VCI and Telstra Corporation Limited

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2006] AATA 912

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL          № V2004/734

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE  DIVISION

Re:           VCI

Applicant

And:      TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal:       Miss E.A. Shanahan, Member

Date:26 October 2006

Place:Melbourne

Decision:The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

Costs have not been sought.  The Tribunal determines that each party bear its own costs.

(sgd) E.A. Shanahan

Member

COMPENSATION – Rely on Workers’ Compensation – retrenchment – what if any is the nature of the disease – employment contribution – disciplinary action following threats to employer at the time of retrenchment.

Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 s 35 and 36

Hart v Comcare (2005) 87 ALD 341

Schmid v Comcare (2003) 77 ALD 782

Re Boyd and Australian Industry Development Corporation (1988) 15 ALD 796

Australian Industry Development Corporation v Boyd (1990) 95 ALR 149

Re Vo and Comcare (2005) AATA 773

ReRamalingam and Comcare [2004] AATA 385

Commission for the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation of Commonwealth Employees v Chenhall (1992) 37 FCR 75

REASONS FOR DECISION

26 October 2006  Miss E.A. Shanahan, Member

1. This decision and reasons for decision is subject to a s 35 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (the Act) confidentiality order, based on the advice of the applicant’s treating doctor.  The order prohibits publication of the names of the applicant and his immediate family and his date of birth.

2.      This is an application for a review of a decision of a delegate of the respondent dated 26 May 2004 (T16) affirming the initial determination of 3 May 2004 (T12) rejecting the applicant’s claim for an injury described as depression, anxiety, agitation and loss of concentration arising from his retrenchment on 11 June 2003 in particular and due to his former manager’s outrageous behaviour towards him (T12 p154).

3.      Initially the applicant was legally represented; but his lawyers withdrew their representation on 25 July 2005.  The applicant thereafter was self-represented.  The respondent was represented by Mr A. Moulds of counsel, instructed by Frenkel Partners.  The Tribunal had before it the documents lodged pursuant to s 37 of the Act (the T ‑documents).  The parties tendered the following documents A1 – A9 and R1 – R8:

A1Applicant’s diary entries;

A2Telstra abstracts on workplace stress;

A3Applicant’s statement re cause of psychological condition dated 28 November 2005;

A4Email correspondence between applicant and R. Seit;

A5Letter from P. Kelly dated 16 September 2003;

A6Professor Tan’s Report dated 8 September 2004 (put in by Respondent as Exhibit R2);

A7Dr Greenberg’s Report dated 22 August 2005;

A8Dr Greenberg’s Report dated 8 July 2003;

A9Dr Greenberg’s Report dated 25 August 2003;

R1Letter from Dr P. Andrianakis;

R2Report of Associate Professor E.S. Tan dated 8 September 2004;

R3Letter to Mr J. Pentney as modified with Dr Greenberg’s notes dated 14 June 2003;

R4QA and Testing Group Summary;

R5Performance Review by Mr Greig Bannister of Ms Marcy Faith;

R6The Applicant’s Melbourne University MIB Course Results for 2003 and 2004;

R7Section…