SSX Services Pty Ltd v Workers' Compensation Regulator

Case [2016] QIRC 62

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:        

SSX Services Pty Ltd v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2016] QIRC 062

PARTIES:  

SSX Services Pty Ltd
(Appellant)

v

Workers' Compensation Regulator
(Respondent)

CASE NO:

 WC/2015/119

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator

DELIVERED ON:

 30 May 2016

HEARING DATES: 

19 - 21 August 2015
14 September 2015 (Respondent's written submissions)
21 September 2015 (Appellant's written submissions in reply)

HEARD AT:

 BRISBANE

MEMBER:

Industrial Commissioner Neate

ORDERS:

1.      The Appeal is dismissed.

2.      The decision of the Respondent is confirmed.

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

CATCHWORDS:

WORKERS' COMPENSATION - APPEAL AGAINST DECISION - psychiatric or psychological injury - claim for compensation accepted by Workers' Compensation Regulator - employer's appeal - Appellant bears onus of proof - whether worker's employment was the major significant contributing factor to her injury - whether her injury arose out of, or in the course of, reasonable management action taken in a reasonable way - whether her injury arose out of her perception of reasonable management action being taken against her.  

CASES:

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003, s 32

Adelaide Stevedoring Company Ltd v Forst (1940) 64 CLR 538
Alex Sabo v Q-COMP (C/2010/46) - Decision < v WorkCover Queensland (2000) 165 QGIG 788
Badawi v Nexon Asia Pacific Pty Ltd [2009] NSWCA 324
Bowers v WorkCover Queensland (2002) 170 QGIG 1
Boyd v Q-COMP (2005) 180 QGIG 1129

Calder v Simon Blackwood  (Workers' Compensation Regulator) [2014] QIRC 101

Chattin v WorkCover Queensland (1999) 161 QGIG 531
Christine McHours v Q-COMP, C/2012/12 - Decision < of Police v David Rea [2008] NSWCA 199

Cooper v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) [2015] QIRC 38

Croning v Workers' Compensation Board of Queensland (1997) 156 QGIG 100
Davidson v Blackwood [2014] ICQ 008
Davis v Blackwood [2014] ICQ 009
Delaney v Q-COMP Review Unit (2005) 178 QGIG 197
Dickinson v The Motor Vehicle Insurance Trust (1987) 163 CLR 500
EMI (Australia) Limited v Bes (1970) 44 WCR 114
Fernandez v Tubemakers of Australia Ltd [1975] 2 NSWLR 190
Hansen v WorkCover Queensland (Unreported, Industrial Magistrates Court, Industrial Magistrate Taylor, 15 November 2001) 16
Hatzimanolis v ANI Corporation Ltd (1992) 173 CLR 473
Holtman v Sampson [1985] 2 Qd R 472
Janine Zahner v Q-COMP WC/2011/156
Joyce v Yeomans [1981] 1 WLR 549
Lackey v WorkCover Queensland (2000)165 QGIG 22
Lockyer Valley Regional Council v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) [2015] QIRC 085
MacArthur v WorkCover Queensland (2001) 167 QGIG 100
Mater Misercordiae Health Services Brisbane Limited v Q-COMP (2005) 179 QGIG 144
Mayo v Q-COMP (2004) 177 QGIG 667
McMah v Simon Blackwood [2014] QIRC 013
Misevski v Q-COMP C/2009/29 - Decision < Australia Pty Ltd v Campbell (1995) 65 SASR 16
Myer Holdings Ltd AND Q-COMP (WC/2013/118) - Decision < v Suncorp Metway Insurance Ltd [2006] 1 Qd R 519
Nilsson v…

Continue reading SSX Services Pty Ltd v Workers' Compensation Regulator

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
SSX Services Pty Ltd v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2016] QIRC 62
Case
[2016] QIRC 62
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

SSX Services Pty Ltd appealed against a decision by the Workers' Compensation Regulator which accepted a claim for compensation by Mrs Grainger, an employee of SSX. The dispute centred around whether the psychiatric injury suffered by Mrs Grainger arose out of or in the course of her employment, specifically in relation to reasonable management action taken by her employer. The appeal was heard by the Commission, which dismissed the appeal and confirmed the decision of the Regulator.

