Salib and Comcare - [2001] AATA 300

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2001] AATA 300

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )

) No V1999/1042

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION          )
           Re      GEORGE SALIB
  Applicant
           And    COMCARE
  Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Mr J. Handley, Senior Member Ms L. Rodopoulos, Member Mr W. McLean, Member

Date9 April 2001
PlaceMelbourne

Decision      The decision under review is set aside and in substitution IT IS DECIDED- i) the employment did materially contribute to the disease of depression and anxiety and ii) the applicant has been incapacitated and is entitled to compensation and iii) the respondent pay the applicant's costs.
  .......………………………………
  Senior Member
CATCHWORDS
Compensation – Applicant previously a bilingual officer with the CES – DSS & CES merged into Centrelink – significant cultural, organisational and workplace changes – applicant became depressed and anxious – whether employment contributed in a material degree – decision set aside.

REASONS FOR DECISION

9 April 2001 Mr J. Handley, Senior Member Ms L. Rodopoulos, Member Mr W. McLean, Member

On 26 November 1998 the respondent decided that the applicant had not suffered a "disease" under the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988. The respondent also decided that the employment of the applicant did not contribute in a material degree to his "condition". Consequently the respondent decided that the applicant's claim for "depression and anxiety" was "disallowed".
In its reviewable decision made on 15 July 1999 the respondent decided that the medical evidence established that the applicant "suffers depression and anxiety which is a condition outside the boundaries of normal mental functioning and behaviour and accordingly a disease for the purposes of the Act". It was further decided that the applicant's employment did not materially contribute to "depression and anxiety". The reconsideration officer then decided to affirm the primary decision made on 26 November 1998.
The applicant applies to review the reviewable decision.
This application arises out of injury alleged to have been sustained by the applicant in his former employment with Centrelink. The injury recorded in the initial claim for compensation was "anxiety and depression (work related)". The hearing of the application extended over three days with many former workmates of the applicant being called to give evidence. Mr Carey represented the applicant and Mr Lenczner represented the respondent. A number of documents were received into evidence, which will be referred to in these reasons.
George Ramsay Salib
Mr Salib is presently 53 years of age. He was born in Egypt and was educated to the equivalent of year 12 standard. He commenced a Fine Arts Degree at a University in Alexandria but it was interrupted when he migrated to Australia in 1969. Initially he obtained employment in the motor industry with Renault, Ford Motor Company and with General Motors. He also worked as a tram conductor and at a white goods factory in Kensington. Mr Salib married in 1974 and a child was born in 1977.
In April 1983 Mr Salib commenced employment with the Commonwealth as a part-time bilingual interpreter/translator with the Commonwealth Employment Service at Moone Ponds. Mr Salib was selected because of his knowledge of Arabic languages. (Mr Salib later obtained a NATI qualification and he is presently at level 3. This qualifies him to interpret and translate).
Initially the employment was for 25 hours per week working out of the Glenroy, Newport, Northcote and Preston offices. The work was as an employment officer interpreting from Arabic into English. It was eventually decided that Mr Salib should qualify as a Case Officer, eventually he conducting his own interviews and becoming a full time employee. This employment was provided after he was trained as an officer and the training extended to procedures, interviewing and listening skills. Eventually Mr Salib also qualified as a permanent public servant at ASO3 level. From the time he became a permanent officer he also became permanently located at the Brunswick office of the CES. He worked out of that office for about 4 years and said he had no difficulty undertaking the work. Mr Salib was paid a LAPA allowance by reason of him being engaged to speak a language other than English in his employment. He was also the Disability Contact Officer, the Harvest Officer, the First Aid Officer, the Social Club Vice President and in charge of stores.
In terms of day to day work Mr Salib said that he frequently spoke Arabic languages. He said this was because Arabic persons had no Social Security system in their native countries and were unfamiliar with the Social Security system in Australia. He said that English speaking persons knew in broad terms of their entitlements but if they did not, they were able to read pamphlets, which were available. Mr Salib said that he was required however to listen to Arabic speaking persons and decide the appropriate benefit and then determine with them whether they qualified. He said it also created a good relationship with clients however applications would take longer to process than applications lodged by English speaking persons.
In about 1996 Mr Salib said he heard "rumours" that the CES was to be "dissolved". Later that year he and others were told that the CES would be merged into another Commonwealth entity which would eventually be known as "Centrelink". He was offered a redundancy package on three occasions but refused because he sought redeployment with the new service delivery agency. He said this was because he wanted to continue to help "people in need of a job or in need of a service". Initially he continued to work in the same Brunswick office but eventually a new office was built in Sydney Road Moreland and he and others were then transferred to that office.
Mr Salib then described the new work environment as being "different". He said-
"At the beginning we didn't know what we were walking into because we were more or less walking around gathering papers and looking at other social security officers operating and answering queries".
He said that there was no formal training at the commencement of the new employment, he was performing CES type duties for "half of the time" and for the remainder of each working day he was "just answering the phone or wandering around".
He said whilst there was no training initially there was a "introduction into the office" which was intended to describe "more or less how we do things".
Mr Salib recalled that approximately 13 persons were transferred from the Brunswick CES office to the Moreland Centrelink office. Initially his supervisor was a Mr Denning but eventually his supervisor became Kerrie Brian.
Approximately 3 weeks after commencing at the Moreland Office Mr Salib was engaged in a training program which involved computer operation, client liaison, information retrieval and interview techniques. He also learnt of the varied range of benefits processed by Centrelink which he said was important because his prior work experience with the CES had been only in relation to employment benefits. There were other training programs, which were conducted either at Moreland or at other premises. The training sessions lasted either for a few hours or for more than one day. Mr Salib said that he was not able to immediately put the skills learnt in the training sessions into practice because he was engaged in "paperwork" and by the time he became involved with clients "we were actually forgetting all about it because it was already vague as it is, it was not quite comprehensive". He said that there was discussion during training programs of terms and practices which were unfamiliar to him however "quite a few things were explained but it sounded to most of us – and, I mean, when I say us I mean the ex CES people, it sounded like gibberish, because it was all in abbreviation, and to us it didn't mean a great deal, we didn't know where its leading to".
Eventually when Mr Salib commenced liasing with clients as a "Customer Service Officer" his duties required interviewing applicant's, feeding information into a computer, obtaining information from clients, for example, details concerning bank accounts, passports, drivers licences and information concerning property and assets. There was no quota on the number of clients he was required to interview each day however interviews were structured hourly throughout the day. Frequently he needed more than one hour to interview a client and obtain all relevant information which in turn caused delay in later interviews or interviews to be rescheduled. The interviews were conducted by him with his supervisor Kerry Brian sitting next to him which he said caused concern because his credibility was questioned by customers and having to refer to her often for additional information or to answer queries caused interviews to extend beyond the hour allocated.
Mr Salib said that he could not recall a single day where he ever completed all of the interviews, which were scheduled for him. He said this was because his interviews took longer than one hour to complete and he was also interrupted during the day by other queries and telephone calls. He said he was subjected to criticism by Kerry Brian and other senior co-workers. Particularly he said, he was subject to ridicule by Ms Brian. He said she adversely referred to his Middle Eastern background and was critical also of his English language skills. On another occasion he was told by a senior officer not to engage in Arabic interpreting services during working hours despite his protest that he was specifically employed as a bilingual client service officer in receipt of a LAPA allowance for that purpose. Mr Salib said these comments were made by a person who was formerly an employee of the Department of Social Security who was Senior to him but because of his prior employment (and having regard to the engagement of former CES staff) "that gives him another chip on his shoulder".
Mr Salib spoke with a number of persons to request additional training or to at least answer the many queries he had concerning his employment. He said when he spoke with former CES officers he was dealt with sympathetically because those persons were "in the same boat". He said when he was working with the CES "I was more or less looking forward to going to work, I was loving my job, I was loving the staff that I am working with, I was loving my duties, hassel free day more or less. Working for Centrelink was more or less the total opposite". He said his relationship with his wife began to deteriorate and she asked him to "leave problems of work at work, don't bring them home because we don't need your problems here". He said he discussed his work problems with a friend, Mr Shahien, who was a social worker (who he continues to see). From early 1998 Mr Salib said he started to take time off work because "I wasn't feeling very good getting up from bed and going to work to be quite frank with you, and it was upsetting me, upsetting the way I am driving, upsetting the way I am operating at home, upsetting my friends of me, it was cramping my life, and somehow you feel tired, you feel no energy to go to work, and the easiest thing is to ring in sickie, have sick time".
In March 1998 a compensation claim was lodged after Mr Salib fell when a chair he was sitting on at a counter collapsed. He suffered head and elbow injuries. The claim was accepted by Comcare and he returned to work on a graduated program. He said he was accused on returning to work that he had faked "the fall" and other co-workers were "avoiding" him.
On return to work he engaged in further training programs and requested additional training. Mr Salib said he sought training on a number of occasions and was either told that he should "give it time" or when he specifically sought an explanation for a query his superior said that she did not have time. Mr Salib said he felt as if he was "being put on hold".
Mr Salib recalled an incident at work involving Ms Brian where he had completed processing paperwork in an application and had passed the file to her for approval of payment of benefits. He said she returned the file to him and said that he had "done it wrong". When he asked her to explain his errors Mr Salib said that she told him to "do it again and you will know why". He returned to his desk, completed the paperwork again and when he returned the file to her he was given the same response. Eventually Ms Brian took the file from him and said that she would complete the paperwork herself. She later returned the file and "she tossed it at my desk and she said it wasn't your fault it was the computers fault. I don't know whether you should take that as an apology".
