Sue Varga and Comcare
[2013] AATA 829
[2013] AATA 829
Division GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION File Number
2011/2267
Re
Sue Varga
APPLICANT
And
Comcare
RESPONDENT
DECISION
Tribunal Mr Dean Letcher, QC, Senior Member
Dr Saw Toh, MemberDate 22 November 2013 Place Sydney The decision under review is affirmed.
.......[Sgd].................................................................
Mr Dean Letcher, QC, Presiding Member
CATCHWORDS
COMPENSATION – Commonwealth Employees – depression – whether or not the conduct which resulted in the disease suffered by the employee was reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth), s 37
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth), ss 4, 5, 5A, 5B, 14
CASES
Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Reeve [2012] FCAFC 21
Hart v Comcare [2005] 154 FCR 29
Re KRDV and National Australia Bank (2011) 125 ALD 311
Lynch and Comcare (2010) 114 ALD 394
Radulovic and Comcare [2010] AATA 777REASONS FOR DECISION
Mr Dean Letcher, QC, Senior Member
Dr Saw Toh, Member
The Applicant seeks review of a decision that she did not suffer “injury” within the meaning of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (“the Act”). It is not disputed that she suffered a Major Depressive Disorder, Single Episode and that this condition was contributed to a significant degree by her employment with the Australian Taxation Office (“ATO”). It is agreed that this is “a condition that is outside the boundaries of normal mental functioning and behaviour” (Hart v Comcare [2005] 154 FCR 29).
Section 14 of the Act provides that compensation is payable ‘in respect of an injury suffered by an employee if the injury results …in incapacity for work.” ’Injury’ is defined in s 5A(1) to mean “a physical or mental injury… arising out of, or in the course of, the employee’s employment” (s 5A (1)(b)), and it also includes a ‘disease’ which in turn is defined in s 5B to mean an ‘ailment’, and ‘ailment’ includes “any…mental ailment, disorder, defect or morbid condition…” (section 4(1)). However, excluded from the definition of ‘injury’ is “a disease… suffered as a result of reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner in respect of the employee’s employment” (s 5A(1)). Under s 5A(2) ‘reasonable administrative action’ is given a wide inclusive definition encompassing “reasonable disciplinary action (whether formal or informal)” and “anything reasonable done in connection with the employee’s failure to obtain a promotion, reclassification, transfer or benefit, or to retain a benefit, in connection with his or her employment” (s 5A(2)(f)).
The Applicant claims compensation under s 14 of the Act alleging psychiatric injury incapacitated her from 11 August 2010 to November 2010. She claims that her injury was caused by the manner in which her appointment to higher duties was terminated on 21 January 2010, and the manner of deferral of a salary advancement on March 2010. However, Comcare determined that the cause of whatever she suffered was “reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner in respect of the employee’s employment” and hence under s 5A of the Act there was no “injury”.
THE APPLICANT’S EVIDENCE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL
Ms Varga commenced employment with the ATO in 2006. She was working in the Superannuation Guarantee Section in February 2009 when Mr Jaswinder Singh-Sidhu was appointed her team leader. She gave extensive evidence about her feelings concerning her work and her colleagues:
At the beginning he seemed ok but it changed. I felt he was watching my every move, I felt isolated, there was a culture…I was not blending in with the younger cohort, they were a clique….
There were no particular incidents in that period of about four weeks.
Between March and June 2009 the Applicant was on study leave completing a Bachelor of Business Accounting university degree. She obtained a credit average and on her return to work “won a higher duties appointment” in the Client Services & Advice section (“CS & A”) whose team leader was Deborah Behnke. This section gave telephone advice to callers on tax policy. The Applicant in her evidence gave her point of view on the work and how she coped with its demands.
The Applicant underwent training for about two weeks and then her work was mentored for further weeks. The technical advisers were “meant to be available to assist” her. In September 2009 she applied to the ‘mobility register’ to enable a lateral transfer because she was “unhappy.”
The Applicant says that she received positive assessments from Ms Behnke and her higher duties period was extended for a further three months. She took this to be a sign of success.
