Reid v Workers' Compensation Regulator

Case [2016] QIRC 47

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:        

Reid v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2016] QIRC 047

PARTIES:  

Reid, Louisa Elizabeth
(Appellant)

v

Workers' Compensation Regulator
(Respondent)

CASE NO:

 WC/2014/124

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator

DELIVERED ON:

 22 April 2016

HEARING DATES: 

 12 - 14 May 2015

MEMBER:

Industrial Commissioner Neate

ORDERS:

1.      The appeal is dismissed.

2.      The decision of the Respondent dated 19 March 2014 is confirmed.

3.      The Appellant is to pay the Respondent's costs of and incidental to this appeal to be agreed, or failing agreement, to be the subject of a further application to the Commission.

CATCHWORDS: WORKERS' COMPENSATION - APPEAL AGAINST DECISION - psychological injury - whether injury arose out of, or in the course of employment - whether employment was a significant contributing factor to the injury - whether injury arose out of, or in the course of, reasonable management action taken in a reasonable way - appellant bears onus of proof

CASES:

Alex Sabo v Q-COMP (C/2010/46) - Decision <
Avis v WorkCover Queensland (2000) 165 QGIG 788
Blackwood v Adams [2015] ICQ 001
Bowers v WorkCover Queensland (2002) 170 QGIG 1
Brothers Pty Ltd & Anor (1984) 154 CLR 552
Church v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) [2015] ICQ 031
Commonwealth of Australia v Lyon (1979) 24 ALR 300

Coombes v Q-Comp (2007) 186 QGIG 680

Davis v Blackwood [2014] ICQ 009
Delaney v Q-COMP Review Unit (2005) 178 QGIG 197
Dickinson v The Motor Vehicle Insurance Trust (1987) 163 CLR 500
Graham Douglas Sergeant v Q-COMP (C/2010/52) - Decision v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) [2015] ICQ 027
Hatzimanolis v ANI Corporation Ltd (1992) 173 CLR 473
Kavanagh v The Commonwealth (1960) 103 CLR 547
Lackey v WorkCover Queensland (2000) 165 QGIG 22
Luxton v Q-Comp (2009) 190 QGIG 4
MacArthur v WorkCover Queensland (2001) 167 QGIG 100
Mayo v Q-COMP (2004) 177 QGIG 667
Newberry v Suncorp Metway Insurance Limited [2006] 1 Qd R 519

Newman v Blackwood [2015] ICQ 014

Nilsson v Q-Comp (2008) 189 QGIG 523
Prizeman v Q-COMP (2005) 18 QGIG 481
Qantas Airways Limited v Q-COMP and Blanch (2009) 191 QGIG 115
Q-COMP v Green (2008) 189 QGIG 747
Q-COMP v Foote (2008) 189 QGIG 539
Q-COMP v Glen Rowe (2009) 191 QGIG 67
Q-COMP v Hohn (2008) 187 QGIG 139, 143; Q-COMP v Glen Rowe (2009) 191 QGIG 67
Q-COMP v Queensland Rail, Decision C/2011/26
Re Yu and Comcare [2010] AATA 960
Rossmueller v Q-COMP (C/2009/36) - Decision <
Sheridan v Q-COMP (2009) 191 QGIG 13
State Government Insurance Commission v Stevens
State of Queensland (Queensland Health) v QCOMP and Beverley Coyne (2003) 172 QGIG 1447
Svenson v Q-COMP (2006) 181 QGIG 629
Theiss Pty Ltd v Q-COMP (C/2010/11) - Decision
Versace v Braun (2005) 178 QGIG 315
WorkCover Queensland v Curragh Queensland Mining Pty Ltd (2003) 172 QGIG 6
WorkCover Queensland v Kehl (2002) 170 QGIG 93
APPEARANCES:

