St Jacques v Workers' Compensation Regulator - [2019] QIRC 43

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:	St Jacques v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2019] QIRC 043
PARTIES:	St Jacques, Ian (Appellant) v Workers' Compensation Regulator (Respondent)
CASE NO:	WC/2017/87
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against decision of Workers' Compensation Regulator
DELIVERED ON:	6 March 2019
HEARING DATES:	10 May 2018 (Mention) 14 and 15 May 2018 2, 3, 4, and 8 October 2018 21 and 22 November 2018 17 January 2019 (Appellant submissions) 15 February 2019 (Regulator submissions) 21 February (Appellant reply submissions)
MEMBER: HEARD AT:	Swan DP Brisbane
ORDERS:	1. The Appeal is dismissed. 2. The Appellant is to pay the Regulator's costs of, and incidental to the Appeal.
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION - APPEAL - Appeal against decision of Workers' Compensation Regulator - Psychological injury - Claim that workload was excessive that employer behaving unreasonably - Claims of exclusion at workplace s 32(5) of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 enlivened - Held that management action had been reasonable overall - Appeal dismissed.
LEGISLATION: CASES:	Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003, s 32, s 32(5). Blackwood v Adams [2015] ICQ 001. Blackwood v Mana [2014] ICQ 027. Carlton v Blackwood [2017] ICQ 1 at [13]. Q-COMP v Foote [2007] QIC 83. Yousif v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2017] ICQ 004.
APPEARANCES:	Ms L. Forran for the Appellant, Mr I. St Jacques. Mr S. McLeod of Counsel, directly instructed by Ms C. Godfrey of the Workers' Compensation Regulator.

Reasons for Decision

Mr Ian St Jacques (the Appellant) has appealed a decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator (the Regulator) dated 19 May 2017.

The Appellant had been employed by Bunnings since 2001. He commenced his duties at store level for around nine months, and eventually held the position of a Project Manager.
The essence of the Appellant's case is that he suffered from severe anxiety due to his claimed excessive large workload.
During the period in which the Appellant suffered anxiety, Mr Keen (Store Development Project Delivery Manager with Bunnings) was the person to whom the Appellant reported. It is clear that the Appellant has, amongst others, alleged that Mr Keen was largely responsible for the state of his ill-health.

Legislation

The relevant legislation at the material time of injury was as follows:

32 Meaning of injury
(1) An injury is personal injury arising out of, or in the course of, employment if -
… the employment is a significant contributing factor to the injury.

(2) However, employment need not be a significant contributing factor to the injury if section 34(2) or 35(2) applies.
(3) Injury includes the following-
…
(b)an aggravation of the following, if the aggravation arises out of, or in the course of, employment and the employment is a significant contributing factor to the aggravation-
(i)a personal injury;

…
(5) Despite subsections (1) and (3), injury does not include a psychiatric or psychological disorder arising out of, or in the course of, any of the following circumstances -
(a)reasonable management action taken in a reasonable way by the employer…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading St Jacques v Workers' Compensation Regulator

Details

AGLC: St Jacques v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2019] QIRC 43
Case: [2019] QIRC 43
Decision Date: 6 March 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

St Jacques v Workers' Compensation Regulator involved an appeal by the Appellant against a decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator concerning a claim for psychological injury arising from excessive workload and perceived unreasonable behaviour by the employer. The Appellant, an employee of Queensland Bunnings, contended that his workload had escalated to an unsustainable level, leading to a psychiatric injury. The dispute was heard by the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission.

The key legal issues before the court were whether the Appellant's psychological injury arose from work-related stressors and if the employer's management actions were unreasonable. The Appellant argued that his workload was excessive and that his employer's behaviour amounted to unreasonable management practices, triggering section 32(5) of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003. The Regulator contended that the employer's actions were reasonable overall and that the Appellant's injury was not compensable.

The Commission found that the Appellant's claims of excessive workload and unreasonable management were not substantiated. The evidence presented indicated that the workload was not disproportionately high, and the employer's actions were deemed reasonable. The Commission concluded that the Appellant's psychiatric injury did not arise from compensable work-related stressors, and therefore, the appeal was dismissed. The Appellant was ordered to pay the Regulator's costs of and incidental to the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The Appeal is dismissed.

2. The Appellant is to pay the Regulator's costs of, and incidental to the Appeal.

Background

Background to the litigation

Witnesses for the Regulator were:·Mr L. Darlington, State Transport Manager, Queensland Bunnings.·Ms K. Hosken, Human Resources Adviser, Queensland Bunnings.·Ms J. Kidd, Organisational Design Manager, Queensland Bunnings.·Mr D. Keen, Store Development Project Delivery Manager, Queensland Bunnings.[Note: Positions and titles are of those at the relevant material time]The Appellant's submissions as to the Background to the claim·It is not contested that the Appellant is a worker within the meaning of s 11 of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (the Act).·The Appellant sustained an injury within the meaning of s 32 of the Act.·The Appellant's case, as reported in his Notice of Claim, was for an over-time psychiatric injury from January 2013 until the date of decompensation on 28 April 2014.[2] ·On 21 November 2018 (some nine days into the hearing of this matter)[3] the Appellant sought to amend the date of his decompensation from 28 April 2014 to 17 April 2014. The Regulator did not raise an objection. The matter never arose again for consideration so the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission (Commission) has accepted the date of decompensation as 17 April 2014. Therefore the over-time psychiatric injury occurred from January 2013 until 17 April 2014).[Note: Amendments were made by consent to the Appellant's original Statement of Facts and Contentions as matters were clarified before the Commission during the pre-trial mentions.]·The Appellant contends that the interpersonal interactions with senior leaders of the employer during the period leading up to the start of his injury in January 2013 until 17 April 2014. The Regulator referred to the following cases: In Yousif v Workers' Compensation Regulator[4] Martin J referred to Statements of Facts and Contentions and determined that the Statement should represent a complete statement of the Appellant's case, and, unless appropriate amendments were permitted by the Commission, a party is bound by those facts and contentions and may only lead evidence which relates to the identified matters.[4] [2017] ICQ 004, [15]-[17]. In Blackwood v Adams[5] Martin J stated:It is an error for a Tribunal in cases where the boundaries of the application have been set by a document such as a Statement of Stressors to go beyond that boundary when making findings.[5] [2015] ICQ 001, [19]. In Carlton v Blackwood[6], Martin J observed that an appeal before the Commission is not a vehicle for the resolution of a list of grievances which are not relevant to the event or events which are said to give rise to the compensable injury.[6] [2017] ICQ 1 at [13]. The Appellant's Statement included: The Appellant's evidence was that his workload during the nominated period had escalated to a very high level. The Appellant said that he had about 17 projects which ranged in difficulty in the first 6 months of 2013 which stretched geographically from the Gold Coast to Townsville. Specifically, he stated that his workload was in excess to that of other employees in comparable positions. He described this workload as follows:… from very specific; hard, new store/excursions, upgrades to still difficult but rollouts, either it be flooring rollouts, pigeonhole rack floor outs with changes or extensions in certain aspects. But I had 17 projects in the first six months.[7] [7] T4-27.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.