The legal issues before the Commission were whether the employer had discharged the onus of proving that Mrs Grainger's employment was not the major significant contributing factor to her injury, and whether her injury arose out of or in the course of reasonable management action taken in a reasonable way. The Commission considered evidence from Mr Carter and Mrs Grainger, among others, to determine whether the employer's actions were reasonable and whether the injury arose out of the employer's perception of reasonable management action being taken against Mrs Grainger.

The Commission found that the employer had not discharged the onus of proving that Mrs Grainger's employment was not the major significant contributing factor to her injury. The evidence showed that the employer had not taken reasonable steps to ensure that Mrs Grainger was adequately supported during the transition following the acquisition of Slab Systems by ARC. The Commission also found that Mrs Grainger's injury arose out of her perception of reasonable management action being taken against her, as the employer had failed to provide her with adequate support and training during the transition. The appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the Regulator was confirmed.

The final orders of the Commission were that the appeal is dismissed, the decision of the Regulator is confirmed, and the employer is to pay the Regulator's costs of and incidental to the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The Appeal is dismissed.

2. The decision of the Respondent is confirmed.

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

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Mr Carter's evidence: After the decision was made and the first meeting was conducted on 26 November 2014, Mr Yamashita told Mr Carter that the change was "stressing her out." Mr Carter recalled receiving an email from Mr Yamashita on 26 November 2014 which included Mrs Grainger's concerns including that: Mr Carter said that at no stage before the decision to redeploy Mrs Grainger had Mr Quiel relayed to him that Mrs Grainger had any anxiety or concerns about interfacing with customers. He had seen her at Slab Systems and, although there were few customers and regular staff at that location, he had seen her go through the sign-in process with contractors, delivery people and corporate people before the acquisition. Mr Carter agreed, however, that Mrs Grainger had very little face-to-face contact with customers at Slab Systems. Mr Carter said that he had not seen Mrs Grainger's anxiety about face-to-face contact demonstrated in her integration into the ARC business. However, in response to the report from Mr Yamashita, he ensured that Mr Yamashita went to the next meeting with Ms Jeffs to ensure that they were taking care of Mrs Grainger and trying to understand the issue about the relocation, and to look after both Mr Yamashita and Mrs Grainger in the process. Mrs Grainger's account: Mrs Grainger did not recall how the meeting on Friday 28 November 2014 was arranged, but presumed that the company's representatives would come to offer her something in writing. On that occasion, Mr Yamashita and a person from HR (Ms Jeffs), who Mrs Grainger had not met previously, attended. Mrs Grainger was not offered a support person. Before Ms Jeffs arrived, Mrs Grainger asked Mr Yamashita for a support person to be present. Mr Yamashita did not agree to a support person attending, and commented that he had to jump through hoops to get Mrs Grainger's documents. Mrs Grainger recalled that at the meeting she was given a letter of offer but no job description. Ms Jeffs assured her that the company wanted to keep her on and that the position allocated to her was something that they thought was right for her. Mrs Grainger advised that she could not do sales, she knew nothing about the materials, and she thought it was wrong to be asked to do something without any training. Ms Jeffs said there would be training available. Mrs Grainger advised that Mr Yamashita had said there would be no training, and Mr Yamashita replied that he did not say there would be no training. Mrs Grainger offered to bring Mr Quiel into the meeting because he was a witness to the statement in relation to formal training. Mrs Grainger recalled that, although Ms Jeffs suggested that the proposed role was a simple job that Mrs Grainger should be able to do, "it's [i.e., selling] not something that I can do." According to Mrs Grainger, she felt "upset, distraught" and probably "a little bullied" in the sense that she was advised that that was what was going to happen and otherwise she would not have a position. Mrs Grainger took a break for about five minutes because she was crying and needed to get a tissue and try to control herself.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.