next day. Mr Aitken texted her with the time and commented, "it's good to see you keep your roster clean though". Ms Ravenswood replied "ha ha. Everything of mine is clean thank you. LOL Musky humbuck". The last two words are Pidgin which both Ms Ravenswood and Mr Aitken spoke. Mr Aitken said he did not know the meaning of these words. According to Ms Ravenswood they translate to "don't be a shithead" and she replied with this because Mr Aitken "normally jokes really dirty with me" and she "thought, you know, what was he referring to", hence her response.
[101]Mr Aitken said he was being humorous and not intending sexual innuendo. In this case it was a feeble attempt at humour and it was Ms Ravenswood who responded with sexual innuendo.
The Medical Evidence
[102]Dr De Leacy prepared a report dated 8 July 2014 at the request of Ms Ravenswood's Solicitors.
[103]Dr De Leacy took a history from Ms Ravenswood and noted in his report that she "presented as a highly distressed woman who told a very confusing history about difficulties in the workplace". He was however, able "to develop a sense of what had been bothering her". The history recorded in his report omits a number of events Ms Ravenswood referred to in her evidence.
In both his report and oral evidence Dr De Leacy said Ms Ravenswood was told on a number of occasions that she should be looking for other jobs, specifically on the website SEEK. She felt very insecure from that point. However, her insecurity commenced with the overstaffing and being told that numbers had to be reduced. The main issue raised by Ms Ravenswood was her belief she would be targeted.
[105]Ms Ravenswood was distressed by the DUI charge but this event occurred after she was already very stressed by a number of issues, all relating to work. In his opinion even though she went to the doctor for stress during her court case, the stress commenced with the work related issues and the court case was an additional piece of stress. Had the court case happened in isolation, i.e. without the work issues, then it was unlikely she would have need to visit the doctor. He reaffirmed that her problems started with her job insecurity.
[106]Under cross-examination Dr De Leacy agreed with the proposition that the reduction in staff issue was stressful in itself, irrespective of whether she was told to look up SEEK. Dr De Leacy agreed that her stress would have reduced had she not been prevented from having the necessary time off work and had not been harassed about returning to work.
[107]There is no mention in Dr De Leacy's report about the manner in which Ms Ravenswood was spoken to at work or being sworn at. He believed his report implied an atmosphere of bullying. I note that in his report he said that she would have been able to manage her other stressors if she had job security and did not feel bullied.
[108]It is clear that Dr De Leacy believes the injury has its origins in the job insecurity facing staff early in the commencement of their contracts at Roma. While the court case was stressful, it was additional stress. Her stress was mounting and the court case was "the final straw".
[109]The medical records, which were tendered by consent without the practitioners being called, disclose that she did not seek any treatment until 19 June 2013, the second day of the court case. That record states, "Lots of stressors. Moved to Roma to work - 14 hrs per day/6 days wk, 13 yr old daughter. Court issues etc."
[110]The following day Ms Ravenswood went to her General Practitioner, received a medical certificate and did not return to work thereafter. That record states:
"very distressed, has been in Roma 6 months working as a security officer at the airport, suffers anxiety and stress form (sic) being bullied at work, was promised 37 hrs/week but has to work 60 hrs/week, finds it very difficult to look after her 13 year old daughter."
[111]The contemporaneous medical records are instructive. These disclose the primary concern of Ms Ravenswood at the time was not job insecurity but the number of hours of work and it is reasonable to infer that the excessive hours were impacting on her ability to care for her daughter as she would like. I note that bullying is mentioned in the General Practitioner's record.
[112]The difficulty presented by the medical evidence is that the contemporaneous notes record some different stressors to those identified by Dr De Leacy. I have decided to rely on the evidence of Dr De Leacy in preference to the medical records as he was called as a witness and gave evidence about his opinion of Ms Ravenswood's condition. However, his evidence can only be accepted to the extent the factual foundation can be established.
[113]Dr De Leacy noted that another psychiatrist, Dr Siddle, had provided a comprehensive report and that contained a reasonably accurate portrayal of the stressors. Dr De Leacy made some comment on whether certain events included in Dr Siddle's report had been mentioned to him by Ms Ravenswood. However, Dr Siddle's report is not in evidence. I must rely on the evidence before me. It is clear that Dr De Leacy was provided with an incomplete history. Nonetheless, when a more complete picture of the workplace issues was presented to Dr De Leacy in cross‑examination, his opinion clearly was that the origin of the injury was job insecurity.
[114]For that reason I am satisfied that the psychological injury arose out of or in the course of Ms Ravenswood's employment. I am also satisfied that employment was a significant contributing factor to the injury. However, I am not necessarily satisfied that the injury can be attributed to all of the claimed stressors.
[115]In light of the finding that the injury is work related, it is now necessary to consider whether the injury is not compensable because it arose out of or in the course of reasonable management action taken in a reasonable way.
