Oakey Abattoir Pty Ltd v Q-COMP

15 December 2009, I.M. K A Ryan

Mr A Herbert of Counsel, instructed by the appellant

Mr P Rashleigh of Counsel, directly instructed by Q-COMP

Key words – Supervisor – 62 – psychological–appeal dismissed: –

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

Head Note

The Claimant was employed by the Employer as a senior supervisor on the kill floor. The Claimant lodged a Notice of Claim with the Insurer on 12 March 2008 for a psychiatric injury described as ‘depression and anxiety’. He alleged that his injury arose over a period of time as a result of the operational problems associated with the opening of the new kill floor in 2007.

The Insurer decided that the Claimant did not sustain an ‘injury’ within the meaning of section 32 of the Act. In particular, the Insurer found that the Claimant’s psychiatric condition arose in the course of reasonable management action taken in a reasonable way, such that the exclusion set out in section 32(5) of the Act was applicable.

The Claimant lodged a review with Q-COMP who ultimately overturned the Insurer’s decision and decided that his claim was one for acceptance. Q-COMP decided that

the management action was not reasonable in all the circumstances, and as such the exclusionary provisions in section 32(5) did not operate to exclude the Claimant’s injury.

The Employer brought an appeal to the Industrial Magistrates Court. The Employer argued that any injury suffered by the Claimant was as a result of non work-related stressors. Further, that if the Court finds that the Claimant suffered an injury, that it should be excluded as it arose out of reasonable management action taken in a reasonable way.

The Employer argued that the construction of a new plant and kill floor was management action and that the commissioning of the new kill floor was done in a reasonable way.

Magistrate Ryan stated that considerable pressure was placed on the Claimant to meet production targets and fix problems on the new kill floor. The problems continued to recur over a prolonged period and were not remedied in a timely manner by the Employer. As a result, the Claimant was working extremely long hours with inexperienced staff. His Honour stated that there were no risk assessments undertaken as to the effect of the new kill floor and processes on supervisors. His Honour considered that the system of work undertaken in commissioning of the new kill floor was not reasonably implemented for these reasons.