On another occasion it was alleged that Mr Salib was in a position of conflict of interest. He described an occasion where he had assisted an Arabic speaking person at the Moreland office. He said he was well known within the local Arabic community and was frequently sought out to interpret and translate. On an occasion when he was leaving the office to attend a local coffee shop for his morning tea he explained the contents of a document to an Arabic speaking person. Shortly after this incident and after Mr Salib had entered the coffee shop the same person also entered the shop and both occupied a table to drink coffee. Ms Brian thereafter entered the coffee shop and observed Mr Salib and the other person. When he returned to the office he was told by Ms Brian that he was to be charged with conflict of interest. He said that she did not ever seek any explanation from him but completed a written report, which was lodged with the office manager. He said he was counselled about this incident "but my explanation was falling on deaf ears".
Thereafter Mr Salib was taking more time off work and he was asked to comment on sick leave records, which frequently recorded absence because of influenza. Mr Salib explained-
"I have written wrongly common flu and go into hospital and all that but it was more or less my gut feeling that every time I walk in there it's like going to Pentridge, I'm going to where I don't feel comfortable. I get told off for things that I haven't done, I get criticised for things that I do wrong. I mean I am a human being, I am supposed to make mistakes, I am supposed to learn from my mistakes, but none of this was happening, and I was still making the same mistakes again and again, told again and again and again. I mean, its cramping my stomach, its coming to my life, its not making me happy, I am not comfortable".
Mr Salib was consulting Dr Ellis-Jones his general practitioner who eventually referred him to psychiatrists for treatment. In approximately June of 1998 he ceased work and has not worked subsequently. Medical certificates were provided and a claim for compensation was made but was eventually rejected. He has been prescribed medication by his treating psychiatrists but the effect of the medication is that he feels like a zombie.
He said he suffers short-term memory loss, is lethargic and has lost his appetite. His relationship with this wife has ended after an episode of smashing furniture and "smashing my stereo, my beloved stereo, putting my hands through the door". He said this incident occurred after he returned home one day "full of anger feeling full of frustration's". Upon ceasing work Mr Salib was paid annual leave and long service leave and eventually applied for and received sickness benefit (from Centrelink). He lives with a friend and said that he spends most of his days "sleeping, sitting in the backyard, crying". He said that he "used to be a very confident guy and normally question my own decisions before I do them maybe once. Now I have got no faith in my own decisions, I can't concentrate, got no sharpness, my wits has gone, I used to be very witty, sleeping pattern is different, feeding pattern is different, short fused, very very easy to get agitated".
In cross-examination Mr Salib was unable to recall when he separated from his wife but acknowledged that separation may have occurred before he last worked. He acknowledged that he and his wife did have disagreements from time to time, he did not seek any marriage therapy or counselling when he spoke with Mr Shahien. He said he concentrated on work issues in his discussions with Mr Shahien because he believed that if he could "sort out my work relation problems I think the rest would have been good".
Mr Salib was taken to his application for compensation where at paragraph 24 (when asked to describe the events contributing to the injury or illness) he recorded "I fell off the high chair of the reception area. I went off on Comcare for 5-7 weeks, when I came back on p/t hours I was put back on the counter again, since then I noticed a change in the way I was talked to, the way I was treated, even the workstation was tampered with. At the same period I was approached by a Senior Officer (Alon) to offer me an end to my future with Centrelink on incompetency".
Mr Salib said that he would have thought upon return to work that he would have been given a job answering telephone calls or sending out mail, rather than being put on the counter where he suffered the injuries in the fall. Nonetheless, he said, "I didn't mind, its all in the days work and I got back on the counter and I did my duties". With respect to the change in the way that he was treated and spoken to at work he said he was given "the cold shoulder treatment". He described this as incomplete responses to questions he would ask, or being referred by others to his supervisor. Additionally he said he was criticised for returning to work 2 minutes beyond a permitted toilet break. These were, he said, the main problems he had with the workplace after he returned following the fall, yet there were other instances where he was criticised for arriving at work late in the morning or returning to work late from lunch or leaving the counter unattended. He said complaints of this type did not occur before he fell from the chair but after he returned to work "it was the same ill feeling, it was the same alienation it seemed.
There were other occasions where Mr Salib said that Ms Brian had referred to him as being "thick" or a "doormat" and one such occasion occurred during a training session. He dismissed it as being said to him as a joke yet regarded it as an insult. These comments he said were made in the presence of other workmates and he subsequently complained to a section head and to his union representative.
Additionally Mr Salib said there were occasions where Ms Brian said to him that he was "not intelligent enough to operate" a computer and on another occasion she told him that he should improve his command of the English language. There was also an occasion where he said his workstation was tampered with. Mr Salib also said that Ms Brian referred to him on occasions as being incompetent and unorganised.
Mr Salib was asked to comment upon certain aspects of histories recorded by doctors in medical reports lodged by the applicant's solicitors,
In a report provided by Doctor Kochar it was recorded that Mr Salib felt discriminated against because he had refused a redundancy package in approximately 1997. Mr Salib acknowledged that he may have said that to Doctor Kochar and may have had it in his mind at the time of consultation but did acknowledge that he may have been under the influence of prescribed medication at the time of the consultation or that he may have been mistaken. Nonetheless he referred to an incident where a person senior to him – Joanne Clarke – approached him one day at work and asked to have a private discussion with him away from his desk in the absence of other persons and in the absence of a union representative. He said she asked him whether he was happy in his work, she acknowledged that he had made complaints about the work and said she had the impression that he would like to leave. Mr Salib said that he was not "feeling happy" about some of his workmates and the supervision and training was not what he "had in mind" yet despite being frustrated he did not want to be retrenched and rejected the redundancy offer. He said he was suspicious about being "singled out", being taken into a conference room behind closed doors and offered a redundancy package in the absence of other persons. He was also aware at that time that Ms Clarke had herself accepted a redundancy package and was to leave the employment in the following week. He said he felt as if he was being pressured at the time and was being offered the package because he had made complaints.

Mr Salib was also asked to comment on Doctor Kochar's report that he alleged harassment and victimisation because he had been asked not to allow his mobile telephone to be turned on during working hours. He said his mobile telephone was not switched off because he was not permitted to use the telephone at his desk, he needed to be available in the event of an emergency at home and because he moved around the office and was not always at his desk. He said because he was not known by everybody in the office and it was more convenient for persons to contact him in relation to personal matters by mobile telephone. He said he was told to turn his telephone off by Nelli Bellafiore who he described as "like a caretaker".
There was another incident where because of a toothache and having consumed more than the recommended dose of painkilling medication, Mr Salib said he did not wake until 1pm in the afternoon on a workday. When he rang work he was told he would loose one day's salary. He said he attempted to explain his predicament but felt as if he was not believed. Nonetheless he acknowledged that there was a workplace ruling that persons who attended work late were to telephone and explain the reasons for being late.
With respect to the feelings of being harassed and victimised (as was reported by Doctor Kochar), Mr Salib said that during smoko breaks the former social security staff would cluster in a group and would not interact with he or other CES staff, he was denied training, there was no integration or amalgamation process (even to the extent that three or four weeks after integration co-workers did not know each others names and CES staff were given "minimal" tasks. Mr Salib said he probably did not use the words "harassment" and "victimisation" to Doctor Kochar but they were words probably used by the Doctor to interpret his history.
Mr Salib was also referred to a report completed by Doctor Moore, a medico legal psychiatrist. In the report Doctor Moore referred to the applicant being criticised by his superiors for speaking Arabic at work. Mr Salib said he had been criticised by superiors for interpreting English language documents into Arabic. Mr Salib said he was employed specifically to utilise his interpreting and translating skills and the criticism of him was unfair. He said that if he answered the telephone in Arabic he would be "picked on" and said that other bilingual officers interpreting Vietnamese, Italian, Greek and Lebanese were not prohibited from using their translation or interpreting skills.
In relation to a report prepared by Doctor Kenny, also a medico legal psychiatrist, a history was taken that Mr Salib was referred to by one of his supervisors as an "idiot a wog or a dumb bastard". Mr Salib said that there was an occasion when he was referred to by Kerry Brian as being an idiot but he could not remember when or in what context. He was adamant however that she did use the word "idiot". He said that the words "dumb bastard" were not specifically used but he said he was left with no doubt by other language used by Ms Brian that she was of the belief that he was "not intelligent" or that he was "behind the eight ball".
In relation to a history taken from Doctor Rose, a medico-legal psychiatrist, Mr Salib is reported as having said that he was called "a thief and a dog" by other workmates. Mr Salib denied that he would have used these words when speaking with Doctor Rose and also denied having told Doctor Rose that drugs had been planted in his pocket at the work place. He said Doctor Rose must have misunderstood him during the consultation. He believed that he would have referred to drugs being planted as an example of how he felt about being blamed for the mistakes being made at work as a result of not having had proper training. That is to say, he felt as if he was being blamed for the errors or mistakes of other persons or that those persons who had failed to train him had attempted to blame him for mistakes made. In answer to questions from the Tribunal, Mr Salib said that the words "thief" and "dog" were not specifically used against him but rather he would have used those terms when speaking with Doctor Rose to highlight the nature of the insult or degrading remarks made of him at the workplace.
On the second day of evidence Mr Salib said that he and his wife had previously separated 10 or 11 years before 1998. At that time he was having a relationship with another female person. He said the separation (then) was not because of his other relationship. He said at that time he and his wife had decided to go "our separate ways" and he was then "entitled to do what I see fit". He denied that he had ever had a relationship with a person by the name of Ellen Magrebbi and denied that he had heard of that person. However later in evidence Mr Salib acknowledged that he knew a person of that name. When asked whether he had had a relationship with her "beyond the work situation" Mr Salib said that he had only worked with her for a period of two weeks at Northcote CES 10 years earlier. He said he had not seen her in the last 10 years and as far as he was aware she was presently overseas.