Consideration and Findings - Management Action
[116]In view of my earlier findings it is unnecessary to consider Stressors 2, 3, 5 and 11 despite concerning management action. Stressor 6 was also not established and does not concern management action.
[117]Stressor 1 concerns job insecurity and Mr Aitken's reference to SEEK. The Appellant contends this stressor cannot be considered to be management action because it was behaviour that demeaned Ms Ravenswood and was not related to managing her. The Commission understands that the demeaning behaviour is a reference to the behaviour concerning SEEK. The submission that the stressor does not constitute management action is rejected because it is Mr Aitken's conduct in his capacity as a manager that is being complained of. This view is supported by the Statement of Stressors which identifies the power imbalance between Mr Aitken and Ms Ravenswood by stating, "Mr Aitken was in a position to terminate the claimant's employment which intimidated her and put her under tremendous pressure to perform."
[118]The Appellant also submits that Ms Ravenswood's concern was not about the overstaffing but about being told constantly that one person would have to go and she should check out SEEK. However, the evidence of Dr De Leacy is that Ms Ravenswood was stressed about the job insecurity and this stress existed irrespective of whether she was told to look up SEEK. In my view, the stress about the job insecurity cannot be ignored in considering management action and this stressor in particular. The SEEK issue followed the destabilising effect of news about the staff reductions.
[119]The evidence establishes that management considered Roma Airport to be overstaffed and that reductions were to be made. Mr Aitken announced this to staff collectively and suggested options for consideration. It is accepted that such news would be unwelcome to Ms Ravenswood, who, along with many others had uprooted themselves and their families to take up the position in Roma. It would be especially unsettling to Ms Ravenswood when she had taken a one year lease on a house. However, staff were in a precarious position at the time as they were serving a probationary period.
[120]It is not for the Commission to determine whether the staff reductions were reasonable as this was not the stressor. The stressor does refer to Mr Aitken's advice to staff that a reduction was to occur. I consider his manner of approach to this difficult task was reasonable management action taken in a reasonable way because he informed all staff of the situation that had arisen and invited them to consider options.
[121]The evidence does not identify the date when the issue of staff reductions was raised or when Mr Aitken's references to SEEK commenced only that the behaviour arose in the context of staff reductions. Ms Renier's employment was terminated with effect from 12 April 2013. Ms Ravenswood was informed on 25 April 2013 that she had successfully completed her probationary period. Comments made during this period then were unreasonable. However, I have been unable to be satisfied on the evidence that the comments were made regularly. I accept however that any comment to check out SEEK would have added to Ms Ravenswood's uncertainty about job security and cannot be described as reasonable management action taken unreasonably. However, any concern should have dissipated once the staff reduction was announced and/or when Ms Ravenswood was made a permanent employee.
[122]Further, the stressor is particularly concerned about the regularity of the comments. I have previously commented that the evidence did not establish this.
[123]Stressor 4 concerns the completion of the Incident Report. The Appellant contends this stressor cannot be considered to be management action because Mr Aitken was amusing Ms Cole while she waited for her flight. The Commission rejects this submission. Mr Aitken was the Manager of the airport and taking time out from his role to calm an employee's daughter. He would not have been able to permit Ms Cole to use the CBS machine or sit where she did if he was not the manager.
[124]I accept that Mr Aitken initiated and encouraged Ms Cole to complete the incident report. Further, he prompted some of the answers Ms Cole wrote down.
[125]I do not accept that Ms Ravenswood was demeaned or belittled in front of her child on the day in question. The evidence shows that on the day she was happy that her daughter was relaxed. Mr Aitken's actions were reasonable and were done with the sole objective of calming Ms Cole. Any distress on the part of Ms Ravenswood developed retrospectively.
[126]Stressor 7 concerns the pestering of Ms Ravenswood with texts while she was ill. The Appellant contends this stressor may be considered to be management action but most of it was unreasonable having regard to the volume and duplication of the texts. Clearly the texts from Mr Aitken were made in the context of his being the Manager. There is nothing unreasonable about his texts.
[127]The texts from Ms Street were at times management action e.g. enquiring whether she would be at work and others were exchanges between people who had both a professional and personal relationship. I accept that at times some of Ms Street's texts were intrusive but any such texts were not as a consequence of an employment relationship. To the extent they involved a management role they were not unreasonable as Ms Street was a supervisor who had some involvement in staff rostering.
[128]Stressor 8 concerns Ms Street yelling at Ms Ravenswood while on the ETD post. The Appellant contends this stressor can be considered to be unreasonable management action taken unreasonably. It is insufficient to say management action was a blemish.
[129]I accept that the behaviour of yelling was inappropriate but is to be considered in the context of a potentially serious breach of protocol. The Commission accepts the Regulator's submission that the yelling by Ms Street on this occasion is a blemish.