Ms L Reid, in person
Mr N. Jarro, counsel directly instructed by the Workers'…

Continue reading Reid v Workers' Compensation Regulator

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Reid v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2016] QIRC 47
Case
[2016] QIRC 47
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission, Louisa Elizabeth Reid ("the Appellant") appealed the Workers' Compensation Regulator's decision ("the Respondent") to reject her application for compensation under the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003. The Appellant claimed to have suffered a psychological injury while employed at SCT Logistics ("SCT", "the company") on 29 August 2013, due to an incident involving her supervisor, Mr Turnbull, which she deemed to be bullying. The central issue before the Commission was whether the psychological injury arose out of, or in the course of, the Appellant's employment with SCT and whether her employment was a significant contributing factor to the injury. The Appellant also sought to argue that her injury arose out of, or in the course of, reasonable management action taken in a reasonable way by her employer.

The Commission considered the evidence presented, including the Appellant's testimony about her relationship with Mr Turnbull, the circumstances leading up to the incident in question, and the Appellant's assertion that her employment was a significant contributing factor to her psychological injury. The Commission found that the Appellant did not bear the onus of proving that the injury arose out of, or in the course of, her employment, but rather, it was for the Respondent to establish that it did not. The Commission concluded that the Appellant's psychological injury did not arise out of, or in the course of, her employment with SCT, nor did it arise out of, or in the course of, reasonable management action taken in a reasonable way. The Commission found that the Appellant's injury was caused by a combination of factors, including her personal relationship with Mr Turnbull and her general work environment, but these factors were not significant enough to be considered as arising out of, or in the course of, her employment.

The appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the Respondent dated 19 March 2014 was confirmed. The Appellant was ordered to pay the Respondent's costs of and incidental to this appeal to be agreed, or failing agreement, to be the subject of a further application to the Commission.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. The decision of the Respondent dated 19 March 2014 is confirmed.

3. The Appellant is to pay the Respondent's costs of and incidental to this appeal to be agreed, or failing agreement, to be the subject of a further application to the Commission.