In relation to the separation from his wife in 1998, Mr Salib was taken to the notes of examination of Mr Carfi, a psychologist who examined the applicant at the request of the respondent. Mr Salib was reminded that his evidence from the first day of hearing was that he was unsure as to the date of separation, however he acknowledged that he had told Mr Carfi that he separated in November 1998. That would indicate – if accurate - that Mr Salib continued to live with his wife for approximately 5 months after the date that he last worked. Mr Salib could not recall discussing with Mr Carfi whether there was any marital tension associated with money lost by gambling, nonetheless he said that he did play cards at up to 20 cents per game and the most that he would loose would be $10-$15. Subsequent to separation Mr Salib said he continued to meet with his friends and occasionally he gambled but towards the end of 1998 he was in a position where he had ceased work, he had left his wife and he became "lonely". He said friends did not visit him and he was then in receipt of sickness benefit, which provided him with less weekly income than when he was earning wages.
Mr Salib was referred to a proof of evidence of a workmate Nellie Bellofiore. Ms Bellofiore apparently indicated that she was responsible for training Mr Salib. Mr Salib agreed that she did train him but he described it as the "very basics of Centrelink work". Mr Salib did not acknowledge that he and other former CES employees were engaged in "intensive training" for a period of 3 weeks on a full-time basis, shortly after commencement with Centrelink. He denied comments made by Ms Bellofiore that he would attend work after the designated commencement time of 9am and had made and received "constant phone calls" at his desk and at the reception counter. Mr Salib said that he had been told to switch off his mobile telephone at work but had requested permission to leave it on until such time as he was designated with a telephone at work. He said this occurred about 2 months after he commenced with Centrelink. Mr Salib also denied the comments of Ms Bellofiore in her proof of evidence that he was "not really interested" in his work, that he was "easily distracted" and that his "concentration span was limited". He denied that he would meet with clients to answer queries not related to Centrelink work, he denied that he would "disappear constantly" from his desk for up to 30 minutes at a time and had sought work which was not designated to him. Mr Salib said that he and Ms Bellofiore occupied desks in close proximity and thought that his working relationship with her had deteriorated after he observed – close to a point in time when she had asked him to turn off his mobile telephone – that she was making and receiving a number of telephone calls associated with her impending marriage.
Mr Salib was also asked about issues raised in a proof of evidence of his former supervisor Kerry Brian. In addition to matters raised on the first day of evidence associated with the extent and nature of training, duration of toilet breaks, duration of interviews and the number of interviews scheduled each day, Ms Brian referred to a particular application by a client for Newstart Allowance and the manner in which Mr Salib processed the application. It was alleged that he had not processed all relevant information within a period of 14 days, apparently being a period of time targeted by Centrelink for this purpose. Mr Salib said that so far as he could recall he had received all relevant documented information save for some bank statements, which he expected, would be lodged by the client within a matter of days of interview. Eventually the documents were lodged however when the complaint was made of him he observed from the file that it had been tampered with and documents had been removed. He said this was so because he saw that documents had been damaged when they had been removed having previously been stapled. He said this had been brought to the attention of the human resources manager Mr Polkinghorn.
In relation to a proof of evidence of a former workmate, Walter Iovennitti, Mr Salib denied that he would spend a greater part of his working day answering queries from Arabic speaking persons, which had nothing to do with Centrelink matters. Apparently Mr Iovennitti had recorded in his proof of evidence that there was an occasion where Mr Salib was observed talking to a person in Arabic at his desk and at a time when his computer was not turned on. Apparently Mr Iovennitti had assumed that this was consistent with Mr Salib being engaged in non-Centrelink work. Mr Salib said he could not remember details of that event.
When asked about an allegation that Arabic speaking persons either ceased to attend the Centrelink office or left immediately after it was learnt that he had ceased working, Mr Salib said that he would assume that, if there was no other person present who could speak Arabic, clients would "walk off and get someone else that can speak the language for them".
Mr Salib was taken to a number of work performance reports and appraisals found within the T-documents. These documents were completed by Ms Brian, his former supervisor.
At page 13 and 14, Ms Brian reports problems associated with Mr Salib as poor concentration, difficulty focusing on work tasks, easily distracted, inability to retain information, absenteeism, inability to establish trust, inappropriate behaviour at work, repeated receiving of telephone calls on his mobile telephone, frequently late and inability to work well as a member of a team. Mr Salib disagreed with all of these observations save that he acknowledged there were occasions when he was late for work.
At page 15 is another document completed by Ms Brian entitled "Background regarding George Salib". The document purports to record the training provided to Mr Salib. He disagreed with a comment in the document that a "buddy system" was implemented, but did agree that there was training provided concerning reception duties. Mr Salib could not remember whether he did receive two weeks of formal training with respect to the allowances and benefits payable by Centrelink and said he thought that the duration was less than two weeks. He could not recall whether he was part of a training cell involved in new claims processing.
At page 16 is a document again prepared by Ms Brian purporting to record errors made by Mr Salib. Eleven instances are recorded. Mr Salib said he could not remember any of the instances alleged.
At page 20 is a document prepared by Ms Brian entitled "The issues that I would like addressed with George are …..". Eight numbered paragraphs are recorded. Mr Salib said that he could not "answer" the comments "because that is her own …. I can't agree or disagree on that".
At page 21 is a "Work Performance Report" completed by Ms Brian detailing the training undertaken by Mr Salib. Mr Salib said he could not recall the training referred to on that page.
Pages 22 to 26 contain a report of the applicant's work performance under the sub-headings of Communication Skills, Technical Skills, Organisational Skills and a page without sub-heading but which appears to be a list of particular tasks expected of the applicant that were to be assessed during the period 9 June 1998 to 9 July 1998. In relation to the comments made under the sub-heading of 'Communication Skills', Mr Salib disagreed that his skills were poor and in need of improvement. He said he was unable to agree or disagree with an observation at paragraph 3 that he had a lack of understanding because he was observed giving incorrect information during interviews. Mr Salib said that he could not recall being "spoken to" by a regional manager regarding taking his telephone "off the hook" and thereby "removing a vital tool of communication".
On page 23 under the sub-heading of 'Technical Skills' Mr Salib said that there were occasions when new claims were not indexed within 24 hours (as apparently is required) because there were occasions where he was waiting for additional documents. He said that if all documents were provided at interview the claims were indexed within 24 hours. Mr Salib said he did not understand what Ms Brian was referring to when she alleged that he was "not transferring all relevant details of a customer when assessing their entitlement". He did agree that work was given back to him – on occasions up to three times – before it was completed correctly.
In relation to the sub-heading "organisational skills" and the comments made under it on page 23, Mr Salib disagreed with observations that he was easily distracted, had poor concentration and failed to complete assigned appointments. He said he was not given enough time to adequately prepare for interviews and he did not understand her comments that he did not conduct interviews in a 'concise manner', had failed to use "the activity test sheet" and other resources and had failed to follow procedures with respect to lodging documents in appropriate work trays.
Ahmed Shahien
Mr Shahien is a social worker presently employed by the Western Health Care network. He has known Mr Salib since either 1982 or 1983 when they first met when Mr Salib was employed by the CES and Mr Shahien was employed by the Preston/Reservoir Migrant Resource Centre. Mr Shahien is also Egyptian by birth and speaks Arabic. He said their first contact concerned newly arrived migrants who were seeking employment or employment advice through the CES. He said that he also received referrals from Mr Salib, which he described as "appropriate". He said that details concerning persons referred were documented and were "sufficient". He recalled that Mr Salib had an "excellent understanding" of issues concerning the persons referred and an "excellent rapport" with clients. He also recalled that the clients made "excellent comments" about Mr Salib. Mr Shahien said that he and Mr Salib had frequent contact and became friends. In 1997 he noticed a change in his demeanour. He recalled that prior to 1997 Mr Salib was "a very happy, outgoing person …… applies himself to anything he does. Very helpful, very friendly. Really sincere honest person who is ….. looking forward to tomorrow. I mean, generally that was his attitude towards life. Extremely happy, helpful person". At the present time he noted that the applicant was "suicidal…. depressed …… self neglect" (sic). He said the applicant was very anxious and preoccupied concerning these proceedings. He said Mr Salib was "unable to conduct an appropriate intelligent conversation" and he thought that Mr Salib was "abusing some substance as well".
Mr Shahien observed these changes in Mr Salib's personality after he commenced employment with "Social Security" (Centrelink). He recalled that Mr Salib was looking forward to the change and was "very excited and happy" about being transferred to Centrelink. He said that Mr Salib started to consult with him shortly after commencing with Centrelink to find ways for him to deal with the frustration and, sort of, face work". He observed that the applicant was unhappy and believed that he was not being supported. He said the applicant was also of the opinion that he was being victimised and "they were just after his job or they wanted to get rid of him". Mr Shahien said that he exercised all of his professional skills when counselling Mr Salib and whilst he acknowledged that it was "not very professional to provide counselling to a friend" he said Mr Salib was "more than a friend and he "couldn't just say no". He said they discussed ways to control Mr Salib's anger and to consider other person's points of view. When he observed Mr Salib to have become suicidal he said he suggested that Mr Salib should consult psychiatric assistance. He said the counselling sessions on average had a duration of 1 ½ hours and he would meet with him between two and four times a week but on occasions it was once per fortnight.
Mr Shahien did not have notes of his consultations and did not make notes during the time he consulted with Mr Salib. Despite this he said that Mr Salib frequently referred to two persons at work who he said were "Kerry and Kevin". He said that Mr Salib had frequently reported allegations of having been associated with clients outside of work, having been criticised for speaking Arabic at the workplace, having felt as if he was being observed at work and being criticised for being late for work.