Then, in late November, the Applicant contacted Ms Behnke about a “rude call” from another tax officer who “incorrectly transferred an outside call to me and debated with me and demanded my User-ID.” Ms Behnke listened to the call and “gave no advice…but admitted that she was not technically trained and said: ‘You took too long (on the call)’”. The Applicant said that, shortly after this, Ms Behnke said: “You need someone to sit with you and get more assistance”. The Applicant said that Ms Behnke then listened to several of the Applicant’s calls and said she was “quite happy.” The Applicant referred to Ms Behnke’s e-mail to Ms Wearne which said in part: “I was more than pleased with the way she structured the calls. If she continues to answer calls in this way then we may have solved the issues” [T35, p 145].
The Applicant said that almost two months later, on 21 January 2010, without any other incidents or warning, the Applicant was called to a meeting with her team leader, Ms Behnke, and the section head Trina Wearne and was told:
We’ve decided to terminate your higher duties. We think you are a risk to the business.
The Applicant said that this was all that was said, that she had no prior notice of any dissatisfaction with her performance and no earlier suggestion that she might be returned to her ordinary duties.
She was then returned to her former position again under Mr Singh-Sidhu who, in his first contact with her, “was just full on” saying:
You’d better get your skates on …I want 15 to 17 finished cases a month.
“He was very rude, shouting at me, pointing a finger” and he allocated two “primary” and six “shell” cases “which were very difficult and I was overwhelmed.” She described how she almost immediately felt lost, isolated and miserable. Then, she said, in March 2010 Mr Singh-Sidhu came to her desk, pointed at her degree certificate and said: “You should be able to do this work!” The Applicant said she began sobbing uncontrollably, ran to the restroom and returned to her workplace still sobbing, but neither Mr Singh-Sidhu nor anyone else there reacted or asked after her.
An annual increment she expected to receive fell due in March. Nothing was said to her so she asked about it. Mr Singh–Sidhu said he had decided to defer the increment. The Applicant said:
I got the feeling he was victimizing me… felt like I was being bullied and harassed. I was really devastated since I lost higher duties. Difficulty sleeping… after the degree incident I just fell apart… I had such pain… I thought about jumping in front of a train… worked until August but I couldn’t focus or concentrate and he was micro-managing me… I wasn’t fully functioning… it was very unfair to compare my performance with fully functioning people… I was a mess.
The Applicant left work in August and consulted doctors and psychologists. She resumed work at the ATO in December 2010 under a different team leader where she coped well, and was then promoted to a different area where she remained working at the time of the hearing.
CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THE APPLICANT
The Applicant was cross-examined about her version of events. She said that in fact she had consulted her local doctor about work worries on 11 January 2010, before termination of her higher duties, and that from February 2009 on she had suffered because of the actions of her superiors.
Q:In CS&A you were crying because of the call on 30 November [2009], is that right?
A: I was already traumatized from Super [Section] before CS&A.
Q: In Super, what traumatised you?
A: The lack of procedures….the culture…
She spoke of what she experienced as the “culture of isolation especially if you were over a certain age”, referring to the age difference between herself and most of the Super group, and later said “there were some over 30 but the older got pushed aside I guess…the others were living in fear.” These statements were not elaborated nor supported by any other evidence.
The Applicant agreed that she had told the psychiatrist Dr Lovric that her problems had developed from February 2009 when Mr Singh-Sidhu was appointed. She was asked about her statement that of late she had felt like throwing herself under a train and agreed that she had been feeling like that already in February 2009. However, she later contradicted that statement saying that she had only felt “uncomfortable” in that early period.
She agreed that her claim form [T24, p57] had stated that she first noticed she was ill at 8.30am on 11 January 2010, which was before her higher duties were terminated, but “working in CS & A had compounded my prior condition.”
She said that the doctor she consulted on 11 January may have recorded only that she saw him about a bunion, but that she had discussed other issues (which she declined to detail because they were “private”). She said she told the doctor of: “crying, headaches, worthlessness and isolation” because of her prior experiences in the Super section.
It was put to her that Mr Singh-Sidhu had never harassed her nor pointed at her degree document and that she had not “sobbed uncontrollably” in his presence.
She was asked about her relationship with a mentor/quality assurance (“QA”) officer, “MT”, she had specifically requested be assigned to her (on 6 April 2010) who she believed at first to be “OK.” She said of MT’s email of 11 May 2010 [T35, p123]: “I notice capitals which suggests rudeness. Usually when it is capitals it suggests they are shouting at you.” The email reads in part:
You will need to re-do this letter again…ensuring that you use the CORRECT (up to date) section 36 letter and use the letter attached to this email as a GUIDE ONLY to incorporate your amendment paragraphs. Also all the formatting is incorrect – what happened to the ATO letterhead?? And the font size and type is wrong.
