Sillett and Comcare (Compensation)

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr Sillett against a decision by Comcare regarding his claim for workers' compensation for a psychological condition. The dispute centred on whether the condition was caused by reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner in respect of his employment. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine if the actions leading to Mr Sillett's psychological condition fell within the exclusionary provisions of the relevant legislation.

The Tribunal considered whether the reassignment of Mr Sillett to "back of house" duties, and his subsequent notification of a return to "front of house" duties, constituted reasonable administrative action. Mr Sillett's evidence indicated that his psychological condition, including anxiety and stress, worsened when he was advised of a return to front-facing roles, and improved when he was in back-office duties. He also raised concerns about bullying, harassment, and the refusal to accept medical recommendations that he remain in back-office roles.

The Tribunal reasoned that the reassignment to back-office duties was not directed at Mr Sillett personally but was a consequence of broader "operational demand reasons" and changes in the organisation's strategic directions that affected all staff. Consequently, the action to inform Mr Sillett of his return to front-of-house duties was not considered an action taken specifically in respect of his employment, meaning the exclusionary provision did not apply. The Tribunal found that Comcare was liable to pay compensation for Mr Sillett's psychological condition, which was significantly contributed to by his employment. The decision under review was set aside, and the matter was remitted to Comcare for further consideration of compensation entitlement.