Mr Shahien has continued to have regular contact with Mr Salib who he said "looks a bit better now" because "he is being supported …… we are pushing him to have a shower or even get dressed nicely or go out with us or sort of have a decent meal". He did not think that Mr Salib was presently able to return to work and said that "he's not employable". He said that he "wouldn't employ" Mr Salib and that there was "no way I would give him a chance, no".
In cross-examination Mr Shahien said that Mr Salib would have had no difficulty comprehending that he was due to start work at 9am each morning and he regarded Mr Salib as being a person of above average intelligence. He said the "work pressure" that was described to him by Mr Salib was associated with a feeling of persons "trying to get rid of him, ….. targeting him … trying to find any mistakes that he conducts or make up any mistakes just basically to fire him". He also said that Mr Salib had complained about the absence of adequate training. He acknowledged that Mr Salib had initially received training but he could not be more specific. He said that he could recall suggesting to Mr Salib that if he had difficulties with the workplace that he should consult his supervisor and request training programs but he thought that these programs were "not easily obtainable". He could not remember specific detail of the areas where Mr Salib sought training but he said that there was an occasion that he recalled where Mr Salib did indicate that he had sought training but that other persons in the workplace looked at him like "he was a piece of dirt. I remember exactly his words". Mr Shahien said he was surprised at this response and recalled he said to Mr Salib words to the effect "are you kidding".
Mr Shahien said that he found that Mr Salib had "always been punctual" and "would not just drop his work and walk away from it". And was a popular community member. He was aware that Mr Salib did have marital problems in the early 1990's, which he understood were associated with Mr Salib "overspending", "perhaps being late" and his wife being jealous. He said that Mr Salib did gamble and this was discussed during counselling sessions. He was not aware how much monies were involved in gambling but he had heard through the Arabic community, which he described as being "very close", that Mr Salib was gambling, he was "abusing drugs" and drinking. He said he did not counsel with respect to gambling because it was "a symptom to whatever he was suffering from". He said he was aware that Mr Salib and his wife had separated again in 1998 and said "everybody knew in the community that George had been kicked out". He said it was not significant to know when he left the matrimonial home or to know when Mr Salib ceased work because he (the applicant) had been "very closed" about this. He said the applicant "closed up" in 1998 because he was then receiving psychiatric care and because "it is a shame within my culture to become jobless and separated from your house and wife is not allowing me to come inside. It is a severe shame and it might be pretty difficult for other people to understand that, but it is". He said he was aware that Mr Salib had attempted suicide but he had refused to elaborate. With respect to the counselling of Mr Salib, Mr Shahien said that he did not regard it as a "conflict of interest". He said he regarded it as a "duty of care".
Marcus Banks

Mr Banks is presently employed by Centrelink at the Moreland Office. He has been employed by the Commonwealth for more than 20 years. After a short period of employment with Australia Post he commenced employment with CES in 1982 and is presently a Customer Service Officer. He also holds the position of workplace delegate with the Community and Public Sector Union at the Moreland Office. He moved to the Moreland Office with Mr Salib and a number of other former CES employees.
Mr Banks described his involvement in national negotiations for 12 months prior to the integration of the CES and the Department of Social Security. Part of the discussions with respect to the transition from CES to Centrelink involved "guarantees of training".
Mr Banks described two groups of persons who moved to Centrelink from CES. He said there was the "May" group (of which Mr Salib was a member) where the training initially involved the "buddy system" where persons were linked with another former DSS officer. He said there was training arranged at a later time, but he said, "I doubt that you would call that structured". He said the second group that were transferred to Moreland from Brunswick CES had a structured training regime of six weeks duration.
Mr Banks recalled that there were many complaints made from employees – including former DSS officers – shortly after integration concerning the training system. These complaints, he said, were occurring in an atmosphere of significant organisational and information technology changes together with "cultural clashes" between the former "CES culture and the former DSS culture".
With respect to the former employment of the applicant at the CES, Mr Banks said that the Brunswick CES office was rated by Morgan Research as offering the best client service at a national level. He said that former CES employees in Brunswick were proud of their achievement. The work was modelled on the basis of casework being allocated to individual officers together with a defined number of person as "clients". He said there was a pro-active/team based approach to file and case management where Mr Salib was regarded as a "valued staff member". He said Mr Salib played a role in a number of different areas comprising employment services, employer services and program management together with responsibility for harvest and seasonal employment. He said the Brunswick office was very multicultural in nature and Mr Salib provided a link between the CES and the local Arabic speaking community.
In terms of the relationship with management when employed at the CES, Mr Banks said that discussions were held in the spirit of optimism and confidence. He said outreach was regarded highly and peer pressure was used to "rebalance" if officers "overstepped the mark" and were engaged in "too much outreach". Mr Banks spoke of another Arabic speaking officer – Mr Halou and a Cantonese Officer, Kitty Tsang. He said there were occasions when customers would be confused about the responsibility of the Ethnic Officers and would sometimes consult or seek consultation for matters, which were not related to their CES employment. On those occasions management would remind the officers that they had to perform CES work and they would – with the benefit of peer pressure – "re-assess what they were doing". He said these officers then performed their work to an acceptable level, were valued staff members and "if they were not there it would be a pretty dull and sterile place".
Shortly following the merger of the CES and the DSS into the Centrelink office, Mr Banks recalled that the former DSS staff regarded the former CES staff as not having "much to offer". He said the CES employees had "failed" because the CES operations had been privatised (into the job network scheme). The DSS employees regarded themselves as having "survived" and the CES employees felt as if they "needed to be filled up with their knowledge". He said the attitude towards former CES staff was "patronising" and the "intricacies of the computer system were astonishing".
In terms of the "buddy system" of training, Mr Banks said that the former DSS officers who had this responsibility approached it with the best of intention and they "gave what they could". However he said the work environment was featured by "massive organisational IT changes", "huge workload – backlogs of workload" and "absolute chaos". He said there were also rapid changes of policy, which meant, "depending on who you asked you would get a different answer". He said confusion amongst staff was so great – particularly having to cope with policy changes initiated by Government – that "it was brought up in parliament".
In terms of processing applications and ensuring that the correct benefit was processed and the quantum of benefit was accurate Mr Banks said that officers relied on computers. He said that former DSS officers did not rely on computers entirely because they had knowledge of policy (in general terms) but also (significantly) "knew how to manipulate the system". He said "if you followed the manual you would not be able to get the right result. You have to actually do things differently to what the manual said". Accordingly former CES officers were at a distinct disadvantage because they had no prior experience with policy nor with the shortcuts (manipulations) involved with computer use to ensure that files were processed properly.
Mr Banks said that the office at Moreland had improved considerably over the last 2 years where gradually a "CES culture" had emerged and a "more flexible rostering system" now exists. He was critical however of former management who were not "good at picking up the people beginning to spiral down and to give them what they should be doing which is give them support at that point ……. and not just pretend support or just official support but real support". Mr Banks said that there was a culture of "structural racism" present within Centrelink, where management was approached from a narrow and rigid perspective and employees were not regarded as being different or having different needs. Mr Banks was aware that Mr Salib had been criticised for speaking Arabic during working hours which he said was unheard of at the CES and he was aware also that Mr Salib had been criticised for giving out his direct telephone number to a client – which was also consistent with former CES policy. The position apparently held by management – according to Mr Banks – was that if persons had queries they should telephone Centrelink call centres whereas the position promoted by the Executive Director of Centrelink was to offer case management on a one to one basis by "forming a relationship with the customer".
In cross-examination Mr Banks said that the incident where Mr Salib was criticised for speaking Arabic during working times was unreasonable because the criticism was offered in a "loud voice", was "embarrassing", overheard by others, rude, and made by a co-worker, not by a supervisor.
When he was asked to comment on the allegation of another workmate that Mr Salib was observed speaking at his desk without his computer turned on Mr Banks said that Mr Salib may have been acting appropriately. He also acknowledged that it may have been inappropriate but until more was known about the nature of the discussion no judgement should be made. He said that Mr Salib may have been giving out "racing tips" or he may have "been doing something useful in terms of providing a service in the community for that person". He acknowledged that the customer may not have had an appointment however he said that in the family assistance section of the Moreland Centrelink office, appointments are not encouraged and officers are not bound by a "computer grid". Mr Banks encourages customers to call into the office with documents and if he is available he will see them without appointment.
Mr Banks acknowledged that there were occasions where Mr Salib would "disappear" however he said, "that does not make him a bad worker …. I mean it can be used against him and it has been because you know if you apply a grid like that on someone like George then you will get bad results but it does not mean that he is a lazy worker and it does not mean that he is unproductive. It just means that you need to be more creative and flexible about working with people from non-english speaking backgrounds". Mr Banks said that he was aware that Mr Salib was from time to time late returning to work after smoko or lunchbreaks and on an occasion said that he had referred to him as an "idiot" (because of his poor record of being punctual) however he said that "it doesn't mean that 10 tonnes of bricks needed to fall on his head. There was other ways of working. He successfully worked at the Brunswick CES for many years and was a valued employee and they didn't have this extremely rigid and hierarchal approach ….." He said the imposition of a grid (a practice of working to an appointment) would cause persons like Mr Salib to "sink and he did". He said that he blamed management because of their cultural insensitivities and their lack of insight into various types of people to give him that support and allow him to work in a way that would have been productive".
Mr Banks said that he was firmly of the opinion that management was "trying to get him out". In examination in chief he said that Mr Salib was "on the outer" and "was on the long slippery slide out". He said if Kerry Brian gave evidence that "there was no effort whatsoever made to push him out" he would not believe her and if she were to say this in evidence she would be "lying". Mr Banks acknowledged that management would have wanted Mr Salib to perform the job that he was engaged to do however he thought that this was a narrow-minded approach and "had they thought outside of those narrow confines they may have found a solution. ….. Why not send him to the family service centre? You know he would have helped out there". Mr Banks said he had suggested that to management with respect to the employee Kitty Tsang but this was refused.