This is laziness Sue and I know that you are more than capable of doing better than this. Look at it from my point of view – this will now be the 2nd time I am giving this case back to you for corrections…not only have you wasted my time, but now your’s [sic] too. Please be more thorough with your work in future before sending it to me for QA. I simply do not have the time to check cases over and over again.
The Applicant was shown MT’s further email of 21 May 2010 [T41, p279] and said “at that stage I could approach her” but that email concludes:
Please don’t think that I am being difficult. My job is to ensure that you have a sound understanding of the procedures. I know that you make [sic] think that these are petty things, but it displays a lack of understanding.
Shortly after that on 24 May 2010 the Applicant’s memo to her team leader said in part:
I would also like to stress that I not be compared to any of my colleagues relative to this measurement [number of cases completed monthly]…I am feeling much more confident these days … Over time I believe that I will become a valuable asset of my team and be in a position to mentor others through my own experiences if required.
The Applicant said of that day: “that period of time was like a blur to me… mixed emotions. Maybe that day was a better day for me.”
As to the Applicant’s denial that she had a warning of dissatisfaction with the standard of her work, she was referred to the discussion and email to her of 28 October 2009 [T35, p135] which read:
28th October 2009 – Discussion on feedback of calls.
Discussion was as a result of feedback from other Team Leaders and assessors
Identified Issues
· Not following escalation process to obtain tech support when required – not researching Reference Manager prior to using Tech Support
· Questioning the technical ability of the APS staff – not accepting their advice and not delivering confidently to customer.
· Not engaging with the customers.
· Customers becoming irate because Sue was not answering the customer’s question. … had to call a customer back to prevent a complaint.
· Not taking ownership of her calls and requesting team leaders [named] take the calls.
· Not listening to the caller and in turn not answering their enquiry.
Action Taken
Sue instructed -
· Follow correct protocols when gaining tech advice.
· Accept information provided by tech support- don’t question their level of expertise
· Engage with the customer – provide information tailored to their need.
· Take ownership of her calls.
There was an email entry of a discussion on 27 November 2009 – ‘Coaching – Sue refused to sign coaching action plan’ [T35, p136]. Under ‘Action taken’ there was included ‘coaching’, “one on one organised” and “Sue reminded that continuation of higher duties is based on performing the role at the required level.”
The Applicant said she did not know why there was a coaching action plan. When asked if she recalled being asked to improve her performance she said: “I have some recollection.”
On 1 December 2009 there was another email [T35, p137] following a discussion initiated by the Applicant because she thought a complaint might be made against her. Another tax officer had wanted to transfer a caller to her. The Applicant initially refused, refused to give her tax office ID when requested, appeared not to understand a “simple question” and had an “outburst in front of other staff ….after the call.” The Applicant was advised by her leader that, after listening to the calls, “… due to the way in which she handled the call. If a complaint was raised I would not be able to support her actions.” In addition:
Again advised that higher duties is based on performing at the required level and if a similar instance occurs or should she not improve then it may compromise her higher duties in CS&A.
The Applicant was directed to contain her outbursts and to notify her leader after a call.
A dedicated senior assessor was assigned for three days but also reported: “Sue still providing information not required by the customer – in turn not answering the customers call.”
On 4 December the team leader again emailed the Applicant [T35, p143] concerning the discussion on 1 December noted above and re-iterating:
Should a complaint be raised or should you not follow previous action plans put in place to improve the quality of your calls it could compromise your higher duties. Continuation of higher duties is dependent upon performance at the required level and acceptable behaviour.
These communications made it very clear that the leadership were seriously concerned with the Applicant’s performance, its effect on the section’s work and her suitability for the particular tasks.
