Anne Alice Le Guinio v Q-COMP

Date of decision: 10 December 2009, I.M. Springer

Mr J Dwyer of Counsel, instructed by Gouldson Legal for the appellant

Mr S Gray of Counsel, directly instructed by Q-COMP

Key words – Teacher - 50 – Injury Type: psychological – Appeal Outcome: appeal dismissed - Significant sections considered: –

s32(5) reasonable management action taken in a reasonable way by the employer in connection with the worker’s employment

Head Note

Ms Le Guinio is employed as a language teacher. She lodged an application for compensation with WorkCover Queensland (“the Insurer”) for an injury described as ‘anxiety/depression’ she alleged occurred during her employment. The Insurer rejected her application based on the finding that the exclusionary provision of s32(5) applied, that management action was reasonable. Ms Le Guinio filed an application for review with Q-COMP. The review decision confirmed the Insurer decision to reject her claim for compensation.

Ms Le Guinio lodged a notice of appeal with the Brisbane Magistrates Court. She gave evidence that issues were raised in the workplace regarding the proper system for recording student’s progress. A meeting was organised with the Deputy Principal and they discussed the Appellant’s method for recording student’s performance and contact with the student. The Head of Department then requested a meeting with all language teachers to clarify the current reporting systems and a letter was sent to all students reminding them of their obligations. Further investigations were undertaken and information was provided to the school from some students. The Deputy Principal then sought further clarification from the Appellant and another meeting was held.

The Deputy Principal gave evidence that he considered the steps taken were not part of a performance management process, or a misconduct investigation rather it was a factual investigative process.

His Honour found that it was appropriate for management to review the recording procedures and conduct an investigation into discrepancies. During the investigation, the Appellant was afforded procedural fairness, as she was given every opportunity to provide responses to management. The preliminary investigation undertaken by management was appropriate and undertaken in a reasonable way.

The appeal was dismissed.