With respect to the training offer to Mr Salib Mr Banks said that training manuals say "nothing unless it is explained and the module by module training can be appropriate for some types of elements of policy". He said, "computer based modelling (needs) to have computer based training. So it depends on what he was learning and it depends on who was teaching him and whether …… the person that was teaching him could teach as well". He said the problems encountered by Mr Salib were not "insurmountable" and there were a number of jobs he could have undertaken and picked up on the skills as he went along. And he could have still been a very useful person to have around".
Eric Donald Long
Mr Long is a Centrelink employee presently based at the Moreland office. In about May of 1997 he was responsible for providing training to persons who had joined the service delivery agency office. Those persons comprised former DSS employees and the first round of former CES employees, including Mr Salib.
Mr Long recalled that the training was convened at the Moreland Call Centre, which was away from the workplace. The training consisted of "technical training", "new claim training" and "continuation training". Mr Long said that the training was formal and also involved "mock-ups" of interviews.
Mr Long recalled that there were times where Mr Salib "may have been slightly distracted" and there were occasions also where he was actually late back from tea breaks".
In cross-examination Mr Long explained that "technical" training involved learning the Social Security Legislation insofar as it covered theory and practice. Training extended also to "manipulation of the computer system". Mr Salib was also engaged in "re-enforcement" by putting into practice during working hours the matters learnt during training. This involved he and other trainers actually working side by side with officers at their desk.
Mr Long recalled that the "interaction" between he and Mr Salib was "good" however "at the end of it I certainly had no real doubts that he understood what the training was and how to cope with it but there were times when maybe I had to pull him up because he would go off on a different tangent in relation to something. But I think he still understood the basis of what the training was".
Walter Iovenitti
Mr Iovenitti is currently an employee of Centrelink and is the team leader of the employment services team. He works at the Moreland office.
Mr Iovenitti was responsible for training former CES staff. He recalled that Mr Salib was not "the shining light". He said that the applicant "wasn't too concerned or wasn't willing to learn a lot of the stuff that we were trying to teach him". It was his opinion that the applicant "was often not paying attention when training was provided and he also was of the opinion that the applicant "showed a willingness not to learn the information that was provided to him".
After training had concluded Mr Iovenitti said that officers had the opportunity to ask questions from mentors being other Centrelink officers who were selected to be of assistance to newly trained officers. He denied that former DSS staff were superior to former CES staff. He said both CES officers and DSS officers had to learn each others former roles and "the idea was that we both became the same. I don't believe there was any superiority between any of the staff. Most of the staff between the two agencies got on really well".
In relation to an incident where the applicant was observed speaking in Arabic to another person at his desk, Mr Iovenitti said he intervened at the request of another officer to enquire what the applicant was doing. He said he asked Mr Salib whether the person he was speaking to was a customer and was told that he was and that he was giving advice in relation to the harvest program. He learnt that the customer did not have an appointment and when he asked that the conversation be terminated the customer left the office.
In cross-examination Mr Iovenitti said that he was not involved in the initial training of Mr Salib but said that he became involved later. He said that training was regarded as "ongoing" and "staggered", he said it was designed to reinforce what persons had previously learnt and also to match it to their work experience with customers and with files.
In terms of the altered culture within the newly established Centrelink office he said it was expected that officers would be familiar with the entire range of benefits and pensions payable under the social security legislation. This was because it was intended that officers would be able to deal with the enquiries made by customers and be able to process applications. He said it was remarkable that when an appointment system was in operation persons would come to the office without appointment and often be seen speaking in Arabic to Mr Salib. He acknowledged that this was not an unusual practice within the former CES office, however he was not aware that Mr Salib had been engaged by CES as a "specialist Arabic speaking officer" and had been in that role for more than 10 years with the CES.
Mr Iovenitti said that there are occasions when customers will come to the Centrelink office and ask for him because they are aware that he has an Italian background however "that does not mean that I will just see them. Normally they are used – they see anybody with an Italian interpreter. I specifically say to them you can't just ask for me". He said that customers are now "much happier with the appointment system because they know when they can come in and when they can go out and we are also much more controlled in that we have the interpreters there for that particular appointment. ….. "
In answer to questions from the Tribunal Mr Iovenitti acknowledged that it would be difficult for some persons with a CES background to move into Centrelink and have to commence processing applications for benefits with which they were unfamiliar. He said similarly it was difficult for some former DSS staff to work with the new procedures implemented in the Centrelink office. Nonetheless he also acknowledged that persons' circumstances are varied and where some persons might find a new work experience to be a challenge others might thrive on it. He also acknowledged that some persons may well find the experience of new work procedures to be intimidating which may also explain the way that they would react to training.
Kerrie Brian
Ms Brian is a Centrelink employee, presently working at the Box Hill Office, who was working at the Moreland Office at or about the time Mr Salib was transferred from the CES.
In May 1998 she was asked to provide training to four staff members of whom Mr Salib was one. She said the training extended for a period of two weeks being one week of formal training and another week being on the job 'reinforcement'. On 15 May 1998 she prepared a report found at page 13 and 14 of the T-documents. The report is entitled "Work Performance Report on George Salib". She said that "problems had arisen with George's performance and what we were trying to address was obviously improving his performance and part of that was to go through some form of formal counselling with him".
Ms Brian said that she also prepared documents found at pages 15-17, 20–24, & 25-28. These documents were in relation to her observations of Mr Salib following training.
The document at page 20 entitled "The issues that I would like addressed with George are" was prepared by Ms Brian in the form of questions arising out of what she observed as his "performance problems" at work. Ms Brian said she wanted to determine whether there were "any underlying medical problems that we weren't aware of" and in those circumstances she decided to refer Mr Salib to a Commonwealth Medical Officer. Documents at pages 21-24 inclusive under the heading "Work Performance Report for George Salib" were prepared by Ms Brian as "part of a formal counselling to address his performance issues". Ms Brian said that she formed the views expressed in the work performance report having observed him at work and also sitting next to him during working hours "to provide support". She said she also formed her opinions having observed him during interviews with clients and on the basis of comments that she had received from other Centrelink officers. Insofar as Mr Salib had said that the presence of Ms Brian during interviews was confusing to clients, Ms Brian said that her presence was explained to customers, that is, she explained that Mr Salib was "learning". She said that customers were not confused. She said that the customers were "a lot more appreciative knowing that they are going to be given correct information".
Pages 27 & 28 were also completed by Ms Brian and are entitled "Customer Complaint Regarding George Salib". Each page refers to a separate customer complaint. One of the complaints concerned a delay in processing a customer's application for NewStart benefit. Ms Brian said that Mr Salib had not submitted the application for approval by a supervisor. When the customer complained of the delay in receipt of benefit, attempts were made to locate the application. Ms Brian said she re-interviewed the customer, and approved payment immediately. Eventually the original application was located in a tray on Mr Salib's desk amongst other documents. She said it was located on a day where Mr Salib was absent from work. Ms Brian said she recalled an incident where Mr Salib did complain of someone having tampered with his files but said that that complaint was "ridiculous" because officers were "too busy to worry about tampering with people's work".
Ms Brian said that Mr Salib was not singled out for attention nor was he maltreated at work. She said the issue was to provide him with adequate training to perform his work as a customer service officer in a competent and efficient manner. She said no effort was made to "get rid of him". She said he did not respond to training and had expected that persons would be "operational within three months" and "definitely within 12 months to be a fully experienced officer". She said a "lot of time and effort goes into training people" to ensure "a successful outcome and that the officer is trained and operating".

With respect to Mr Salib's punctuality, Ms Brian said that he was "regularly late". He said he was rostered to perform six customer interviews per day and other lunch, smoko and toilet breaks were rostered within the daily appointment system. She said if he or others were running behind in interviews there were other officers available to take over a following interview to ensure that appointments were kept on time. Ms Brian denied that she had ever referred to Mr Salib as being "sick" or "stupid". She said the only time that she ever took over one of his files was in response to one of the complaints referred to earlier in these reasons.
With respect to the episode that Mr Salib alleged that he was observed to be in a conflict of interest with a customer, Ms Brian said that she observed him in a neighbouring coffee shop but counselled him that his behaviour in those circumstances was inappropriate and that officers should behave "with the utmost professionalism".
In cross-examination Ms Brian said that she was unable to comment upon whether Centrelink decided to "downsize" shortly after the merger. She said that voluntary redundancies were offered by persons senior to her. She said she was also not qualified to answer the proposition that persons offered voluntary redundancies would conclude that "the organisation doesn't want them". She said voluntary redundancies were offered at large for persons to take if they were interested. She said she was not aware of any officer being singled out and taken into an office and being asked whether they would wish to accept a redundancy offer. She did not know of an approach of that type being made to Mr Salib and said that if it was, it would be "unusual".
Ms Brian said that despite Mr Salib having transferred to the Moreland office in 1997 she did not commence any training with him until 1998. She acknowledged that he would have been engaged as an officer for 11 months before her training commenced. She was aware that some training had previously been provided but she had been instructed to train on the basis "that we were starting from scratch". Training of this type was envisaged because of reports Ms Brian had received from managers that the persons that she intended to train had had problems identified with their work performance. The training that she provided was with respect to comprehending relevant legislation, processing data, understanding computer function, comprehending client entitlements and learning of policy.