In addition to these discussions and emails, the Applicant received regular Quality Assessments (“QA”) which raised issues. The QA assessor rated the Applicant’s handling of individual calls on the nine aspects of Administrative Soundness, Correctness, Integrity, Appropriateness, Effectiveness, Consistency, Transparency, Timeliness and Efficiency criteria on five levels from Gold as the highest level, then to Silver, Green, Amber and Red as the lowest level. The Applicant had scores of green, amber or red with the usual significance of satisfactory, caution and unsatisfactory. From mid-November to mid-December the Applicant’s results were as follows:
·16 November: all green
·16 November: 3 green, 1 amber, 5 red
·17 November: 2 green, 4 amber, 3 red
·23 November: all green
·23 November: 3 green, 6 red
·7 December: all green
·9 December: all green
·11 December: all green
·14 December: 5 green, 4 red
·16 December: all green
·17 December: 6 green, 3 red
·And on 19 January 2010: 5 green, 3 red
On 17 December 2009 [ST11, p717] the team leader responded to an email from the Applicant concerning the QA assessment of the work performed on 14 December 2009 [at ST11, pp719-721] where Effectiveness, Appropriateness, Timeliness and Efficiency were all marked Red and the team leader wrote:
I have listened to the call myself and I agree with the outcome of the assessment.
The assessor raised several areas where improvement can be made. These were areas I have previously discussed with you as requiring improvement.…..
This was the QA which led to the email from the assessors’ team leader to Trina Wearne [T35, p146] which emphasised that the Applicant was a “risk to our business”, a “risk … to our clients and our area’s current reputation.” It re-stated many of the areas of concern previously raised with the Applicant by Ms Behnke and referred to in her email [ST11, p717].
RESPONDENT’S CASE IN THE TRIBUNAL
The Respondent produced a large volume (721 pages) of records, statements of the CS & A team leader Ms Behnke and operations leader Ms Wearne, report of psychiatrist Dr Lovric and the oral evidence of Mr Singh-Sidhu.
In April 2013 the Respondent notified the solicitors for the Applicant that neither Ms Wearne (absent overseas) nor Ms Behnke (medical condition) would be made available for cross-examination at the hearing fixed for 17 to 19 June. They were both important witnesses. The Applicant’s solicitors made no response although aware of the letter. When the Tribunal members became aware of this situation, a directions hearing was appointed to avoid late adjournment applications or other disruption of the hearing. It was pointed out that Ms Wearne’s evidence could have been taken in advance or by telephone, that a procedure to reduce stress could have been arranged for Ms Behnke, or that other witnesses to substantiate the same events could have been located. The Respondent pressed that the statements should be admitted while the Applicant opposed. The Tribunal heard argument on the first hearing day and ruled to admit the statements with the reservation that where they contained expressions of opinion about the Applicant’s competence, application or motivation, less weight would be given to those opinions, except where supported by other evidence including contemporaneous documents. Further, the admission of the statements is not an admission by the Applicant of the reliability or truth of the contents and submissions about veracity and reliability of the statements could be made without restriction. It was left open to the Applicant to argue that the Respondent could have called other witnesses but chose not to do so, and it was open to the Respondent to rejoin that when the circumstances of the witnesses changed the Applicant did nothing to address the altered situation.
STATEMENT OF MS BEHNKE (APPLICANT’S TEAM LEADER IN CS & A)
In July 2009 the Applicant obtained a temporary higher duties position (at a higher rate of pay) in Ms Behnke’s CS & A team. Such positions are usually offered for three months due to frequent changes in staff needs. Ms Behnke described the duties training and assessment of people in such positions and the Applicant in particular. After initial training, QA officers listened to the way in which the people handled the telephone enquiries from tax agents and taxpayers. She stated that the QA officers often telephoned her if they were about to email a QA to the Applicant because she “would usually have an outburst if she received an unfavourable report.” Such outbursts “tended to disrupt other staff, adversely affect morale” and might be heard by customers on the phone. Ms Behnke deliberately seated the Applicant diagonally opposite her so that she could calm the Applicant down. “Ms Varga often told me that she did not agree with the technical specialist’s assessment and questioned their ability to perform their role. She said she did not think they had a right to question her work as they did not necessarily have tertiary qualifications whereas she had a degree.” Ms Behnke said that there were no cliques in her team and that everyone appeared to get along well, but the Applicant’s attitude changed to abrupt and defensive when she received unfavourable assessments.
Within about a month Ms Behnke believed that the Applicant was not performing at the same level as comparable colleagues. She arranged additional coaching and support but the Applicant continued to lack “an understanding of the technical side of her position and failed to take initiative.” The Applicant became her main focus because of these concerns and she continued to discuss issues and email a record of the discussions with details of her concerns.
In November 2009 Ms Behnke gave the Applicant a ‘coaching action plan’, but the Applicant refused to sign it and disagreed with several assessors’ comments, which led Ms Behnke to tell her that she needed to make the improvements recommended to retain her higher duties.
