Wilson v Qantas Airways Limited

WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION
DETERMINATION OF APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE COMMISSION CONSTITUTED BY AN ARBITRATOR
CITATION:		Wilson v Qantas Airways Limited [2009] NSWWCCPD 121
APPELLANT:		Rhonda Wilson
RESPONDENT:		Qantas Airways Limited
INSURER:		Self insurer
FILE NUMBER:		A1-8130/08
ARBITRATOR:	Ms A Simpson
DATE OF ARBITRATOR’S DECISION:		27 May 2009
DATE OF APPEAL DECISION:		30 September 2009
SUBJECT MATTER OF DECISION:		Section 11A Workers Compensation Act 1987; reasonable action.
PRESIDENTIAL MEMBER:		Deputy President Kevin O’Grady
REPRESENTATION:		Appellant:		Slater & Gordon Limited
Respondent:		Sparke Helmore
ORDERS MADE ON APPEAL:		1.     Paragraphs one and two of the Arbitrator’s determination dated 27 May 2009 are revoked and the following orders are made:
“(1) Award for the Applicant as follows:
$ 889.50 per week from 10 October 2007 to 10 April 2008 (section 36)
$  374.90 per week from 11 April 2008 to 30 June 2008 (section 40)
$  732.96 per week from 1 July 2008 to 27 August 2008 (section 38) $  374.90 per week from 28 August 2008 to 30 September 2008 (section 37) $  381.40 per week as adjusted from 1 October 2008 to date and continuing (section 40)
(2)   Respondent to pay medical and hospital expenses (section 60).
(3)   Respondent to pay the Applicant’s costs in accordance with the Arbitrator’s certification contained in the Certificate of Determination.”
2.     The Respondent is to pay the Appellant’s costs of the appeal.

BACKGROUND TO THE APPEAL

1. Rhonda Wilson (‘the Appellant’) commenced employment with Qantas Airways Limited (‘the Respondent’) in 1996. The Appellant had earlier been employed by the Respondent between the years 1969 and 1977. Her position with the Respondent between 1996 and 2007 was Premier Customer Liaison Officer.

1. During the year 2006 the Respondent planned and proceeded to put in place major changes  concerning services to Qantas First Class passengers and Chairman’s Lounge members. The reorganisation included a significant change to the duties performed by the Appellant. The Appellant was informed of the proposed changes and was invited to make application for the position which was to be newly created and which was to replace her then current position. The new position was known as Qantas First Host.

1. The Appellant successfully applied for the newly created position. Acceptance was communicated to her by memorandum dated 20 February 2007. The Appellant was one of nine fulltime appointees to the position of Qantas First Host. Two members of the Appellant’s earlier group of employees were unsuccessful in securing new positions. That fact caused some distress to the Appellant.

1. The Appellant took up the position which had been described as a “transfer” in the memorandum above mentioned. The nature of the Appellant’s duties had been significantly altered and, in particular, there were significant changes to the rosters which prescribed the working hours of the Appellant and her fellow fulltime workers.

1. The changes to the roster caused disruption of the Appellant’s domestic circumstances and caused difficulty in the day-to-day provision of services to the customers utilising first class and the Chairman’s Lounge facilities.

1. The Appellant performed her…