Ms Brian said that during an earlier training session, the Centrelink computer system had been changed and a system known as "common platform computer system" was introduced. She said the changes were introduced over a period of two or three months in or about August of 1997 and that system was in operation at the time that she was training Mr Salib in May of 1998. She denied that the computer system had to be "manipulated", as was the evidence of other witnesses because if there were problems there was a systems help desk and task cards available to officers. She said all persons at the Centrelink office had to learn the new computer system and no one person was more experienced than another. Nonetheless she acknowledged that some persons would cope with the new computer system and be able to operate it better than others. She acknowledged that Mr Salib did have problems with the computer system, which she described as his "inability to retain information, and a lack of understanding in how things worked". She said, "he would tend to ask the same questions over, get stuck on the same things". As an example she said "he would be trying to grant a claim for instance that was in our current environment where the record might actually have been interstate so it just showed a lack of understanding in how things worked." She described Mr Salib as being a "very, very difficult person to work with" and that he "stretched my patience to a limit that I never knew I was capable of". She also described him as "one of the most challenging" persons that she had worked with. When told that Mr Salib had said in evidence that he felt like he was a "idiot" when working with Ms Brian she replied, "I guess that is George's perception".
Ms Brian was acquainted with earlier evidence of Mr Salib being observed speaking in Arabic to another person at his desk. She said it was not unusual for customers to speak in languages other than English and she was aware that Mr Salib was paid an allowance because of his status as a bilingual officer. She said "within reason" she would not have "any problem" with Mr Salib attending a customer without an appointment and that it would be "quite reasonable" for him to communicate in Arabic. She said she would not discourage that practice and it would not be unusual for a person to approach the Centrelink office and ask for Mr Salib to speak with him concerning an employment program that was previously administered by the CES. Nonetheless she said that it would be inappropriate for him to speak with persons without appointment if it interfered with the appointments scheduled for other persons.
With respect to the episode where Mr Salib alleged that he was criticised for conflict of interest, Ms Brian said that the practice within Centrelink of not dealing with family or friends arose out of issues of privacy and the processing of Commonwealth monies. She said he was not disciplined but rather she intended to make him aware of the potential to breach the Centrelink code of conduct.
With respect to the reports completed by Ms Brian found within the T-documents, she said she recommended medical referral to determine whether there was any medical reason why Mr Salib was not performing work as would be expected. She said she had not reached any conclusion as to his fitness for work but wanted to determine – when the medical report had been received – "what he was capable of doing". She said that had the report concluded that he was unfit or incapable of performing some tasks that his duties would have been modified.
In re-examination Ms Brian said that Mr Salib appeared to be incapable of interpreting and retaining "straightforward information". She gave as an example the process of interviewing a customer where leaflets, which were given to customers, were sometimes followed by officers to prompt them to ask appropriate questions to ensure that adequate information was given in return. She said Mr Salib would often forget to follow the list or would ask questions out of sequence, which would cause the interview to become confusing.
In answer to questions from the Tribunal, Ms Brian acknowledged that training commenced on 27 April 1998 and her reports concerning the performance of Mr Salib were written on 15 May. She was asked to comment on the language that she used in completing the report, and upon the repetitive use by her of the word "very" and whether she considered the report to have been written "strongly". Ms Brian said, "it was an honest report. I can't say anymore than that". She said the report was written as a result of her observations of him over the period 27 April to 15 May. She said the report was "fair" and was based on his behaviour during the training sessions. When asked whether she was able to identify any good or positive feature about him, Ms Brian said that he was "always polite" and was "always amiable and friendly" however she said that he was distracting within training sessions and that he did not perform well as a member of a team. She acknowledged that he was polite and courteous to customers yet despite having told us in evidence of some features which she regarded as positive she could not explain why she would not have recorded those features in the work performance report. Ms Brian acknowledged that the report was "not flattering". She said she did not know whether the work was beyond his capabilities because he did not appear to be "applying himself" and was not "making an effort" during training sessions. She did eventually concede that "it is a possibility that there are some persons who find some things just beyond them and that people are different". When asked to comment on the proposition that some persons might thrive on a particular job and some persons might say that the job is beyond them, she said "that is why some people are brain surgeons and some people aren't". She said that there was an assumption that if a person had performed competently in one area of work that they would "at least have the skills to learn a new area of work".
Nellie Bellofoire
Ms Bellofoire is an officer employed by Centrelink at the Moreland Office. She was engaged in training Mr Salib and a number of other former CES employees in 1997.
On 15 June 1998 Ms Bellofoire completed a statement which was received into evidence (Exhibit 7). In that statement she recorded that Mr Salib was late in his attendance at training "on numerous occasions", received "constant phone calls" and would spend "extensive periods on the telephone", had difficulty retaining new information, was easily distracted, would disappear "constantly" and was "always keen to offer assistance in non-work related tasks". She reported – and said in evidence – that he was "always" courteous, he seemed to be happy, he made jokes and had a "laid back personality".
Mrs Bellofoire said that she recalled Mr Salib receiving telephone calls on his mobile telephone during working hours and during training. She said he mostly spoke in Arabic and she had the impression that "there was problems going on" by the tone of his voice. She said that she also recalled that he did not appear to be motivated, the training was interrupted because he would repeatedly ask questions and she was surprised that he appeared to be unable to retain information.
In cross-examination Ms Bellofoire said the report completed on 15 June 1998 was made after Mr Salib had been given "formal feedback". She said she was asked to make the report by her supervisor Ann Dickson because at June 1998 it had been decided within Centrelink that "his performance wasn't up to scratch and he needed to have the right to be given formal feedback about that". She said that Mr Salib was given "informal feedback" during the training that she lead in 1997 but the report of June 1998 – whilst she did not think that it was for the purposes of supporting a case to dismiss him – was to support formal feedback so that Mr Salib could be given "the opportunity to improve or to know where he is lacking".
Elaine Xantidis
Ms Xantidis is an officer at the Centrelink office in Moreland. She came to that office having previously worked at the CES office in Brunswick. She is now a team leader and knew Mr Salib from the time that they both worked at the Brunswick CES. She said that he was a very popular person within the organisation. She said he was friendly and likeable. However she said that she "wouldn't describe him as a hard worker".
Ms Xantidis recalled that when she and Mr Salib started at Moreland that they were first occupied mainly with CES type work during the time that the job network scheme was established, however as time passed she and others had to become familiar with DSS type work and she and Mr Salib had extensive training. Initially it was with Mr Long. She recalled that Mr Salib was then happy but there were occasions where he would distract the class and would be an annoyance to other participants within the class. Ms Xantidis said some of the former CES employees would "stick together" and concentrate on the former CES type work whereas she was interested in learning of social security type pensions and benefits and tended to involve herself with former DSS employees. Little time was therefore spent by Ms Xantidis with Mr Salib during working hours and she was unable to comment on Mr Salib's feelings towards work, personal phone calls and other activities at the Moreland office, but she did volunteer that his mobile telephone "rang quite consistently" at the Brunswick office. She recalled that there were many occasions at the Brunswick office where persons would call and ask for Mr Salib personally. There was an occasion at the Moreland office where she was relieving on reception where a person attended the office, apparently (according to the witness) in an inebriated state asking for Mr Salib and who said that "George owed him money".
Ross Horsfall
Mr Horsfall has been the manager of the Centrelink office at Moreland since April 1998. He said there has never been a policy to reduce employees who had come to the office from the CES.
In cross-examination Mr Horsfall acknowledged that when two significantly large organisations such as DSS and CES merge that there would be problems concerning integrating people. He said some of the problems associated were with respect to differing organisational cultures, different expectations about how officers were to perform within the two cultures, differences concerning technology and computer systems and the complexity of those systems, different approaches to customers and different types of work. He said that under the former social security system few officers had "employment responsibilities" other than to process applications for unemployment benefits. He said DSS employees were involved in high volume decision making and paying persons according to their entitlements within time frames. He said he "had the impression" that CES officers "weren't working within such high volume and focused on such deadlines". He said CES officers had caseloads and caseworkers which was a system foreign to DSS. Recently, however there had been an initiative within Centrelink to have customer service officer's deal with customers on a "one to one" basis, yet the system of making appointments has been retained.
Since April 1998 Mr Hall acknowledged that the computer system has been complex and there were "teething difficulties" with the introduction of a new system in 1998. He said software problems caused payments to be delayed which in turn caused extra workloads. He said customers came to the office without appointments and were complaining in an environment where persons were being trained to cope with new demands and expectations. He said customer service staff were required to be "more accountable for what they were doing" and had to be "more focused on the organisations goals". In terms of the reaction to this changed culture by former CES staff, Mr Horsfall said that – whilst he was never an employee of the CES – he had the impression that some CES employees had difficulty meeting the new culture and new expectations, but some did readily adapt.
Medical Evidence
Medical Evidence was not heard in these proceedings. The parties relied on medical reports filed either during the pre-hearing preparation or as were contained within the documents filed by the respondent pursuant to s.37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975.
Doctor Ellis-Jones is the applicant's treating doctor. He provided a report dated 7 September 1999 which is reproduced as follows-
"Mr Salib suffers depression and anxiety. This problem has been due to and induced by a pressure and personality conflict at work. Mr Salib became gradually more depressed in this situation to the point he was unable to continue in that situation. Mr Salib does not have a permanent depressive illness. I feel if he was transferred to another branch he would be able to gradually return to full-time useful employment".
Doctor Ellis-Jones also provided a number of medical certificates, which are found within the T-documents. All of the certificates certify incapacity for various periods prior to Mr Salib having last worked in June 1998 and – necessarily – prior to the termination of his employment in November 1999.
Doctor Kochar is the applicant's treating psychiatrist to whom he was referred by Doctor Ellis-Jones. In a report dated 8 August 2000 Doctor Kochar said that he consulted with Mr Salib between 11 January 2000 and 3 April 2000. He reported that the applicant –
"presented in a state of acute distress, agitation, tension and appeared visibly angry and hostile and upset about various things that he had to say in which he labelled as examples of discrimination, harassment and victimisation at the place of work, particularly since 1997 when his previous department that he was working merged and became a new department called Centrelink and the department was re-located on Sydney Road Brunswick".