Background

Background to the litigation

Louisa Elizabeth Reid, previously Louisa Elizabeth Chesswas, ("the Appellant") claims to have suffered a psychological injury while employed at SCT Logistics ("SCT", "the company") on 29 August 2013. She made a claim for compensation to WorkCover Queensland on 1 September 2013. That claim was rejected. On review, in a decision dated 13 March 2014 provided to the Appellant in a letter dated 19 March 2014, the Workers' Compensation Regulator ("the Respondent") confirmed the decision of WorkCover to reject her application for compensation in accordance with s 32(5) of the Workers' Compensation andRehabilitation Act 2003 ("the Act"). The Appellant has appealed to the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission ("the Commission") against that decision.Background The Appellant was employed at SCT in Brisbane between 2006 and 2 September 2013. She commenced as the personal assistant to Kevin Turnbull, the Queensland State Manager of SCT, and worked for three days each week for a year or so. The work involved typing, filing, organising Mr Turnbull's office, looking after his emails and preparing Excel spreadsheets. Mr Turnbull managed and supervised the Appellant. Subsequently she worked for four days each week in that role (with Friday as her day off) and took on additional responsibilities in relation to occupational health and safety, return to work coordinator, fire safety, and audit work for RABQSA. In about January 2013, her role changed to Workplace Health and Safety Compliance Manager. The Appellant undertook work-related training and, in 2010, commenced studying for a graduate diploma of Workplace Health and Safety, which she completed in June 2013. She described the safety of SCT employees as "not only my job; it was my passion." Significantly, the Appellant gave evidence that: In late 2012 the Appellant was experiencing marital difficulties and consulted a clinical psychologist, Michelle Barratt-Conrad-Czaja, for 10 or 11 consultations over a period of approximately six months, apparently into early 2013. In January 2013, the Appellant and her husband separated. She spoke to Mr Turnbull about that separation. In approximately March 2013, Mr Turnbull and the Appellant entered into an intimate personal relationship which continued until October 2013. Their relationship was expressed in the workplace and elsewhere, including at their respective residences, restaurants and the beach. On 1 July 2013, Mr Turnbull wrote to the Appellant advising her that, after a review of her performance in line with that of the organisation, her hourly rate of pay would rise and she would be paid an additional 21 per cent per annum from that date (Exhibit 17). Until then, she had received annual increases consistent with the increases awarded to other SCT employees. A few employees were given a bonus each year, but the Appellant "never got one, even though I had asked and asked and asked." She assumed that the increase was made in recognition of her graduate diploma in Workplace Health and Safety. Mr Turnbull gave evidence that the pay rise was proposed because the Appellant kept going to him and wanting a pay increase, and the case for it was prepared for head office. That proposal was approved. He said that it was not specifically as a consequence of the Appellant obtaining the diploma, nor was it based on the relationship between him and the Appellant.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Evidence: To understand this stressor it is necessary to appreciate the events that preceded, and the reasons for, the meeting on 23 May 2013. Mr Turnbull gave evidence that, approximately two months earlier, the Brisbane office of SCT had prepared a list of people who were to do basic Certificate III training. The target was to keep as much of the workforce as they could to at least Certificate III level, with any other training in relation to high injury-rate types of issues (such as forklift training, heavy lifting, and getting in and out of trucks) they could get along the way. Much of the Certificate III and other training had previously been delivered by the Appellant's former husband. However, the HR department of the SCT head office in Melbourne had directed that training in Certificate IV competencies was to be done. Certificate IV training was middle management training. MEGT (Australia) Ltd ("MEGT"), based in Melbourne, would be coming to sign people up. No one from the Brisbane office could have conducted that training. The decision had been made that Certificate IV training would be done nationally. On Thursday, 23 May 2013, Melanie Watkins from SCT's head office sent an email which advised that training had been arranged involving Mr Smith. The Appellant received the email. She was the organiser of training in Brisbane and was concerned about the involvement of Mr Smith who, she said, "had proven to be a faulty contractor … around four years prior to that," and who they had said they would not use again to provide training. Before Mr Turnbull had seen the email, and without his knowledge or authorisation, the Appellant sent the following email at 8.16 am on 23 May 2013 addressed to Ms Watkins: At 8.16 am, the Appellant forwarded the email to Mr Turnbull with the message, "We need to talk about this asap." The Appellant gave evidence that she sent the message to Mr Turnbull "because I didn't believe that it was - for me, it was - part of my job, so I would CC anything that I had written about my job to my manager." She did not agree that the comments in her email were unnecessary or out of line. According to Mr Turnbull, he and the Appellant had not previously discussed the proposed Certificate IV training or what it was about, but the letter and the Appellant's response "had certainly brought it to the top of the pile." The Appellant also gave evidence that she had "absolutely no information at that stage what this training was about." Mr Turnbull was at a cafe near the SCT premises when he was contacted by telephone by someone from head office (apparently Ms Watkins) asking what the Appellant was "going on about." He then rang the Appellant. He was concerned about why she needed to send a letter to head office without discussing it with him, particularly as he was 55 metres down the road and the matter could have waited five minutes. He said he would not define how he spoke to the Appellant as "yelling." The Appellant recalled receiving a telephone call from Mr Turnbull at the café. She told him that the email said that Mr Smith was going to come to Brisbane to work for them doing training, and that they had had a "Brisbane disruption against" Mr Smith four years earlier and "we got rid of him." So far as the Appellant was aware, the Melbourne head office was taking Mr Smith on without "our agreement." She agreed that Mr Turnbull told her that it was part of her job and the expectation of head office of SCT. The Appellant said that he "yelled" at her. She told him that he could not talk to her like that because everybody at the café would hear what he was saying, and Mr Turnbull and the Appellant were known there. He stated that he was outside the café and had not mentioned the Appellant's name.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.