[130]Stressor 9 concerns Ms Street going to Ms Ravenswood's house when she failed to attend for work. The Commission has accepted this event occurred. The Appellant contends this stressor may constitute unreasonable management action taken unreasonably. There was no justification for a manager to go to a worker's house even when a worker does not come to work. It was contended Ms Street was just being "pushy". Despite the submissions on behalf of the Appellant that it does not matter what Ms Street said or the reason she went there, it is relevant to put the event in context.
[131]Ms Ravenswood had an appointment with her Solicitors in connection with police charges. She believed she had told Ms Street that she would not be going to work in the morning but attending on her Solicitors first.
[132]Both Mr Aitken and Ms Street said they understood Ms Ravenswood was to attend work first and then go to the Solicitors' appointment. When Ms Ravenswood did not attend for work Mr Aitken sent her a text asking whether she was "alright". Although Ms Street was not at work that morning, Mr Aitken contacted her and queried whether she knew what was happening with Ms Ravenswood. He knew Ms Ravenswood was distressed about the charges. Ms Street was out shopping but said she would go to Ms Ravenswood's house and check on her as she too was aware that Ms Ravenswood was getting nervous about her court date. Before she went Ms Street texted and telephoned Ms Ravenswood. She wanted to see whether Ms Ravenswood wanted a lift to work as she had lost her licence.
[133]When Ms Street arrived, Ms Ravenswood was not at home. Ms Street spoke to Ms Cole who was given permission to stay at home that day because it was her birthday. Ms Street's questions concerned the whereabouts of Ms Ravenswood and the reason Ms Cole was at home on a school day. Ms Cole contacted her mother after Ms Street had left. In her evidence Ms Ravenswood said Ms Cole was upset by the visit.
[134]The stressor is not about the manner and tone of Ms Street's enquiries of Ms Cole. It is entirely about Ms Street attending Ms Ravenswood's home.
[135]The Regulator submits that the actions of Ms Street were reasonable when considered in the context that most of the workers were recruited from outside Roma and did not know other people; where Ms Street knew that Ms Ravenswood was stressed by her impending court date and where Ms Street had been the person Ms Ravenswood had contacted when she had been taken to the watch-house.
[136]The Commission is also aware, that in addition to the factors identified by the Regulator, that Ms Ravenswood was unable to drive at the time. In my view the actions by Ms Street were perhaps unnecessary given that she had already telephoned and texted. However, that behaviour falls short of unreasonable management action taken in an unreasonable way.
[137]Stressor 10 concerns Ms Street yelling at Ms Ravenswood and being loud and aggressive. The only element remaining from my earlier finding is that Ms Street was loud. Clearly, that behaviour is inappropriate for any supervisor especially in front of the public. It might be unreasonable but I am not satisfied that it was taken in an unreasonable way given the circumstances of security screening.
Conclusion
[138]It is well established that appeals against decisions of the Regulator are conducted without pleadings. In cases where a psychological/psychiatric injury is claimed the Appellant is required by Directions Order to file a Statement of Stressors. This Statement establishes the issues that an Appellant identifies as causing or contributing to their injury. The stressors are the issues to which the Regulator must respond in defence of the review decision. The stressors thus establish the parameters of the case to be conducted in the Commission and form the basis of the issues to be decided by the Commission. It is thus important for the Appellant to ensure that the Statement of Stressors is crafted appropriately, outlining the relevant events or transactions on which reliance is placed.
[139]Some degree of latitude might be provided in a hearing for the purpose of providing evidence of context and background, otherwise the evidence is to be directed towards the stressors. In this case a range of issues emerged from the Appellant's evidence that were not relevant to the identified stressors and to which the Regulator did not specifically respond with its own evidence. Consequently, the Commission has not considered that evidence as being contributory to the development of the psychological injury. Had the Appellant wanted those additional matters considered as contributory to the injury then it would have been necessary to seek to (further) amend the Statement of Stressors in advance of the hearing. Accordingly, the Commission has confined its deliberations to the evidence about the nominated stressors.
[140]The medical evidence establishes that Ms Ravenswood's injury arose out of her fears about job security. The raising of the issue, as destabilising as it was, was reasonable management action taken reasonably. The references to SEEK in that period was not reasonable management action given they were made in the context of staff reductions. However, the impact of any references to SEEK should have dissipated by 25 April 2013 at the latest when Ms Ravenswood was made a permanent employee and the staff reduction had occurred.
[141]Ms Ravenswood decompensated after her trial for two offences which were not work related. I note Dr De Leacy's evidence that Ms Ravenswood's coping mechanisms had been substantially reduced by the time of the trial. However, the events captured by the stressors between that time and the date of decompensation have been found not to have been established on the evidence, to have been reasonable management taken reasonably, to have been blemishes or not work related.
[142]As the injury arose out of reasonable management action taken in a reasonable way it is not a compensable injury.
[143]The appeal is dismissed. The decision of the Regulator is confirmed.
[144]The Appellant is to pay the costs of and incidental to the appeal.
0
0
0