Doctor Kochar said that the applicant had told him that he was feeling "disturbed", that his personality and behaviour had become "very bad" and that he had become "aggressive, angry, violent and depressed" because of the manner in which he had been treated at work. He reported that Mr Salib had told him that he felt harassed, discriminated and victimised because it was intended that the employer had attempted to "get rid of him because he had refused to accept a package". Doctor Kochar had a history of the applicant having to work "without any training, guidance or explanation for over five weeks", not being informed of the "new role" in the Centrelink office, being spoken to in a "slight and condescending manner", not being given adequate breaks or relief at work, being "told off" for use of his mobile telephone, being abused by a workmate for speaking in Arabic and an episode of his salary being reduced when he did not attend work because of illness which resulted in industrial action and his salary subsequently being re-instated.
Doctor Kochar concluded that Mr Salib had a "mental condition and symptoms of mental trauma" being related to his employment and the incidents as were reported. He described it as a "cause and effect relationship". At April 2000 when he last saw the applicant, Doctor Kochar certified Mr Salib as "not fit for pre-injury work". He thought at April 2000 when he last consulted Mr Salib that he would require ongoing psychiatric treatment.
Doctor Len Oakes is a psychologist to whom the applicant was referred also by Doctor Ellis-Jones. In a report of 26 April 2000 he reported that he had consulted with Mr Salib on four occasions. The report contains very little by way of history but having administered a number of psychological tests Doctor Oakes reported-
"there were no significant stressors in his life beyond his workplace and given that the only stressors indicated in his life events scale responses were workplace related I conclude that the cause of his distress was the problems he experienced in his workplace".
Doctor Oakes concluded-
"as a result of workplace reorganisation and conflicts with his workplace supervisor George Salib has suffered a massive reduction in his quality of life. From being a healthy independent man with a rewarding job and an active social life, he has become a virtual outcast. He is severely depressed, extremely anxious and has few prospects. In my professional opinion he is highly deserving of ongoing medical and psychological support and financial compensation.
The main characteristics of George Salib's condition are-
i) loss of work
ii) loss of significant relationships with his wife and daughter
iii) loss of his former lifestyle including his residence and the loss of his former recreational pursuits
iv) a range of stress related psycho somatic symptoms including sleep problems, appetite changes and loss of libido
v) severe emotional disturbance including feelings of sadness and discouragement, loss of interest in life, grief over loss of health and future opportunities, humiliation and self blame, hypochondriasis, loss of motivation, inability to concentrate, irritability and loss of self esteem, and disturbing cognition's including fear of going crazy".
Doctor Colm Moore is a consultant psychiatrist to whom Mr Salib was referred by his solicitors for medico legal opinion. He provided a report dated 28 June 2000 arising out of a consultation on that day. Doctor Moore had a history of the applicant's transfer from the CES to Centrelink. He reported that the applicant had told him that "no proper training was provided", rather that it was provided "on an ad hoc basis" and that "antagonism which he felt from the time that he moved to the new office was shared by his fellow ex CES workers". He reported that Mr Salib had told him that he was "consistently criticised by management who appear to have been drawn entirely from the ranks of the old social security for using his Arabic speaking skills and told instead to employ a translator despite his extra loading".

Having taken a history from the applicant, Doctor Moore concluded-
"there was no sense of there being a conspiracy against him by an individual or group rather a matter of fact explanation of what was perceived to be an unwanted group of people joining a well established group who were comfortable with their skills and who perceived the ex CES staff to be a nuisance and a burden. This in my experience at management level I would regard as being a common place situation in both the private and public sector".
He also reported that the-
"constancy of the pressures imposed upon Mr Salib after approximately 4-6 months caused him to become quite profoundly depressed and have major problems with his behaviour particularly in the home situation. He explained that he was able to keep his temper under control most of the time at work with occasional outbursts however his family took the brunt of his anger including his wife, daughter in her 20's and stepchildren with the last straw for the family apparently being Mr Salib destroying his beloved stereosystem".
He observed that the applicant suffered "classic symptoms of major depression" including features of "anxiety disorder, centring upon intrusive distressing recollections of his time at work, dreams, some about work and some of a frightening type where he is falling helpless from a building or a bridge and an avoidance of the prospect of ever returning to the Centrelink in Brunswick".
Doctor Moore said that he had been given access to a report of Doctor Rose (who examined at the request of the respondent) and said that he disagreed with his diagnosis. Doctor Moore said that the applicant did not suffer from "paranoid personality disorder and obsessional personality traits". He said that Mr Salib suffered from a major depressive disorder and whilst he did suffer obsessional personality traits, he said that these did not constitute a "disorder". In his disagreement with the opinion of Doctor Rose, Doctor Moore relied on the definition of "paranoid personality disorder" as appears in DSM- iv which he reproduced in his report.
Insofar as the Comcare guide to permanent impairment was concerned, Doctor Moore reported that the applicant would suffer a level of 50% impairment under Table 5.1.
Doctor Barry Kenny is a psychiatrist who examined the applicant at the request of the respondent on 16 March 2000 and provided a report dated 20 March 2000. Doctor Kenny took a lengthy and comprehensive history and reported that at interview the applicant was "obviously distinctly unwell. He has markedly depressed mood and a rather paranoid perceptual set". He said he agreed with the opinion expressed by Doctor Rose that the applicant does have obsessional traits in his personality but he was not prepared to support the diagnosis of "obsessional personality disorder". Doctor Kenny said "I have no evidence though that he had significant relevant problem until he changed from CES to Centrelink". He noted that he had not been provided with any document's recording "adverse comments" about work performance prior to transfer to Centrelink and he understood that the applicant's marriage was stable and happy and that he had no evidence available to him of the applicant having any pre-existing psychiatric disturbance.
Doctor Kenny sought to balance the competing medical opinions, which had been provided to him against the history that he had taken from the applicant. He concluded-
"It seems fairly clear that his work performance was certainly not up to scratch and it seems to be that that in my view has lead to him perceiving himself as unfairly and unreasonably treated in the workplace and that has then lead to his becoming depressed with this paranoid ideation.
Now of course is not for me to judge the rights and wrongs of the matter. And I am not in the position of course to judge his performance. But if he was becoming depressed, I can well imagine his performance would have deteriorated even further. Of course I am not in the position to say that he was always fairly treated in the workplace – but the other documentation would suggest that he was and that all the problems stem from his incompetence – or at least lack of satisfactory performance.
Looking at it from one perspective then if that's accepted the problems all rest with him. But another way of looking at this is to consider that his depression arose from his continuing to work in an environment in which he was not competent – as a result of which he was subjected to criticism that he could perceive as harassment etc.
I am of the view that that's an appropriate way of looking at this.
Now of course there is always a possibility that other factors – even endogenous factors – may have caused his depression with paranoid thinking. I cannot exclude that as a possibility. I cannot exclude for example the possibility that his performance may have deteriorated because he was already depressed. But on balance I am of the view that the onset of his depression most likely depended upon his dissatisfaction with his work environment and the work environment responding to his incompetence".
Doctor Kenny concluded that the applicant did not have any capacity for pre-injury work and he was of the opinion that that applicant did not have "a capacity for any effective duties".
Mr Carfi is a consulting psychologist and rehabilitation provider who examined the applicant at the request of the employer. This was described as a referral "for counselling under the early intervention scheme" to assist Mr Salib "with difficulties he was experiencing". The referral was made in September 1998. It appears from the report that he consulted with Mr Salib on four occasions and was attempting to provide Mr Salib with some solutions or options to permit him to comfortably remain and continue at work. In his history he recorded that Mr Salib had said to him that he was criticised in the workplace, that his supervisor was "the executioner trying to get rid of me" and that his supervisor "did nothing but humiliate and provoke me". It is clear from the history recorded by Mr Carfi that the applicant addressed his concerns in aggressive and angry terms. It was decided to arrange a meeting between Mr Salib and his human resources Manager Mr Polkinghorne. That meeting occurred on 6 November 1998 where options for return to work were discussed including supervision and training. Mr Carfi reported that Mr Salib became angry during this meeting and prematurely departed from it. He has not had any contact with Mr Salib since that date.
Mr Carfi concluded that the applicant was a "troubled individual who was experiencing severe difficulties both in his work and personal life". He reported that the applicant had told him that he was having severe difficulties in the workplace and felt that he was not valued or supported and he formed the impression that Mr Salib's "marriage and personal life was undergoing a crisis". He was unable to say whether this was longstanding or was a consequence of the workplace difficulties.
The applicant was examined by Doctor Webster – an occupational physician – employed by Health Services Australia Ltd at the request of the employer on 19 June 1998. (This would have been shortly prior to the applicant having ceased work). His report is found at T-13 page 30. He diagnosed anxiety and depression, which impacted on the applicant's ability to perform work. He also thought that the applicant's consumption of painkilling medication following left arm injury would affect his ability to concentrate and retain information. He noted the applicant was angry, irritable, confused and unable to cope. He said Mr Salib had told him that these symptoms existed particularly over the previous month. He certified the applicant as then being unfit for work and upon resumption would require "further training and extra assistance initially due to his medical state and his therapy for this".
On 12 August 1998 Mr Salib was referred to Doctor Mutton – an occupational physician engaged by Health Services Australia Ltd. The referral was also made by the employer. Doctor Mutton's report is at T-15 p.36. He reported that the applicant suffered from depression without a past history of it. He concluded that the depression was "secondary to the changes in his life since moving from the CES".
At page 3 of his report Doctor Mutton reported-
"I have noted the comments about his work performance noted in the case summary dated 19 June 1998. I believe that many of the problems identified can be explained by his depressive illness. Depressive illness can present with psychomotor retardation which simply means that he is not functioning as quickly as usual and his higher intellectual functions are slower than usual. In addition due to his lowered mood there is less enthusiasm to do things and to concentrate. There is often an element of anxiety and when anxious there is often a blunting of mental acuity".