Also in November, the Applicant’s term of higher duties was extended. Ms Behnke says that she wanted to give the Applicant the best opportunity to show she was capable and the section required staff to meet future expected business needs two to three months in advance. However, Ms Behnke described the “particularly alarming” call on 1 December [T35, p137] and confirmed by email to the Applicant her warnings about terminating her higher duties [ST10, pp715-716]. There then seemed to be a temporary improvement but deterioration later in December.
After the Christmas break, Ms Behnke discussed with Ms Wearne the Applicant’s “inability to meet performance standards, her inappropriate and abrupt attitude towards performance feedback, the risk she posed to the ATO and our customers by giving incorrect information over the telephone, and whether paying her at the increased rate was justified. By this time it was expected that improvement would have occurred but it had not.” They determined to terminate the Applicant’s higher duties and Ms Behnke prepared a list of the Applicant’s issues over the last six months [T35, p134].
On 21 January 2010 Ms Behnke and Ms Wearne met the Applicant and explained the decision and the reasons. The Applicant said she was shocked, claimed that she performed as well as her peers but said:
You have done me a favour. I don’t like working to a schedule anyway.
STATEMENT OF MS WEARNE [OPERATIONS LEADER CS & A)
Ms Trina Wearne’s statement noted that she had worked in the same area and frequently saw the Applicant’s behaviour, including her complaints about QAs. She had decided to extend the term of higher duties hoping that time would help adjustment, but after some improvement there was decline in December. The leader of the QA emailed her concerns [T35, p146]. Ms Wearne believed that the issues identified had already been repeatedly raised with the Applicant to no avail. She decided on the basis of the repeated discussions, emails, QAs and the Applicant’s behaviour, to terminate. Ms Wearne noted that the ATO Higher Duties Policy [ST2, p406] provided that there could be cancellation at any time by management subject to prior counselling, which the Applicant had received.
On 21 January 2010 at the meeting Ms Wearne “definitely gave Ms Varga an explanation as to why her higher duties were being cancelled – that was the whole purpose of the meeting; there would have been no benefit in having a meeting otherwise. I said she was using technical support staff excessively when she should have been able to answer calls more independently, providing inaccurate responses to queries from clients, being argumentative with other staff and having disrespectful outbursts… .”
Ms Wearne’s view was that there is no obligation to give an employee prior notice that their higher duties are being terminated. The Corporate Management Procedures and Instruction [CMPI 2009/01/04 at ST1, p395] says that higher duties can be cancelled at any time, and it also says that “[d]iscussions should be held with the employee prior to the decision to ensure that natural justice principles are met. In all instances, the manager must inform the affected employee of, and discuss the reasons for, the decision to cease higher duties before the decision takes effect.”
EVIDENCE OF MR SINGH-SIDHU (SUPERANNUATION SECTION TEAM LEADER)
Mr Singh-Sidhu gave evidence and impressed the Tribunal as a careful, balanced and competent manager. He rejected the Applicant’s suggestions that he had bullied or harassed her. He denied that in his presence she had ‘sobbed uncontrollably’ and run to the restroom. He did not recall pointing at her degree certificate. He agreed that some 20 -30% of his super team were younger than the Applicant and about five out of 12 were over 45 years old. He denied being angrily confrontational and said that he found the Applicant to have difficulty not in learning but in receiving and acting on feedback. He gave his reasons for deferring her increment in March 2010, saying that he could not say confidently that she was competent, given that she had been transferred to his section only two months before. He said to her that she could seek review of his decision from the site director. No such review was requested.
The report of Dr Kathryn Lovric, Consultant Psychiatrist, of 17 November 2011 was tendered and she was not required for cross-examination. She diagnosed “Adjustment Disorder with Depressed Mood” noting that the Applicant had also been depressed in 2007, may have been offered antidepressant medication at that time, and while the Applicant believed her symptoms commenced in January 2010, there was a strong possibility that the condition developed in 2009.
A report of Dr Samson F Roberts, Consultant Forensic Psychiatrist of 8 October 2010 was part of the section 37 Tribunal documents, and this advanced a diagnosis of Major Depressive Episode with Psychotic Features, making the Applicant unfit for work in any capacity at that time but, with appropriate psychiatric treatment, the Applicant might be capable of engaging in full duties.
