Legal Research
Cases
Rock Logistics Pty Ltd v Chelin

Rock Logistics Pty Ltd v Chelin

Case [2024] NSWPICPD 39 27 June 2024

Type to search within this case.

DETERMINATION OF APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE COMMISSION CONSTITUTED BY A MEMBER
CITATION:	Rock Logistics Pty Ltd v Chelin [2024] NSWPICPD 39
APPELLANT:	Rock Logistics Pty Ltd
RESPONDENT:	Noel Chelin
INSURER:	Employers Mutual NSW Limited
FILE NUMBER:	A1-W859/23
PRESIDENTIAL MEMBER:	Deputy President Elizabeth Wood
DATE OF APPEAL DECISION:	27 June 2024
ORDERS MADE ON APPEAL:	1. The Member’s Certificate of Determination dated 25 May 2023 is confirmed.
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION – principles applicable to disturbing findings of fact on appeal – Whiteley Muir & Zwanenberg Ltd v Kerr (1966) 39 ALJR 505; Northern NSW Local Health Network v Heggie [2013] NSWCA 255 (Heggie) applied – Section 11A(1) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 – whether the respondent’s psychological injury was wholly or predominantly caused by the appellant’s actions with respect to discipline or the provision of employment benefits – Heggie; Department of Education and Training v Sinclair [2005] NSWCA 402 applied
HEARING:	On the papers
REPRESENTATION:	Appellant:
Mr J Gaitanis, counsel Bartier Perry Lawyers
Respondent:
Ms L Goodman, counsel Kells The Lawyers
DECISION UNDER APPEAL:	Chelin v Rock Logistics Pty Ltd [2023] NSWPIC 241
MEMBER:	Ms K Garner
DATE OF MEMBER’S DECISION:	25 May 2023

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

Mr Noel Chelin (the respondent) was employed by Rock Logistics Pty Ltd (the appellant) as a “shunt driver”. The work involved moving trucks and trailers to and from sheds and loading bays in preparation for the delivery of goods on a site operated by another organisation, Ausreo Pty Limited (Ausreo). He commenced that work in or about September or October 2019.
The respondent alleged that on 27 and 28 August 2021 he had conversations with the Logistics Manager (the respondent’s direct manager), Mr John Smith, and the appellant’s Business Manager, Mr Jason Sams, in relation to his intentions in respect of receiving a COVID-19 vaccination. The respondent asserted that in those conversations, he felt that his employment was being threatened, which caused him psychological injury.
The respondent made a claim for weekly payments of compensation and treatment expenses. The appellant denied liability, asserting that:
(a)    the injury did not arise out of or in the course of the respondent’s employment;
(b)    the respondent’s employment was not the main contributing factor or substantial contributing factor to the injury;
(c) the injury was not a psychological injury within the meaning of s 11A(3) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act);
(d)    the injury was wholly or predominantly caused by reasonable action taken or proposed to be taken in respect of discipline, dismissal, transfer or the provision of employment benefits, and
(e)    the respondent was not incapacitated for work and any treatment was not reasonably necessary as a result of the injury.
The respondent commenced proceedings in the Personal Injury Commission (the Commission) and the dispute proceeded to arbitration. In respect of the categories of actions referred to in [3(d)] above, the appellant relied only on the categories of “discipline” and the “provision of employment benefits.” 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 Rock Logistics Pty Ltd v Chelin

Details

AGLC: Rock Logistics Pty Ltd v Chelin [2024] NSWPICPD 39
Case: [2024] NSWPICPD 39
Decision Date: 27 June 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Rock Logistics Pty Ltd, the appellant, sought to appeal a decision made by the Workers Compensation Commission of New South Wales, which found that it was liable for the psychological injury suffered by the respondent, Chelin. Chelin alleged that the appellant's actions in relation to disciplinary measures and the provision of employment benefits were the primary causes of his psychological injury. The appeal was heard by the New South Wales Court of Appeal.

The court had to determine whether the Commission's findings of fact were correct, particularly regarding the causation of Chelin's psychological injury. The relevant legal issue was whether the appellant's conduct with respect to discipline or the provision of employment benefits was the predominant cause of the respondent's injury. The court had to apply the principles established in previous cases such as Whiteley Muir & Zwanenberg Ltd v Kerr and Heggie, as well as the statutory provisions of the Workers Compensation Act 1987.

The court found that the Commission's findings of fact were not disturbed, as it was not shown that the findings were unreasonable or that there was no evidence to support them. The court relied on the principles established in Heggie and Department of Education and Training v Sinclair, which emphasised that the appellant must prove that the psychological injury was wholly or predominantly caused by its actions. In this case, the court held that the Commission had correctly found that the appellant's actions were not the predominant cause of Chelin's psychological injury.

As a result, the appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the Workers Compensation Commission of New South Wales was upheld. The appellant, Rock Logistics Pty Ltd, was not successful in its appeal, and the liability for Chelin's psychological injury remained with the appellant.

Orders