He certified the applicant then as being unfit for work.
In a further report of 17 December 1998 Doctor Webster wrote to the employer following a consultation on 15 December 1998. This report is found at T-40, p.93. He then found the applicant to suffer from depression and anxiety but thought that Mr Salib had not then received appropriate treatment for the condition yet he was presently unable to return to work. He was not of the opinion that the applicant was totally and permanently incapacitated for employment. He referred Mr Salib to Doctor Norman Rose, a psychiatrist.
In a letter to the Human Resources Manager at Centrelink on 10 February 1999, Doctor Webster (T-40, p.88) reported that Mr Salib was not then totally and permanently incapacitated and that he could improve with therapy. He thought the applicant would remain unfit for all employment for 6-12 months "or possibly longer if he does not seek appropriate therapy".
Doctor Norman Rose is a Consultant Psychiatrist who examined the applicant at the request of Doctor Webster on 5 February 1999. He provided a report dated 8 February 1999, which is found at T-40, p.89.
He diagnosed the applicant as having a "very obsessional personality" and thought that it was not surprising that the applicant was having difficulty "dealing with and accepting change in an organisation which has a rapid rate of change in policy and computer information systems". He thought the applicant had little insight into his own problems, that he tended to blame others and was of the opinion that the personality characteristics demonstrated paranoid traits.
Doctor Rose said the applicant was then unfit for employment and was suffering from a major depressive disorder, which would prevent the applicant from benefiting from rehabilitation.
Doctor Rose completed another report dated 3 June 1999 and forwarded it to Comcare (T-43, p.106). Doctor Rose referred in that report to his one and only consultation of 5 February 1999 at the referral of Doctor Webster and largely reproduced his earlier report. He again concluded that the applicant suffered a major depressive disorder with paranoid features and he also had an obsessional personality disorder. He said the main cause of those conditions was the applicant's personality and that the reason the applicant had "stopped work" "was his hatred of his place of work which he blamed for all of his condition". He said there was no evidence that employment had "contributed to a material degree to the condition". He said the applicant's prognosis was poor because his personal circumstances had deteriorated and that he was unable "to focus on anything except his blame of employment and external factors for all of his problems".
Conclusion & Reasons For Decision
Having regard to the differing basis for the denial of compensation between the primary decision and the reviewable decision, we have approached this decision on the basis that we agree that it is clearly beyond doubt that the applicant suffers from depression and anxiety and that it is a disease within the meaning of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1989. We depart however from the conclusion reached in the reviewable decision that the employment did not materially contribute to the depression and anxiety.
Having sat through three days of evidence and heard from former workmates of Mr Salib and read the documents that some of them had produced and having read the medical reports received into evidence we are satisfied that the employment did materially contribute to the depression and anxiety from which Mr Salib has suffered and which has been responsible for his total incapacity since the last day that he worked. Lest there be any doubt as to what we intend to convey by finding that there has been a material contribution, we are in no doubt that the employment caused a contribution far greater than de minimus.
We regret – indeed we find it distasteful – that former workmates were called by the respondent to give evidence to support the decisions made. In effect the evidence provided by the former workmates – excepting Mr Banks – was to annihilate the character of Mr Salib. We could discern little appreciation from them of his unique circumstances (having been a bilingual case officer with the Commonwealth Employment Service) being clearly unable to cope with or comprehend the structure which became known a Centrelink.
We were moved by and were grateful to have heard the evidence of Mr Banks who provided us with some insight into the employment structure at the CES and what was endured by Mr Salib subsequent to the merge between the CES and DSS. We note that Mr Salib was regarded as a "valued staff member" who played a role in a number of different areas at the CES comprising employment services, employer services, program management and responsibility for harvest and seasonal employment. It would appear that he was well known and respected within the Arabic community in the northern suburbs and was often sought out because of the service that he did provide. Mr Salib apparently had little difficulty coping with a team based approach to file and case management and it would appear also that CES management had a creative and flexible attitude to its staff and work practices.
Nonetheless Mr Salib became a member of the Centrelink office in Moreland where, according to Mr Horsfall the Manager since April 1998, problems with the integration of CES and DSS employees extended to differing organisational cultures, differing expectations concerning the roles undertaken or expected to be undertaken in the new structure, differing technology and computer systems and complexity of those systems, differing approaches to customers and differing types of work.
Whilst we heard in some detail of the complexities of the computer system and the apparent ability of DSS staff to interpret and manage computer and on-line data, the CES employees – having had no experience other than with respect to employment related benefits – were at a distinct disadvantage. No less Mr Salib. To compound the difficulties concerning the use of the computers, it would appear that the data base was significantly altered shortly after the integration of DSS and CES staff creating greater difficulty for Mr Salib.
We note that Mr Banks described the work environment shortly after integration as "absolute chaos". He gave a similar account of the organisational difficulties, as did Mr Horsfall. If the term "chaos" was an over-reaction it would appear at best that there were significant organisational difficulties where the particular work experience and skills of Mr Salib were either not recognised or were not brought into account in him being integrated into the new agency.
We heard evidence of persons who took the view that there were attempts to remove Mr Salib from the workforce either by promoting a redundancy package to him or having placed him into a training/assessment/counselling/work performance regime where on reflection it would appear that he would fail. We make no finding on this issue accept that we were disappointed with the attitude expressed by Ms Brian both in the documents of which she was the author, as found within the T-documents and by the nature of her evidence. It is our view, having reviewed her evidence that if Mr Salib was a person who was "very, very difficult to work with" and that he "stretched (her) patience to the limit" that she should have relieved herself of responsibility for his management and placed him under the tutelage of another person. Mr Salib clearly could not cope with Ms Brian or working with her. Similarly Ms Brian was at the end of her tether. Their respective relationship was destined to fail. Unfortunately Mr Salib has become incapacitated and we are satisfied that it is by injury which had its nexus with the former employment.
Put simply we are satisfied that Mr Salib was unable to cope with the new employment structure. The expectations of him were beyond his intellectual capacity and he was overwhelmed by the different organisational and cultural environment.
Mr Salib migrated to Australia after being schooled in Alexandria in Egypt. He initially worked in the motor vehicle industry and in other public and private sector employment until he secured employment with the Commonwealth Public Service at the Commonwealth Employment Service at Moone Ponds. He eventually obtained qualification to work as a bilingual case officer and obtained full-time employment. His responsibility was to provide a service to the Arabic community in Melbourne's Northern suburbs and it would appear that his knowledge, response and sensitivity to the Arabic culture and social background was valued by the employer which relevantly was then the CES.
It would appear that the CES had a flexible organisational structure and service delivery which suited Mr Salib's unique personality and the needs of the Arabic speaking community that he serviced in employment. He was apparently well respected by his employer and had good working and social relationships with his fellow employees.
It would appear also – insofar as his relationship with the Arabic community was concerned – that he was regarded as a helper. It would appear that he was a person to whom other non-English speaking Arabic persons could turn to for assistance and information with or without the need to interpret or translate documents. It would appear that as the employment culture at Centrelink dictated that Mr Salib's work performance and work practices were required to change his ability to cope further deteriorated. He was no longer permitted to work in an environment where there was flexibility rather he was expected to be a part of a regime which required him only to consult with persons on a diary or appointment type basis which inherently required him to perform tasks within an allocated period of time. Additionally he was expected to interview, take information and process applications for benefits of which he had no prior exposure and for which it would appear he was dismally unsuccessful in being trained.
We heard no evidence of any difficulty Mr Salib had in performing his former work with the CES and – significantly – we heard nothing about any pre-existing anxiety or depression.
Whilst the applicant admittedly did separate from his wife some ten years before he left Centrelink, it would appear that he and his wife reconciled and their marriage was stable. It was suggested that his anxiety and depression was in whole or part a consequence of an unhappy marriage. It is our view, on the basis of the medical evidence read, that the marital difficulties associated with the most recent separation had their origins in the applicant's inability to cope with his employment which affected his personality, mood and demeanour to an extent that he was a radically different person outside the workplace which in turn also produced an intolerable strain upon his marriage.

Mr Shahien told us that Mr Salib was well respected and liked within the Arab community and was regarded as being a happy outgoing person, who was helpful and sincere. We are satisfied therefore that the significant change in the mood and presentation of Mr Salib has occurred – on the probabilities – by the events of the employment that we have recorded above.
It is our view that the opinions expressed by Doctors Moore, Oakes, Kenny, Mutton and Webster were fair, balanced and sound. We regard the opinions of Doctor Rose as rigid and against the weight of the opinions expressed in the reports filed.
We note the applicant is in receipt of sickness allowance or an equivalent benefit, which is paid to him by Centrelink – his former employer. This would suggest that incapacity is not in dispute. We agree. Principally the issue was the association, if any, between the anxiety and depression and the employment.
In all of the circumstances we are satisfied that the decision under review should be set aside and in substitution for it we are satisfied that the applicant has suffered a disease namely anxiety and depression to which the employment has materially contributed. It follows that the applicant is entitled to compensation consequent upon incapacity by this disease.
It is also decided that the respondent shall pay the applicant's costs pursuant to the Practice Direction of the Tribunal.
I certify that the preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Mr J. Handley, Senior Member, Ms L. Rodopoulos, & Mr W. McLean, Members.
Signed:         ....Carolyn Irons ...........................................
  Secretary
Date/s of Hearing  11 August & 9-10 October 2000
Date of Decision  9 April 2001
Counsel for the Applicant        Mr Mark Carey
Solicitor for the Applicant         Slater & Gordon
Counsel for the Respondent    Mr Joe Lenczner
Solicitor for the Respondent    Phillips Fox