DISCUSSION
There was no dispute that Ms Varga was incapacitated for work by reason of her psychiatric condition and this was contributed to a significant degree by her employment. The Applicant’s case was that the termination of higher duties on 21 January 2010 and the deferment of her increment in March 2010 played a significant part in her condition. The Respondent’s case was that each of these events was reasonable administrative action undertaken in a reasonable manner. Hart and Comcare 2005 145 FCR 29 held that the action need not be the sole cause and it was sufficient if such action made a material contribution. If those actions were reasonable administrative action undertaken in a reasonable manner then the requirements of s 5A(2) are satisfied.
REASONABLE ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION?
The meaning of ‘reasonable’ depends upon the context. It is to be assessed objectively and relates to the specific conduct. The dictionary meanings include ‘endowed with reason, rational, of sound judgment, sensible, sane, not irrational or absurd and ‘nothing untoward’.
The Applicant was in a position where she was advising the public of their tax rights and liabilities. It was certainly reasonable for the ATO to appraise and monitor her performance, to counsel her where her actions caused conflict and confusion and reasonable to withdraw a benefit such as the increased pay for higher duties where performance was inadequate.
The action of terminating a period when the employee is acting in a higher duties role is both ‘administrative’ and ‘in respect of the employee’s employment’. The decision to appoint to act in higher duties is part of the administration of the workforce. It carries no particular legal status but it is part of the orderly running of a section. Similarly, termination of the period has the same character as the appointment. It requires no judicial action nor change in legal status.
The examples in s 5A(2) of what may be included in administrative action include ‘appraisal of performance, ‘disciplinary action’ and ‘anything reasonable done in connection with failure…to retain a benefit’ in connection with employment. The section does not provide an exhaustive definition and it should not be seen as excluding other types of action. In this case the actions followed the examples set out in the legislation. We note that in ReKRDV and National Australia Bank Ltd (2011) 125 ALD 311 an operational planning meeting followed by an ‘informal chat’ was not action of an administrative character.
In Radulovic and Comcare [2010] AATA 777 the Tribunal referred to the “central theme that the administrative actions involve any assessment of performance or corrective action of an employee by a manager, as well as the failure to obtain a promotion, reclassification, transfer or benefit” [at 74]. The facts of this case were consistent with that theme.
In Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Reeve [2012] FCAFC 21 Gray J said [at 33]:
…the requisite effect is given if the provision is seen to apply to action taken in respect of the administration of the relationship of employer and employee as between the particular employee making the claim, in his or her capacity as employee, and the employer in its capacity as employer…
As to reasonableness, Lynch and Comcare (2010) 114 ALD 394 suggested that the rules relevant to Commonwealth employment were relevant as were the specific nature of the conduct involved, the rationality of the action and compliance with the rules of natural justice so that the employee knew the nature of the complaint and had opportunity to respond. As was discussed above, the ATO and CPS guidelines were followed, the Applicant was dealing direct with the public, the managers had a real concern and there was a prolonged course of giving ‘feedback’ so that the Applicant knew precisely the complaints.
We find that the decision to remove Ms Varga from higher duties and the decision to defer an increment were both ‘administrative actions’ and both were reasonable given the Applicant’s unsatisfactory level of performance and difficulty in using the assistance offered.
REASONABLE MANNER?
We are satisfied that the reasonable administrative action was carried out ‘in a reasonable manner’. We do not accept that the meeting on 21 January was brief, one-sided or that no explanation was given for the action. We are also persuaded that Mr Singh-Sidhu’s reasons for not approving the increment (doubts about competence, short time of contact, unfavourable reports) were appropriate. We do not accept the Applicant’s evidence that he was hectoring, harassing, shouting and unreasonably demanding.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
We are satisfied that the Applicant suffered a psychiatric injury arising in part from her employment, and that among the significant causal factors were the reasonable administrative actions carried out in a reasonable manner the subject matter of this hearing.
DECISION
The decision under review is affirmed.
I certify that the preceding 61 (sixty -one) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of SM Letcher and Member, Dr Toh. .......[Sgd].................................................................
Associate
Dated 22 November 2013
Dates of hearing 17 and 18 June 2013 Counsel for the Applicant Mr B McManamey Solicitors for the Applicant Adams Raves Marsh & Co. Counsel for the Respondent Ms R Henderson Solicitors for the Respondent Sparke Helmore
0