QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION
CITATION: | State of Queensland (Department of Agriculture and Fisheries) v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2025] QIRC 166 |
PARTIES: | State of Queensland (Department of Agriculture and Fisheries) v Workers' Compensation Regulator |
CASE NO: | WC/2022/32 |
PROCEEDING: | Appeal against a decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator |
DELIVERED ON: | 27 June 2025 |
HEARING DATE: | 4 – 10 April 2024 10 July 2024 (Respondent's Closing Submissions) 19 November 2024 (Respondent's Closing Submissions in reply) |
MEMBER: HEARD AT: | Pidgeon IC Brisbane |
ORDERS: | 1. The Appeal is dismissed. 2. Failing agreement between the parties, a decision on costs will be subject of a further application to the Commission. |
| CATCHWORDS: | WORKERS' COMPENSATION – ENTITLEMENT TO COMPENSATION – appeal against review decision of respondent – where appellant is the Department in which the injured worker previously worked – where the worker suffered a psychiatric or psychological injury – whether the worker's psychiatric or psychological injury arose out of or in the course of the worker's employment – whether employment was a significant contributing factor to the worker's psychiatric or psychological injury – whether the injury arose in or out of the course of reasonable management action taken in a reasonable way – where work-related stressors were a significant contributing factor or factors to the worker's injury – appeal dismissed |
LEGISLATION: | Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 s 9, 11, 32, 141 |
| CASES: | Allen v Workers’ Compensation Regulator [2018] QIRC 41 Allwood v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2017] QIRC 088 Anglo Coal (Capcoal Management) Pty Ltd v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2017] QIRC 103 Blackwood v Toward [2015] ICQ 008 Church v Simon Blackwood (Workers’ Compensation Regulator) [2015] ICQ 031 Dasreef Pty Ltd v Hawchar (2011) 243 CLR 588 De Alwis v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) [2016] ICQ 8 Deshong v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2021] QIRC 205 Dickenson v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2019] QIRC 68 Edmunds v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2022] QIRC 285 Gilmour v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2019] QIRC 022 Granato v Workers Compensation Regulator [2024] QIRC 162 Myer Holdings Ltd AND Q-COMP (WC/2013/118) – Decision O'Neil v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2022] QIRC 310 Qantas Airways Limited v Q-COMP (2006) 181 QGIG 301 Q-Comp v Rowe [2009] ICQ 32 Read v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2017] QIRC 072 Robinson v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2016] ICQ Sheridan v Q-COMP [2009] ICQ 33 SSX Services Pty Ltd v Workers’ Compensation Regulator [2016] QIRC 62 State of Queensland (acting through Department of Communities, Child Safety and Disability Services) AND Q-COMP and Mrs B (C/2013/2) – Decision State of Queensland (Department of Communities Disability Services) AND Q-COMP and Mrs B (WC/2011/247) – Decision State of Queensland (Queensland Health) v Q-COMP and Beverley Coyne (2003) 172 QGIG 1447 Toodayan and Toodayan v Metro South Hospital and Health Service & Others [2023] QIRC 036 Tuesley v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2021] QIRC 71 Verhagen… |
- AGLC
- State of Queensland (Department of Agriculture and Fisheries) v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2025] QIRC 166
- Case
- [2025] QIRC 166
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court's analysis focused on the 'two masters' issue, which highlighted the conflicting expectations between the Queensland Government and the national Steering Committee. The court found that this issue was a persistent feature of Ms. Fullerton's employment and significantly impacted her ability to perform her duties. Despite the appellant's argument that Ms. Fullerton was aware of her reporting structure, the court accepted that the 'two masters' stressor was real and not imagined, thus excluding Factor 1 under the relevant legislation. The court concluded that the injury arose out of or in the course of her employment and that the employment was a significant contributing factor to her psychiatric injury.
The appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator was upheld. The court did not make any specific orders regarding costs, stating that the matter would be subject to a further application if the parties could not agree on costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The Appeal is dismissed.
2. Failing agreement between the parties, a decision on costs will be 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
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
With regard to the Appellant's submission that Ms Fullerton's injury arose out of her expectation or perception of the reasonable management action being taken against her, the Respondent says that the operation of s 32(5)(b) requires identification of management action being taken 'against' the interests of Ms Fullerton.Consideration regarding Factor 1: Low role clarity The evidence clearly demonstrates that the 'two masters' issue existed and was a persistent feature of Ms Fullerton's employment with the Appellant. There is no evidence before the Commission that the 'two masters' issue was initiated by Ms Fullerton, or that these were personal views she held. It is apparent to me that the 'two masters' issue impacted Ms Fullerton's ability to do her work. It existed before she took up her role and continued to be an issue throughout the time she worked in the position. I do not accept any submission that Ms Fullerton was unable or unwilling to work within the confines of the Department's or Government's policies and procedures. It seems that Ms Fullerton was attempting to find a way to address the issues and concerns of Dr Craik and the Steering Committee while also working within the GACC approval process. While the Appellant argues that Ms Fullerton was aware that she was employed by the Queensland Government and reported to Mr Dudgeon with the knowledge that Dr Wendy Craik had no line management of her or capacity to direct her, I readily accept that her experience in the role was more nuanced than that. Ms Fullerton's role required her to interact with many stakeholders, perhaps none more so than the Steering Committee and its chair, Dr Wendy Craik. Dr Craik's preferences, frustrations and expectations were communicated to Ms Fullerton and there were clear tensions regarding branding and communication in circumstances where the Steering Committee represented parties contributing 90% of the funding for RIFA. While it is not unusual for there to be national cooperation regarding biosecurity issues, the evidence demonstrates that the RIFA program was unprecedented in its size and scale. It is the case that a worker may find themselves in a complex context which gives rise to stress, even when the key individuals involved are not their direct line managers or ultimate decision-makers. I do not accept the Appellant's submission that the 'two masters' issue was something experienced only by Ms Fullerton or that she had created the issue where no such tension existed. The 'two masters' stressor was real and not imagined.[163] The tensions between the Steering Committee and the RIFA program existed prior to Ms Fullerton's appointment to the role. It is immaterial whether anyone else employed in the program was concerned about how to deal with the competing expectations or desires of the Steering Committee, the RIFA and the Minister's office. The test is not comparative. Ms Fullerton's role was directly impacted by these matters, and it is enough that she found dealing with the tension stressful. Factor 1 is not excluded by 'management action'